Cleric alignments?


Classes

Grand Lodge

I don’t understand why the new restrictions on clerics’ alignments?
Specifically Lamashtu. When I first read in the blog that alignments requirements and channels will be revised (and Lamashtu was given as an example), I thought “awesome, NG goblin cleric sounds fun”. If goblins are introduced into society (and Society), why wouldn’t some of them keep faith in a goddess that provides healing and the Family domain? Why is that change a change for the worse? Why do that horrible thing (no pun intended)?
Also Abadar. True Neutral clerics are out. WHY? Isn’t N the alignment that descrides the average Joeleth, who does their job fine, but is there for the paycheck. The whole “you have to be passionate about the Law” thing sounds like something a crappy new manager says while trying to “build team spirit” or something.
And Asmodeus. Wasn’t there a clause that he doesn’t care what you think so long as you go trough the motions? But now you HAVE to be a bastard?
I can go on, but overall it looks like Paizo tried fixing what wasn’t broken. It feels unnecessary restrictive. I will certainly houserule it the hell out.


Baprr wrote:

I don’t understand why the new restrictions on clerics’ alignments?

Specifically Lamashtu. When I first read in the blog that alignments requirements and channels will be revised (and Lamashtu was given as an example), I thought “awesome, NG goblin cleric sounds fun”. If goblins are introduced into society (and Society), why wouldn’t some of them keep faith in a goddess that provides healing and the Family domain? Why is that change a change for the worse? Why do that horrible thing (no pun intended)?
Also Abadar. True Neutral clerics are out. WHY? Isn’t N the alignment that descrides the average Joeleth, who does their job fine, but is there for the paycheck. The whole “you have to be passionate about the Law” thing sounds like something a crappy new manager says while trying to “build team spirit” or something.
And Asmodeus. Wasn’t there a clause that he doesn’t care what you think so long as you go trough the motions? But now you HAVE to be a bastard?
I can go on, but overall it looks like Paizo tried fixing what wasn’t broken. It feels unnecessary restrictive. I will certainly houserule it the hell out.

Abadar's first tenet:

"Abadar and his followers wish to bring the light of civilization to the wilderness, to help educate all in the benefits of law and properly regulated commerce."

Light of civilation to the wilderness is not Neutrality. Yes he is about commerce, but he's not about neutrality at all. He doesn't want people to just work for a paycheck. He isn't the God of unfettered Capitalism.

Lamashtu?

Dude, she's evil. Like evil to the core. The Demon Queen. What kind of "Good" Character worships a demon? We aren't talking like anime "Demon" or Dante from Devil May Cry here. We're talking about Demon. Like, the enemy of the Angels and destroyer of all things good Demon.

Asmodeus?

Again, you are serving an evil being. No good person would actually do that. Heck, no neutral person would do that. You are literally willing to serve an evil being to gain an advantage. That is pretty evil.

-----

One thing I LOVE about PF2 is that alignments have power again. They mean something. They are not just meaningless words you can ignore.

You don't go to the different deities and go, "What nifty cool powers can I get from these guys? Oh healing and family!" While ignoring what kind of a horrible evil thing you are getting that power from.

Now, for non-religious people Alignment is less important. For Clerics? Ooooooh it becomes REALLY important. You are main-lining that God's powers.

So, if you are a Neutral Good Cleric... Remember your faith is not just some powers, words on a sheet, you are letting the Demon Queen into your heart. You are agreeing to serve her.

That... That isn't very good...

Grand Lodge

HWalsh wrote:

Abadar's first tenet:

"Abadar and his followers wish to bring the light of civilization to the wilderness, to help educate all in the benefits of law and properly regulated commerce."

Light of civilation to the wilderness is not Neutrality. Yes he is about commerce, but he's not about neutrality at all. He doesn't want people to just work for a paycheck. He isn't the God of unfettered Capitalism.

Abadar is also about "earning wealth through hard work and trade" and "following the rule of law" - you ignored 2/3 of his tenets just now. "Earning wealth" is basically Capitalism. Not everyone must bring civilization to the untamed lands, somebody must stay at home and till the fields, raise the children etc. Otherwise, what's the point of building civilization and not enjoying the benefits?

HWalsh wrote:

Lamashtu?

Dude, she's evil. Like evil to the core. The Demon Queen. What kind of "Good" Character worships a demon? We aren't talking like anime "Demon" or Dante from Devil May Cry here. We're talking about Demon. Like, the enemy of the Angels and destroyer of all things good Demon.

If she is so evil, why give her worshippers said healing and Family? Actually, on second thought, I can imagine an abusive kind of family, but my point was - the entire race worships her! They can’t all be wantonly evil! Maybe not good, but I can certainly imagine someone who doesn’t really care for good or evil choosing her because of tradition and because they don’t want to get killed for not following the right god.

HWalsh wrote:

Asmodeus?

Again, you are serving an evil being. No good person would actually do that. Heck, no neutral person would do that. You are literally willing to serve an evil…

Again, there is a whole nation that is no longer an ethnicity, that almost exclusively worships him. They can’t all be evil!

That actually bothers me a little. Now there can not be moderate clerics, only those who embrace their gods get the power - which eliminates gaps. And that is bad.


Baprr wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Abadar's first tenet:

"Abadar and his followers wish to bring the light of civilization to the wilderness, to help educate all in the benefits of law and properly regulated commerce."

Light of civilation to the wilderness is not Neutrality. Yes he is about commerce, but he's not about neutrality at all. He doesn't want people to just work for a paycheck. He isn't the God of unfettered Capitalism.

Abadar is also about "earning wealth through hard work and trade" and "following the rule of law" - you ignored 2/3 of his tenets just now. "Earning wealth" is basically Capitalism. Not everyone must bring civilization to the untamed lands, somebody must stay at home and till the fields, raise the children etc. Otherwise, what's the point of building civilization and not enjoying the benefits?

HWalsh wrote:

Lamashtu?

Dude, she's evil. Like evil to the core. The Demon Queen. What kind of "Good" Character worships a demon? We aren't talking like anime "Demon" or Dante from Devil May Cry here. We're talking about Demon. Like, the enemy of the Angels and destroyer of all things good Demon.

If she is so evil, why give her worshippers said healing and Family? Actually, on second thought, I can imagine an abusive kind of family, but my point was - the entire race worships her! They can’t all be wantonly evil! Maybe not good, but I can certainly imagine someone who doesn’t really care for good or evil choosing her because of tradition and because they don’t want to get killed for not following the right god.

HWalsh wrote:

Asmodeus?

Again, you are serving an evil being. No good person would actually do that. Heck, no neutral person would do that. You are literally willing to serve an evil…

Again, there is a whole nation that is no longer an ethnicity, that almost exclusively worships him. They can’t all be evil!

That actually bothers me a little. Now there can not be moderate clerics, only those who embrace their gods get the power - which...

Uhm... Look at what you wrote there...

I think there is a disconnect in logic.

Being a Cleric isn't like studying a spell book, or practicing a trade. It isn't a job, or a task you practice at. You have faith, total devotion to your god, so much so that it grants you supernatural powers.

You don't have the faith to get those kinds of powers by being a moderate. You're not just a worshipper, you're a Cleric, a Priest or Priestess, you are dedicated wholly to your God and their machinations.

Worship out of habit isn't gonna do the trick. Worship out of fear doesn't do the trick. You gotta drink the kool-aid and buy in mind, body, and soul.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Now, I will admit I'm generally fine with the new tenets and general restrictions on alignments. I can understand why one might consider exceptions, and can even see good story reasons that I could consider as a GM that might allow something for the fun of it. But the choices as generally given seem to be made for valid reasons.

Lamashu was given family and positive healing ability because she is looking out for her 'children' as they go about their purpose of destroying everything that isn't 'of her'.

A possible reason I can imagine a 'cleric-like' class/role of a character that was not an evangelist of the diety, but might be a Shepard of 'the flock'. Such a Cleric of Lamashu may hate their 'patron' but is looking out for their friends and familiy. They know their patron demands certain sacrifices, and rather than taking that out of your self, or your family or friends, you prefer the cost be paid by someone you don't know.

That isn't really a sign of a good alignment, but seems perfectly reasonable for a neutral. Neutral's probably don't care much about laws that don't impact themselves or those they know. They likewise don't care about people having freedoms that don't impact them. They don't overly care about the plight of people they don't know two countries over. Do they care about the slaughter of fellow humans in the county three miles away... certainly would if they have reason to believe the trend may grow their direction and they are human... so that is something they might get up in arms around.

Evil, won't care, save that it might inspire them to acquire power by starting a reverse insurgency, potentially garnering wealth and influence by riding the retaliation wave.

But, one could imagine a Shepard who somehow inherits a figurehead of divinity that may come from a Patron, whom they 'respect', but may not truly worship. I can imagine this sort of person being represented by a cleric, and having such powers, but perhaps reduced limitations... but might need to consider some other forms of limitations, like an archetype of sort, to reduce the impact of Anathma, and increase focus on those they are responsible for.

However, you might instead look at a Divine Sorcerer, as that might be a decent way of having a 'evil' divine patron in effect powering a person who might actually be aspiring to a good (or other patron contrary) ideal.

But no, your Lamashu evangelist should not be able to be Good unless they really just don't understand exactly what they signed up for.

And for the record, I know not ALL goblins worship Lamashu. I know at least a couple that worship Sarenrae rather devoutly, due in large part to the work of a tiefling.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Being a Cleric isn't like studying a spell book, or practicing a trade. It isn't a job, or a task you practice at. You have faith, total devotion to your god, so much so that it grants you supernatural powers.

You don't have the faith to get those kinds of powers by being a moderate. You're not just a worshipper, you're a Cleric, a Priest or Priestess, you are dedicated wholly to your God and their machinations.

Worship out of habit isn't gonna do the trick. Worship out of fear doesn't do the trick. You gotta drink the kool-aid and buy in mind, body, and soul.

This is just the worst kind of pigeon-holing a whole class into a single role. Even Paladins can have some doubts (well, maybe you think they can't, I do not know), but for all the clerics be 100% devote from level one? That's bad. You would lose a whole slew of archetypes and twists, and I do not think I want that. You lose the god-gives-power-to-corrupt-cleric cleric, you lose the misunderstanding-cleric cleric, you lose the losing-his-faith cleric.

Again, the new restriction is unacceptable. I will change it if the devs don't change it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Allowing deity alignment restrictions to be more unique than just "one step away" is one of my favorite things about the playtest. It gives the gods much more individuality by telling you something about what kinds of followers they want.

Torag does not accept non-lawful Clerics, even if they are dwarves. That tells you something about Torag. It's a little mechanical thing that instantly fleshes out the god's character just a little bit more.

It also opens the design space for some potentially weird gods. Like picture a god of passion - he doesn't care what you are passionate about, just as long as you are dedicated and not indecisive. So despite being Neutral (all passions are equal to him), he accepts LG, CG, LE, and CE clerics.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Baprr wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
....

This is just the worst kind of pigeon-holing a whole class into a single role. Even Paladins can have some doubts (well, maybe you think they can't, I do not know), but for all the clerics be 100% devote from level one? That's bad. You would lose a whole slew of archetypes and twists, and I do not think I want that. You lose the god-gives-power-to-corrupt-cleric cleric, you lose the misunderstanding-cleric cleric, you lose the losing-his-faith cleric.

Again, the new restriction is unacceptable. I will change it if the devs don't change it.

But corrupted clerics, and loosing his faith cleric (and potentially even misunderstanding cleric) can exist... with the application of an appropriate archetype which might expand a base limitation and imply an alternate/appropriate limitation.

Basically, I argue the change is a good change for the core of the class. While other options might exist, it is worth pointing out that they are edge cases and should be handled with care for balance purposes. Otherwise someone will pick up and become a Priest of Razmir and get all the standard abilities of a cleric, because he has faith in his God.

So my answer is to not say rip that out, but say... OK, I see the change. Now give me an archetype I can use to play a non-evil Shepherd of an evil diety, whom tries to insure his/her flock doesn't pay for the debts of their forefathers' owed to their evil patrons needs. Or a priest to a power who has been deceived into believe that the power is in fact benevolent. Or a priest whom is tied to the power not by faith, but by blood or other form of inheritance (family, societal, or even by fate/prophecy). These ideas seem like great foundations for archetypes.

Granted, it would be wonderful if Archetypes could start out at 1st level, of course to leverage these sorts of options.

Actually, the idea emerges of an Heretic Archetype. With it, a relatively narrow goal or exception is defined to not trigger the consequences of breaking Anathema. Examples (although not actually listed in the rules, but mentioned in fiction). A priest of Pharasma attempting to work towards personal immortality via means such as the sun orchid elixir. Others might be such as a priest of Sarenrae refusing to destroy a lich she discovered, after realizing it is her long lost half-brother. Perhaps even a anointed of Pharasma authorizing the opening of tombs in an effort to restore a nation and region to its former glory?

Anyway, that is just a thought, for instance that could very well be applicable and within the known lore. Some of these instances would be things that Inquisitors might try to hunt down and overturn. Others might be things that are just accepted as someone of authority. Others might actually be the start of a shift in what a particular faith finds important, potentially forming a new sect. [be that either a collective group with a shared Heretic application, or eventually, potentially simply a new... separate sect, which might have a different set of Edicts, Anathma, alignment choices for instance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do really like that allowed cleric alignments are specific to the deity, since it makes sense for deities to strongly emphasize one particular aspect of their alignment (e.g. Shelyn and Good) or to simply not be willing to grant divine power to anyone who deviates from their own alignment.

Like a random person can say a prayer or make an offering to anybody, and it's not like Abadar is going to reject your tithe if you're insufficiently lawful, but I like that Clerics are further restricted. Some of the specific ones might need tweaking (I could see CN Pharasmans, I don't know why Nethys would care at all, etc.)

But the real issue is that the core deities leave holes for concepts that aren't likely to be filled until we start adding the hundred plus other deities.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Cleric alignments? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes