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


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

There are no more Neutral Clerics of Evil Gods in Pathfinder, and I for one am extremely disappointed. Now I have to retire the character I've been playing for nearly ten years, or find a group that's okay with houseruling Chaotic Neutral Clerics of Lamashtu back into the game. Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe people won't find this fact a big deal, but for me, unless Neutral Clerics of Evil make it back in by the time the official Second Edition comes out, I'm done with Pathfinder.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Well,there are Neutral Clerics of Norgorber in his role as "the Reaper of Reputation" which is the most socially acceptable version of worshiping Norgorber, so I won't say there are "none."

But for the most part I like it, "joining team evil" is not really a thing neutral characters should be particularly interested in, and the "only one step" rule always bothered me since "Oh, no... I'm a neutral Cleric of Rovagug" rankled. A lot of people would just play CN as a sort of "diet evil" and worship something horrific just to skirt around rules that prohibit actual evil. I will be glad to see this gone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well,there are Neutral Clerics of Norgorber in his role a "the Reaper of Reputation" which is the most socially acceptable version of worshiping Norgorber, so I won't say there are "none."

But for the most part I like it, "joining team evil" is not really a thing neutral characters should be particularly interested in, and the "only one step" rule always bothered me since "Oh, no... I'm a neutral Cleric of Rovagug" wrankled. A lot of people would just play CN as a sort of "diet evil" and worship something horrific just to skirt around rules that prohibit actual evil. I will be glad to see this gone.

Sums up my thoughts mostly. Besides deities actually kitted to make sense with N worshippers like Norg, most of the N clerics of evil deities (and the inverse for a bunch of good ones) always just struck me as players scalpeling off aspects and being edgy rather than picking something that actually doesn't need a stretch armstrong doll to justify why you chose the local devil or demon lord rather than something G/N that probably has the same bit of the portfolio you're sniping.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well,there are Neutral Clerics of Norgorber in his role a "the Reaper of Reputation" which is the most socially acceptable version of worshiping Norgorber, so I won't say there are "none."

But for the most part I like it, "joining team evil" is not really a thing neutral characters should be particularly interested in, and the "only one step" rule always bothered me since "Oh, no... I'm a neutral Cleric of Rovagug" wrankled. A lot of people would just play CN as a sort of "diet evil" and worship something horrific just to skirt around rules that prohibit actual evil. I will be glad to see this gone.

There are plenty of reasons to serve an Evil God without being Evil yourself (a severely deformed person praying to Lamashtu or a very strict lawyer revering Asmodeus for example), and previously published material directly mentions non-evil Clerics. So this is nothing but a retcon, which I am not a fan of at all. There should at least be a Heretic feat that allows for this as an option.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

No, not really. I didn't really like it much in the first place.

I've always thought that being powered by an evil deity, even if you started out not evil, should slowly turn you evil. (Evil) Power corrupts.

I'm okay with there being neutral worshipers of an evil deity (which isn't regulated by the rules as far as I know) but not with neutral clerics of an evil deity. There is a gulf of difference between a worshiper and a cleric.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the Evil deities are either comically evil and have no real right to even exist as they are or aren't even so bad. Asmodeus is playing by the rules and is self-serving but it's not as if most people won't try to advance their lot in life, and with Asmodeus you know that he deals fairly. He's smart, and he's ruthless, but he's fair and the fine print isn't in invisible ink. That's...a lot more admirable, to me, than some of the Good deities honestly, who hide behind moral platitudes. Asmodeus comes out and tells you he's a prick and a whole lot more but you're free to just say "nope, not interested" (most people won't even be contacted from Asmodeus' side), or you're free to look at the contract, dig into it for details, and make an informed decision with your 10 Int mind whether or not it's worth it.

Similarly, Lolth (at least her DotUD version) might be a huge ass, but she really has a pretty strong point and justification for being so miserable and it's not hard to see how you'd might side with her, especially if you take the state of the Drow as terminally insane as a curse.

Lastly, there's a weird duality to the treatment of Good vs. Evil. It's apparently the case that Neutral is smack between Good and Evil, but leans towards Good, except Evil is easier to slide to according to both most of PF's lore and according to the BoVD and BoED. It just reeks a lot of game mechanics infiltrating flavor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

No, not really. I didn't really like it much in the first place.

I've always thought that being powered by an evil deity, even if you started out not evil, should slowly turn you evil. (Evil) Power corrupts.

Power corrupts. It doesn't matter if it's Evil or not. By your logic, Neutral entities shouldn't be able to worship anyone but Neutrals, which I strongly disagree with. Alignment was stupid to begin with but elevating the Good-Evil divide, which makes no real sense for most people (most would be straight up Neutral), over the Law-Chaos divide, which is simply poorly worded (and a good number could be Lawful or Chaotic), is even worse.


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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not a fan of this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well,there are Neutral Clerics of Norgorber in his role a "the Reaper of Reputation" which is the most socially acceptable version of worshiping Norgorber, so I won't say there are "none."

But for the most part I like it, "joining team evil" is not really a thing neutral characters should be particularly interested in, and the "only one step" rule always bothered me since "Oh, no... I'm a neutral Cleric of Rovagug" wrankled. A lot of people would just play CN as a sort of "diet evil" and worship something horrific just to skirt around rules that prohibit actual evil. I will be glad to see this gone.

There are plenty of reasons to serve an Evil God without being Evil yourself (a severely deformed person praying to Lamashtu or a very strict lawyer revering Asmodeus for example), and previously published material directly mentions non-evil Clerics. So this is nothing but a retcon, which I am not a fan of at all. There should at least be a Heretic feat that allows for this as an option.

Would the lawyer have ranks in cleric? I think the alignment rule really only is relevant for those classes that are getting some sort of mechanical benefit from this. Lay followers can be whatever they want, but I think if you are a cleric on the same page as a god that is all about using law as a means of oppression, you probably are fully in on the LE angle


10 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well,there are Neutral Clerics of Norgorber in his role a "the Reaper of Reputation" which is the most socially acceptable version of worshiping Norgorber, so I won't say there are "none."

But for the most part I like it, "joining team evil" is not really a thing neutral characters should be particularly interested in, and the "only one step" rule always bothered me since "Oh, no... I'm a neutral Cleric of Rovagug" wrankled. A lot of people would just play CN as a sort of "diet evil" and worship something horrific just to skirt around rules that prohibit actual evil. I will be glad to see this gone.

There are plenty of reasons to serve an Evil God without being Evil yourself (a severely deformed person praying to Lamashtu or a very strict lawyer revering Asmodeus for example), and previously published material directly mentions non-evil Clerics. So this is nothing but a retcon, which I am not a fan of at all. There should at least be a Heretic feat that allows for this as an option.

Lamashtu is a demon lord. If you’re not even willing to sacrifice somebody’s baby to her, why is she going to hand you a bunch of power?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

The problem with this is that you can worship Asmodeus without taking the Evil domain, which could easily be fluffed into "I believe in Asmodeus' absolute honesty and admire his power over destructive forces, but I'm not really a guy who gets off to murdering babies".

The real issue with Good and Evil is that even the writers don't know what Evil is. Is it Evil to be a eugenics tyrant? But a Gold Dragon, which is LG by definition, is one of those. Is it Evil to be self-serving? Where is the line drawn? Are you Evil for flying into a fit of rage and murdering someone sleeping with your wife, or is that actually fairly normal when you have an ax in your hand from lumberjacking? Is there a distinction between simply getting cheated on and getting your wife raped in that scenario?

If utopia justifies the means (which cause less damage overall) and you legitimately believe that your means will create utopia, are the means evil (and remember that Pelor and so forth agreed to Asmodeus' plans to punish the wicked so sin wouldn't spread in Planescape)? If so, does that mean the evil man who does good deeds for the purpose of self-advancement is Good? If not, does that mean that the paladin who wrongly saves an innocent who is anything but needs an Atonement?

Basically, the entire concept needs to be scrapped, or you need what happened historically and there's someone, say Ao, who straight up says 'nope that's Evil' and Lamashtu is all 'oh ok I'm evil then', reducing Good and Evil to mere labels or tags and not much else.


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

Very minor point, but Zon Kuthon allows LN clerics in the playtest.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I say good riddance to neutral followers of demon lords <_< How do you even worship and get power from demon without doing something evil?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
MidsouthGuy wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well,there are Neutral Clerics of Norgorber in his role a "the Reaper of Reputation" which is the most socially acceptable version of worshiping Norgorber, so I won't say there are "none."

But for the most part I like it, "joining team evil" is not really a thing neutral characters should be particularly interested in, and the "only one step" rule always bothered me since "Oh, no... I'm a neutral Cleric of Rovagug" wrankled. A lot of people would just play CN as a sort of "diet evil" and worship something horrific just to skirt around rules that prohibit actual evil. I will be glad to see this gone.

There are plenty of reasons to serve an Evil God without being Evil yourself (a severely deformed person praying to Lamashtu or a very strict lawyer revering Asmodeus for example), and previously published material directly mentions non-evil Clerics. So this is nothing but a retcon, which I am not a fan of at all. There should at least be a Heretic feat that allows for this as an option.
Would the lawyer have ranks in cleric? I think the alignment rule really only is relevant for those classes that are getting some sort of mechanical benefit from this. Lay followers can be whatever they want, but I think if you are a cleric on the same page as a god that is all about using law as a means of oppression, you probably are fully in on the LE angle

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. If you're going to restrict Good/Evil, then you also need to restrict Law/Chaos. Asmodeus would be far less offended by someone who's all about the Law to the Letter but doesn't have a need to oppress anyone if the law is on their side, than someone who's just into being a dick for s$#%s and giggles and doesn't care about keeping his promises if he doesn't feel like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I say good riddance to neutral followers of demon lords <_< How do you even worship and get power from demon without doing something evil?

Well for one, you can just accept a contract, which doesn't sound very evil to me. "Oh but you're serving the forces of Evil" well yeah but when you serve Sarenrae I don't see her not trying to guide you (or "guide" you) towards advancing her nominally Good causes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I say good riddance to neutral followers of demon lords <_< How do you even worship and get power from demon without doing something evil?

Except Nocticula, presumably, so now "Nocticula grants spells to CN clerics" is going to actually be weird since Rovagug, Cthulhu, Kostchtchie, Orcus, Jubilex, and Zura don't do that anymore.

Dark Archive

<_< But they are no neutral on good/evil axis clerics of Sarenrae anymore in 2e.

Also Asmodeus is super lawful, so it makes sense he only gives power to most lawful of people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the problem is that the abstraction of good and evil used in a fantasy game are not always in line with traditional Western understandings of the concepts. They don't have to be. When you think about it, how good is it to go into someone else's home and kill them for being evil. Or using magic to take over another being's mind. These are really not good actions but in the fantasy world they are allowable.


CorvusMask wrote:

<_< But they are no neutral on good/evil axis clerics of Sarenrae anymore in 2e.

Also Asmodeus is super lawful, so it makes sense he only gives power to most lawful of people.

And the most lawful of people are...you know...LN. Since that's the description of the alignment, the law above all and my word is worth more than my body in gold.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I think part of the problem is that the abstraction of good and evil used in a fantasy game are not always in line with traditional Western understandings of the concepts. They don't have to be. When you think about it, how good is it to go into someone else's home and kill them for being evil. Or using magic to take over another being's mind. These are really not good actions but in the fantasy world they are allowable.

To the contrary, they're basically built 100% off of modern western morality. The Book of Exalted Deeds just comes out and says it, if you're Good you're often "ahead of your time". It's jarring for a western reader to imagine Feeblemind being a Neutral spell, sure, but believe me a lot of the things they list as Good don't register with me as being anything but Neutral a lot of the damn time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
There are no more Neutral Clerics of Evil Gods in Pathfinder, and I for one am extremely disappointed. Now I have to retire the character I've been playing for nearly ten years, or find a group that's okay with houseruling Chaotic Neutral Clerics of Lamashtu back into the game. Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe people won't find this fact a big deal, but for me, unless Neutral Clerics of Evil make it back in by the time the official Second Edition comes out, I'm done with Pathfinder.

Think this is a bit of an over-reaction. I, for one, would NOT sacrifice a character I've been playing for a long time just because a new edition appears that says "No, that's bad/wrong fun, not allowed".

I don't think so.

Option of "stop playing the character" and/or bye-bye Pathfinder seems extreme. The answer is simple - bye, bye 2E, you ain't my cup of tea.

This IS a playtest. Maybe Clerics within 1 step of their Gods alignment ala PF1 should be put back in. Some may like that idea, some may not. YMMV, but perhaps it needs to be floated in the feedback that there are people that prefer the PF1 route and NOT the proposed playtest approach.

(Edited for tone...removed some short-handed strong language)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Minor point, but gold dragons aren’t actually LG by definition, and there’s a lot of internal Paizo debate about that particular dragon’s alignment.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it’s more of a symptom of a larger problem that a lot of the playtest shows: Paizo’s new attitude of playing “our way or the highway.” Between this and then cracking down on anyone who actually wants to, you know, make a character much better than average (or worse than average) thy seem to be pretty clearly saying “this is how to play the game, and screw you if you disagree” which is basically the opposite of P1e and seems to run contrary to their stated goal of making it a “game that everyone can enjoy and everyone feels comfortable playing.”

It kind of reminds me a bit of Apple’s management philosophy, really. And that’s not a good thing.


Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I think part of the problem is that the abstraction of good and evil used in a fantasy game are not always in line with traditional Western understandings of the concepts. They don't have to be. When you think about it, how good is it to go into someone else's home and kill them for being evil. Or using magic to take over another being's mind. These are really not good actions but in the fantasy world they are allowable.
To the contrary, they're basically built 100% off of modern western morality. The Book of Exalted Deeds just comes out and says it, if you're Good you're often "ahead of your time". It's jarring for a western reader to imagine Feeblemind being a Neutral spell, sure, but believe me a lot of the things they list as Good don't register with me as being anything but Neutral a lot of the damn time.

It gets tricky with the use of mind affecting magic.


QuidEst wrote:
Minor point, but gold dragons aren’t actually LG by definition, and there’s a lot of internal Paizo debate about that particular dragon’s alignment.

Oh, you're right. I could've sworn there was Always Lawful Good on their entry.

In any case, though, the basic concept is there - the fact that there's "debate" at all is a very bad sign when it's about a defined topic. It'd be like "debating" whether or not an Su. ability counts as magical or whether an ability with the name of a feat should count as that feat for prerequisites.

If the word Good (and Lawful, but L vs. C quibbles are a lot less heated possibly because they're not inherently loaded terms) can't be defined clearly, definitively, cleanly, and in an airtight manner, then perhaps it shouldn't exist as a mechanically defined object.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:

I think it’s more of a symptom of a larger problem that a lot of the playtest shows: Paizo’s new attitude of playing “our way or the highway.” Between this and then cracking down on anyone who actually wants to, you know, make a character much better than average (or worse than average) thy seem to be pretty clearly saying “this is how to play the game, and screw you if you disagree” which is basically the opposite of P1e and seems to run contrary to their stated goal of making it a “game that everyone can enjoy and everyone feels comfortable playing.”

It kind of reminds me a bit of Apple’s management philosophy, really. And that’s not a good thing.

You are on to something here.


Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I think part of the problem is that the abstraction of good and evil used in a fantasy game are not always in line with traditional Western understandings of the concepts. They don't have to be. When you think about it, how good is it to go into someone else's home and kill them for being evil. Or using magic to take over another being's mind. These are really not good actions but in the fantasy world they are allowable.
To the contrary, they're basically built 100% off of modern western morality. The Book of Exalted Deeds just comes out and says it, if you're Good you're often "ahead of your time". It's jarring for a western reader to imagine Feeblemind being a Neutral spell, sure, but believe me a lot of the things they list as Good don't register with me as being anything but Neutral a lot of the damn time.
It gets tricky with the use of mind affecting magic.

Fun thing to do, Feeblemind someone; they're now not Sapient creatures (you can also push a Collar of the True Companion on them, which is unadulterated fetish bait). This means enslaving them isn't an Evil act any more than it's Evil to buy and sell cattle.


Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
Claxon wrote:

No, not really. I didn't really like it much in the first place.

I've always thought that being powered by an evil deity, even if you started out not evil, should slowly turn you evil. (Evil) Power corrupts.

Power corrupts. It doesn't matter if it's Evil or not. By your logic, Neutral entities shouldn't be able to worship anyone but Neutrals, which I strongly disagree with. Alignment was stupid to begin with but elevating the Good-Evil divide, which makes no real sense for most people (most would be straight up Neutral), over the Law-Chaos divide, which is simply poorly worded (and a good number could be Lawful or Chaotic), is even worse.

Perhaps I am unclear, I've always thought clerics should always be the same alignment as their deity, without exception.

And we can't really make the argument that power corrupts (as in turns everything evil) or else the good deities would be evil, which is by definition not true. Unless we take the meaning of corrupt as "makes you more like the thing from which the power is derived", which I would agree with.

Also, I don't think I hinted at the Good Evil divide being more important than the Law (Order) Chaos divide, although many people do set it up that way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:

I think it’s more of a symptom of a larger problem that a lot of the playtest shows: Paizo’s new attitude of playing “our way or the highway.” Between this and then cracking down on anyone who actually wants to, you know, make a character much better than average (or worse than average) thy seem to be pretty clearly saying “this is how to play the game, and screw you if you disagree” which is basically the opposite of P1e and seems to run contrary to their stated goal of making it a “game that everyone can enjoy and everyone feels comfortable playing.”

It kind of reminds me a bit of Apple’s management philosophy, really. And that’s not a good thing.

Agreed. If I have to house-rule a whole host of items in PF2 to reflect some of the best aspects of PF1, then PF2 better be a really, REALLY good system to migrate to.

If it's not, though? Then it's simply not worth the work. I stay with PF1 which I know and love - and my gaming dollar goes to those companies that continue to support that format. Just like my gaming dollar migrated away from Wizards of the Coast and to Paizo (and NEVER returned to WotC, I might add, after the Dragon/Dungeon Magazine and 4E debacle), so too, the day may come when that dollar leaves Paizo and ends up elsewhere.

It's the Wallet of Life. Like the Circle of Life. But with money.


MidsouthGuy wrote:
There are no more Neutral Clerics of Evil Gods in Pathfinder, and I for one am extremely disappointed. Now I have to retire the character I've been playing for nearly ten years, or find a group that's okay with houseruling Chaotic Neutral Clerics of Lamashtu back into the game. Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe people won't find this fact a big deal, but for me, unless Neutral Clerics of Evil make it back in by the time the official Second Edition comes out, I'm done with Pathfinder.

While I'm fine with quitting the game if it's not your thing...

I mean I'd have left if they allowed non-LG Paladins.

However, this seems more like an evolution.

This is an advancement in Golarion's lore. Goblins are no longer utterly reviled, for example.

So... Maybe for years Lamashtu was cool with Neutrals, then, one day, she said:

"My followers! I require more power to defeat Pazuzu's forces! Go, find the nearest Human, Elven, or Halfling! They must be an innocent! Murder them and imprison their souls so that I can feast on them!"

And your CN character says, "Uh Lamashtu, I'm not into that whole wanton murder of innocents so that thrir souls can be consumed..."

To which sae says, "My way or the highway mortal!"

You don't do it, Lamashtu throws you out.

If you do it, your N becomes an E.


Claxon wrote:

And we can't really make the argument that power corrupts (as in turns everything evil) or else the good deities would be evil, which is by definition not true. Unless we take the meaning of corrupt as "makes you more like the thing from which the power is derived", which I would agree with.

Power corrupting can fit either bill, depending on your definition of evil, but yes my original idea was that if you're constantly in the presence of angels on high and those hot lillends promising you all sorts of music and "other things" for being a great person, I imagine you'll eventually get some of that Outsider-class goodness rubbed off on you.

Claxon wrote:
Perhaps I am unclear, I've always thought clerics should always be the same alignment as their deity, without exception....Also, I don't think I hinted at the Good Evil divide being more important than the Law (Order) Chaos divide,

I misunderstood you, sorry.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the Cult of the Dawnflower etc. is going to have to wait for a book which prints rules for fringe or separatist clerics. For the playtest rulebook we're just assuming a mainstream practitioner of someone.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the arguments I seen in favour seem to be mainly arguments for only exact alignment matches, but most deities still have some options. The one step rule was logical and consistent, but now it seems strange and arbitrary;like why does Phasmara favour law over chaos now, or why Ugathora won't grant spells to neutral followers anymore, but will to CE or LE.
I agree it seem to me they are telling people they were wrong about their characters; it's precisely this sort of restriction that puts me off systems. I'd rather they took alignments away and had more tougher Edicts and Anathema; It might be hard keeping to Lamashtu's teachings and staying neutral, but if a player is up to the role play challenge I say let them try. Even if it means they slip to evil in the end, or have to retrain/atone to a different class/religion, those are still great RP opportunities. It feels odd that Paizo would say that those stories are not allowed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Not disappointed at all.

My home rule has always been "cleric must be the same alignment as their deity," with a few, very specific exceptions by deity.

My home rule exceptions are even more restrictive than what's in the playtest, but they are along the same lines.


1 person 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.

I forget what Glorious Reclamtion is, but Cult of the Dawnflower is, well, it doesn't really match modern western definitions of Good, but in context it really is nothing but. Even according to the Book of Exalted Deeds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gug on the Silver Mountain wrote:
..why does Phasmara favour law over chaos now...?

I think I get this one. So one of Pharasma's main objectives is ensuring the orderly transition of souls through the River of Souls so the whole system of existence works, because we need to keep reinforcing the outer planes with more souls since otherwise the Maelstrom is liable to eventually consume them. A major part of Pharasma's objection to the Undead is that the circumvent her carefully planned, organized, and intricate system to keep the reality stable.

So people who are interested in breaking systems (any systems) "for the heck of it" are never going to be very close to Pharasma's heart.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On the one hand, I think some of this is necessary. For instance, I never really saw the reason for Rovagug to have CN followers, but I do agree that it does reduce a number of the deities to a more one-note follower selection. Personally, I feel that the system of edicts and anathema should have been used to ensure followers hew to their deities' ethos, and then err on the side of expanding alignments allowed, or at least not restricting them in most cases. But full disclosure, I have never really liked alignments anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
On the one hand, I think some of this is necessary. For instance, I never really saw the reason for Rovagug to have CN followers, but I do agree that it does reduce a number of the deities to a more one-note follower selection. Personally, I feel that the system of edicts and anathema should have been used to ensure followers hew to their deities' ethos, and then err on the side of expanding alignments allowed, or at least not restricting them in most cases. But full disclosure, I have never really liked alignments anyway.

The problem with alignments is you have to describe them in the CRB within a page or two, which inevitably leads to people thinking anyone who's NG must be a saint or anyone who's NE is basically a daemon in human form.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Gug on the Silver Mountain wrote:
..why does Phasmara favour law over chaos now...?

I think I get this one. So one of Pharasma's main objectives is ensuring the orderly transition of souls through the River of Souls so the whole system of existence works, because we need to keep reinforcing the outer planes with more souls since otherwise the Maelstrom is liable to eventually consume them. A major part of Pharasma's objection to the Undead is that the circumvent her carefully planned, organized, and intricate system to keep the reality stable.

So people who are interested in breaking systems (any systems) "for the heck of it" are never going to be very close to Pharasma's heart.

Well, most of the people who are trying to break that system are NE (Daemons and Urgathoa. I guess also Qlippoth), not CN. And if she is so opposed to rule breaking beyond messing with unlife, why isn't she lawful?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess the reason this issue sets my teeth on edge is it feels a lot like when D&D said you couldn't have CG PCs anymore, so I left. I don't want the system I left them for to go down the same road. Obviously this isn't as egregious, but I hate that whole line of thinking.

I think the main line of the argument is that there are some players who act out and play disruptively, and this is somehow meant to stop that. It won't; they'll simply not play a cleric, or just play a legal combination of cleric and alignment and still be disruptive. It's fine for a GM to say I can't play an Evil PC or a PC who worships an Evil God, but it's different for a company to tell me my character concept is wrong, especially if they are a concept I've already been playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gug on the Silver Mountain wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Gug on the Silver Mountain wrote:
..why does Phasmara favour law over chaos now...?

I think I get this one. So one of Pharasma's main objectives is ensuring the orderly transition of souls through the River of Souls so the whole system of existence works, because we need to keep reinforcing the outer planes with more souls since otherwise the Maelstrom is liable to eventually consume them. A major part of Pharasma's objection to the Undead is that the circumvent her carefully planned, organized, and intricate system to keep the reality stable.

So people who are interested in breaking systems (any systems) "for the heck of it" are never going to be very close to Pharasma's heart.

Well, most of the people who are trying to break that system are NE (Daemons and Urgathoa. I guess also Qlippoth), not CN. And if she is so opposed to rule breaking beyond messing with unlife, why isn't she lawful?

But her whole program is "counteracting the growth of the Maelstrom" so I understand why she's not super excited about welcoming clerics to the flock that stand to make the Maelstrom bigger.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't really like the change, don't really like the mindset behind it either.
Then again I've generally fiddled with stuff like Alignment restrictions all the time (ie adapting, lessening or removing them).
Though I do feel that Anathemas could have been expanded into more cohesive "code"-like structures that could have served as a replacement for Alignment requirements.

Edit: Bah, Ninja'd by Tholomyes. ^^'


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's my thing: Paizo has released more than one supplement for players who are not Evil, but worship Evil Gods, and have made mention of such characters in several other sources, but now they're contradicting this supposedly cannon information and telling us there are no Neutral Clerics of Evil Gods. I understand a new edition means new rules, but in universe consistency should be a thing that is taken seriously. What's next, there are no Good Hellknights?

I'm hoping at the very least we get something akin to the Agents of Evil book or a Heretic archetype that allows for Neutral Clerics.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I say good riddance to neutral followers of demon lords <_< How do you even worship and get power from demon without doing something evil?
Except Nocticula, presumably, so now "Nocticula grants spells to CN clerics" is going to actually be weird since Rovagug, Cthulhu, Kostchtchie, Orcus, Jubilex, and Zura don't do that anymore.

It would make her "heretics" far more unique. ^_^

That said, she may not even be a demon lord any more by the time PF2 rolls around...

Sovereign Court

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


6 people marked this as a favorite.
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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not a huge fan of the change, but then I wasn't huge on alignment to begin with. Eh, if I keep alignment in homegames I'll probably swap back to the older cleric rules. Neutral asmodeus worshipers are the first problem for me, and the general idea of gods cutting neutrality makes more sense for good than evil IMO.

1 to 50 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.