Chewing on Champions


Advice

351 to 400 of 436 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Oh, I got that. I even posted about it a bit. Explain to me why it means that I can't advocate for an optional rule, when I have clearly and repeatedly said that is what I am doing. Does Tectorman have a monopoly on this thread now?

I don't really think anyone disagrees with you on that, and most people would be fine with it being an optional rule.


Cyouni wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Oh, I got that. I even posted about it a bit. Explain to me why it means that I can't advocate for an optional rule, when I have clearly and repeatedly said that is what I am doing. Does Tectorman have a monopoly on this thread now?
I don't really think anyone disagrees with you on that, and most people would be fine with it being an optional rule.

But I'm not arguing with the ones who agree with me. Deadmanwalking says that such a thing would be a radical revision of the metaphysics of the whole setting. That it becomes "not the same game in many ways." And, quite insistently and repeatedly, that clerics who can't fall aren't clerics. That's blatantly incompatible with "oh, having clerics not fall is a fine optional rule." Especially when it's said as a response to "hey, this would be a good optional rule."

In short, if you don't think anyone's disagreeing with me on this you haven't been paying attention. I agree with you that most people would be fine with the optional rule. That's one of the reasons I think DMW is being silly with his insistence that many people even in PF1 would be aghast along with him at the very notion of clerics who can't fall because those just wouldn't be clerics at all!

As an aside, I definitely like how Deadmanwalking says it shouldn't be an optional rule because it would have too much impact (radically revising the metaphysics of the whole setting, etc etc) while PossibleCabbage says it shouldn't be an optional rule because it would have no real impact (wasting page space). I wonder if I can get them to argue with each other.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
But what about the change to Golarion itself that comes about when it turns out that LG Paladins were merely one subset of Champions and lawful Monks were merely one subset of the larger Monk population. Why isn't that "changing Golarion to what it always could have been" or "correcting for last edition's imperfect realization of that world"?

Because those characters already existed in-world. There were several Archetypes and even a Trait for non-Lawful Monks and a wealth of characters who were thematically and for all practical in-world purposes 'non-Lawful Paladins', who simply had another Class (like Warpriest) written on their character sheet.

In short, this is a mechanical change, not a setting change.

Who says it has to be a setting change, though? Why would "Cleric the Class being used for this other thing" have to be identified in-universe as "hey, that Cleric of Blah just did something Blah wouldn't approve of and he's still casting spells; my entire worldview is upside-down"?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So for "Clerics who can't fall" in PF2, could we use clerics of deities who literally are not paying attention, or do not care at all?

Like IIRC, Azathoth is incapable of perceiving the material universe, and clerics of some of the Eldest should either never fall or sometimes fall for no reason that is apparent to anyone.

This would work. Keeps the larger concept of the Cleric in-universe intact while giving the player a chance to opt out of Anathema, instead of being saddled with it unduly. See, this never needed to be this big chore. "I can't imagine what a Cleric without an Anathema would look like, but on the off-chance someone else might, far be it from me to decide the end of my imagination is the end of their's." Just that little bit of consideration.

MaxAstro wrote:
I like that, PossibleCabbage. Like, I don't really have a problem with there being a Cleric whose god has no anathema. I just have a problem with Shelyn being forced to still grant powers to a Cleric who decides to go on a rampage through an art museum.

For the record, while I'll advocate a character with all the class features of a Cleric (and even the same Focus powers as those that come from one or more of the domains that Shelyn is associated with), I'm not advocating for this character to be a Cleric of Shelyn in-universe. Class =/= Concept. I'd expect the in-universe clergy of Shelyn (however they are statted out and with whichever classes) to seek the end of any art museum rampage, with no never mind about how similar the perpetrator's abilities may be to their own clergy.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So one thing I don't understand: Why is it important for something to be an "optional rule" when you could have just houseruled it to work that way from the start?

Particularly when the issue is essentially thematic, and not liable to create or exacerbate game balance problems (like something akin to "everybody has twice as many spell slots and focus points" might).

One reason is the Superstition Anathema. For all the rest, you're right. They're not supposed to have any game balance impact whatsoever, if I recall correctly (I want to say this came from Mark). The Superstition Anathema, on the other hand, provides greater than normal benefit that is deliberately balanced against a list of prohibited actions. Take away Anathema and it needs to be lessened or changed to avoid being OP. Additionally, it's existence is potentially a gateway for other such Anathemas that would also have to be dialed back in an Anathema-less game.

And @Rysky, that back and forth is getting out of hand and I apologize for my contribution to it, and will leave it at "Agree to disagree", except for one thing:

I've had many DMs in many gaming groups. Those that I'm not playing with anymore are due almost entirely to the group finding it more difficult to keep meeting or similarly falling apart. None of them ended in any kind of knockdown dragout fight. In only one instance was it a case of irreconcilable differences between me and the GM, and that had nothing to do with game-setting-mandated class interpretations.

So no, this isn't me lashing out because of bad, traumatizing GMs. Yes, this is me advocating what I'm advocating for solely to prevent a situation that I, in my gaming groups, have been lucky to avoid, and that I emphatically do not believe should be a matter of luck for anyone. So your advice to find a new GM is unwarranted and unhelpful.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
You throw terms like "radically" around pretty lightly. AFAICT it's "radical" purely in that it conflicts with your personal gut feelings about Clerics. It wouldn't need to make much difference to the world, since the possibility of a cleric fall comes up so rarely.

No, I use the word 'radically' when it fundamentally alters core setting assumptions in ways that make previously stated things flatly impossible.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Rovagug is stuck in the Vault. Maybe he can't tell what his clerics are doing, so they never fall. Ta-da.

That has its own issues, like how do you start getting power from him in the first place if he can't see you. But it'd theoretically work if it had not already been explicitly stated otherwise.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Actually, based on your descriptions (which are all I had to go by as I haven't played in Eberron or Forgotten Realms) both settings come with a batch of mechanics changes and that makes it a fundamentally different game. Of course, we expect that to be the case with published settings, because they won't sell if they're not new and different in interesting ways, including mechanically.

Uh...Eberron's 'radical changes' are mostly the ones I listed plus a couple of new Classes and Races. But yes, changing metaphysics absolutely changes what kind of game it is.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
To sum up, not very many and not very often, and that's why we don't have many falling-cleric threads.

It happens often enough to be relevant and that changing it would be a major and jarring shift in how the world worked.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Oh, I agree that Turpin would be a Cleric in D&D... just like any other Catholic priest would be.

Sure, if converting them. Doesn't mean that being a Cleric and being a Catholic priest actually work the same way, though.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Excuse me? When did I say anything about a formal eduction (or any education) or formal ordination or a formal church? I said you have "an ordination ritual with existing clerics" and that's it. You made up all the rest and shoved it into my mouth. Don't do that, it pisses me off.

Forgive me for misinterpreting what you meant. But that's equally well-established as simply not true in Golarion. There are several examples of Clerics who may well not even have ever met another Cleric of the same God.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
So your contention that clerics must be able to fall is based entirely on the premise that the campaign in question is in Golarion? Because some people in this thread have declared that "cleric who can't fall" just doesn't make sense as a concept in anything Pathfinder-like and I was busy arguing with them when you stepped in. So I'm interested in where you stand on that, Golarion aside.

We're discussing PF2, whose rules are very explicitly and specifically those of the Golarion setting, so what Golarion is like is by far the most relevant thing to how the rules should work.

But I'm fine with Clerics working differently in a different setting. That's why I brought up Eberron in the first place.

Tectorman wrote:
Who says it has to be a setting change, though? Why would "Cleric the Class being used for this other thing" have to be identified in-universe as "hey, that Cleric of Blah just did something Blah wouldn't approve of and he's still casting spells; my entire worldview is upside-down"?

If it's not a setting change I have no objection, but if the default becomes them not needing Deities or Anathema that very much is a setting change, and 'Clerics but with no God' are not at all an existing in-world thing, so adding them is also a setting change.

You could theoretically do something like a shaman (or other existent in-world thing) as a godless Cleric, but those things tend to be better represented as another Class entirely, IMO.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to be able play something like a cleric who is an animist, or pantheist, or a polytheist, or a transtheist, or whatever. I want all of those for a thing like a champion plus things like an atheist, an apatheist, an ietsist, or whatever. All these things make much more sense to me than a "cleric of an idea" or a "cleric of no god." It's much better to do that sort of thing with a different class entirely.

I find it much easier to swallow that "these people just believe fundamentally different things, but they still get magic powers" than "these servants of this one god don't need to follow the rules set down by that god." Following the rules seems part and parcel to being a cleric.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@Tectorman, then by that same pace your overwhelming fear of falling is also unwarranted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the idea of clerics as given powers by the church and not by the diety:

- I can imagine one god of law, civilisation and community to do that. Agree with the churches founder to let the church give and take spellcasting power via rituals - because that serves the domains of the god.
But that would by the choice of one particular god, not all of them. And...

- ...that still doen't free you of an anathema. Yoa must still respect the tenets of the church AND not piss of any higher-ups. Because they are human and might end your carreer as a cleric because you wronged them. The only thing changing is that you keep your powers until the ritual.

So what's the deal? This won't get you rid of a code to follow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
You throw terms like "radically" around pretty lightly. AFAICT it's "radical" purely in that it conflicts with your personal gut feelings about Clerics. It wouldn't need to make much difference to the world, since the possibility of a cleric fall comes up so rarely.
No, I use the word 'radically' when it fundamentally alters core setting assumptions in ways that make previously stated things flatly impossible.

Like a Monk with ki ceasing to be a Monk because they changed to a non-lawful alignment? That's been previously stated as what happens but is now flatly impossible. Ditto Barbarians who lose the ability to rage because they become Lawful.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Rovagug is stuck in the Vault. Maybe he can't tell what his clerics are doing, so they never fall. Ta-da.
That has its own issues, like how do you start getting power from him in the first place if he can't see you.

Via an existing cleric, of course.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
But it'd theoretically work if it had not already been explicitly stated otherwise.

Yes, it would. And it was easy for me to come up with. So when you previously said

Deadmanwalking wrote:
But I was questioning how it made sense in a world like Golarion for one God (or even sect) to do this when no others do. And I still can't think of a good reason.

it reflected not an actual metaphysical difficulty but merely a lack of imagination, or possibly of trying, on your part. Consider that others with more imagination may be able to conceive of many of the things you keep saying are unconcievable.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
To sum up, not very many and not very often, and that's why we don't have many falling-cleric threads.
It happens often enough to be relevant and that changing it would be a major and jarring shift in how the world worked.

Jarring to you. Just as non-lawful Monks with ki have been jarring to other people who consider it a major shift in how the world works.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
There are several examples of Clerics who may well not even have ever met another Cleric of the same God.

"May well not even have" == "we haven't been told if they have or not." Which means stipulating that they have wouldn't be a change, just filling in a previously unfilled detail.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
So your contention that clerics must be able to fall is based entirely on the premise that the campaign in question is in Golarion? Because some people in this thread have declared that "cleric who can't fall" just doesn't make sense as a concept in anything Pathfinder-like and I was busy arguing with them when you stepped in. So I'm interested in where you stand on that, Golarion aside.
We're discussing PF2, whose rules are very explicitly and specifically those of the Golarion setting, so what Golarion is like is by far the most relevant thing to how the rules should work.

One, even if what Golarion is like is super-relevant to the rules, it is not the only thing relevant.

Two, we're discussing optional rules for PF2. PF2 Unchained will not make the assumption of Golarion, because Paizo isn't stupid enough to alienate all those customers who like to play Pathfinder in non-Golarion settings, and saying "sorry, if it's not Golarion it's no longer Pathfinder so we're not supporting it" would do exactly that.

Three, while we debated whether the core concept of Cleric included falling, you claimed

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
If PF1 had introduced a cleric archetype that couldn't fall, but for whom the introductory paragraphs in the cleric class still held true, very few people besides you would have exclaimed "that's not a cleric any more, that's an oracle!"
Depends on the thematics, but they easily might. They'd certainly provoke a 'this is no longer a Cleric' response pretty widely.

PF1 rules were not integrated with Golarion, so what you're claiming there is that no-fall clerics are clearly no longer Clerics whether in Golarion or not. Has your position changed? Because now you say

Deadmanwalking wrote:
But I'm fine with Clerics working differently in a different setting.

which rather seems to imply that you think no-fall clerics outside Golarion are a perfectly sound, viable concept.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

All Deadmanwalking said was that Clerics are established to work a certain way in Golarion. He never said working a different way would be impossible, just that it would go against how things are currently established in-setting. He was stating a fact, not lacking any sort of imagination.


masda_gib wrote:
On the idea of clerics as given powers by the church and not by the diety:

Nobody has proposed that. I have proposed a possible model in which the deity only grants powers when asked to by the church. The power still belongs to the deity.

masda_gib wrote:

- I can imagine one god of law, civilisation and community to do that. Agree with the churches founder to let the church give and take spellcasting power via rituals - because that serves the domains of the god.

But that would by the choice of one particular god, not all of them.

And only gods of law would do something so lawful, right? Like... enter into an informal arrangement with other gods that limited how much direct intervention they could engage in, and then abide by that pact? It's unimaginable that all the gods (or even all but the one locked away) would make that choice.

masda_gib wrote:

- ...that still doen't free you of an anathema. Yoa must still respect the tenets of the church AND not piss of any higher-ups. Because they are human and might end your carreer as a cleric because you wronged them. The only thing changing is that you keep your powers until the ritual.

So what's the deal? This won't get you rid of a code to follow.

Rarely are your human superiors nigh-omniscient, aware of every detail of everything you do and hence able to judge it. So many possible violations will never be considered. And in many/most churches, at least lawful and/or good ones, they'd give you a chance to defend yourself. You don't get that so much when you slip a bit and the GM yells "insta-fall!" on behalf of your nigh-omniscient patron.

So, yes, you still have to more or less follow the rules, or put in the effort to not get caught. I consider that a good thing. It's not a problem for most people since you don't play a cleric of Shelyn if you don't plan on cherishing art. But if you find yourself facing a moral dilemma involving anathema, it matters whether the GM will immediately yell "Fall!" on behalf of your patron or whether they have to wait for your superiors to find out somehow, to get the details from you and maybe witnesses, hear your defense, and then judge you. And if they find you guilty but repentant they'll probably offer you atonement, because that's what that spell is for!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
masda_gib wrote:
On the idea of clerics as given powers by the church and not by the diety:
Nobody has proposed that. I have proposed a possible model in which the deity only grants powers when asked to by the church. The power still belongs to the deity.

That's nitpicking. I wanted to keep that introduction-sentence short.

You proposed that a cleric cannot fall on the deities whim and is made and unmade a cleric by the churches rituals. The powers itself obviously comes from the deity but the church distributes it.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
And only gods of law would do something so lawful, right? Like... enter into an informal arrangement with other gods that limited how much direct intervention they could engage in, and then abide by that pact? It's unimaginable that all the gods (or even all but the one locked away) would make that choice.

You just want to be offended, right?

No, it is not unimaginable that all gods could do that, but in Golarion they just did not. This was a proposal to have such a God in a world where all other gods just give powers directly - like in a world like Golarion. Sorry for trying to agree with you.
And yes, keeping such a contract is a lawful thing.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Rarely are your human superiors nigh-omniscient, aware of every detail of everything you do and hence able to judge it. So many possible violations will never be considered. And in many/most churches, at least lawful and/or good ones, they'd give you a chance to defend yourself. You don't get that so much when you slip a bit and the GM yells "insta-fall!" on behalf of your nigh-omniscient patron.

I agree that the church members are not omniscient. But the rest doesn't make sense at all.

Because: A) A good aligned god (especially a god of redemption) will probably ALSO give you a chance to denfend yourself or get things right. And B) how the church is run by human is ALSO totally determined by the DM. If your Insta-Fall-DM says the church doesn't let you defend yourself then you fall. And if your GM is so evil then they will have some of the churches agents be everywhere and follow you secretly, so they will see everything.

An evel GM can screw you to insta-fall also in this case.


masda_gib wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
And only gods of law would do something so lawful, right? Like... enter into an informal arrangement with other gods that limited how much direct intervention they could engage in, and then abide by that pact? It's unimaginable that all the gods (or even all but the one locked away) would make that choice.

You just want to be offended, right?

No, it is not unimaginable that all gods could do that, but in Golarion they just did not.

No, I was being sarcastic, because in Golarion that's exactly what they did.

Inner Sea Gods page 7 wrote:
To prevent all-out war and unmitigated disaster, the deities have an informal arrangement that discourages them from grand acts in the mortal world, and have laws among themselves that forbid taking direct action against each other's planar realms. It's this very divine truce that makes mortals---and their proxy conflicts---so important. However, even these laws are sometimes broken, such as when Desna invaded the Abyss to destroy the demon lord Aolar for possessing and corrupting her favored priest.

So, if the gods in general (other than Rovagug) are willing to be that "lawful," there's no reason they can't (in Golarion 2 or Non-Golarion-Land, of course) extend that agreement to "no bestowing/revoking powers on your mortal agents on your own." It's all in the definition of "grand acts."

masda_gib wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Rarely are your human superiors nigh-omniscient, aware of every detail of everything you do and hence able to judge it. So many possible violations will never be considered. And in many/most churches, at least lawful and/or good ones, they'd give you a chance to defend yourself. You don't get that so much when you slip a bit and the GM yells "insta-fall!" on behalf of your nigh-omniscient patron.

I agree that the church members are not omniscient. But the rest doesn't make sense at all.

Because: A) A good aligned god (especially a god of redemption) will probably ALSO give you a chance to denfend yourself or get things right.

Really? In how many fallen-paladin threads does someone say "Of course, before they took my powers away, my god appeared to me in a vision and gave me a chance to defend myself."

masda_gib wrote:

And B) how the church is run by human is ALSO totally determined by the DM. If your Insta-Fall-DM says the church doesn't let you defend yourself then you fall. And if your GM is so evil then they will have some of the churches agents be everywhere and follow you secretly, so they will see everything.

An evel GM can screw you to insta-fall also in this case.

Err, yes, a bad GM can do that. But they're not encouraged to. When the rules actually say "if they misbehave, their god strips them of their powers, poof" then GMs will run it that way. And have been running it that way, for paladins; this isn't theoretical.

I mean, when you're in a town and get into a fight and accidentally kill someone you presumably have to worry about being arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. But because it's a process you have chances to do things about it. If the game's rules said "if a PC kills someone in a town, the PC's head falls off" then it wouldn't take an evil GM to insta-punish you, just a rule-abiding one. Since the rules don't say that, it does take an evil GM to screw you over with the process. That's the difference between "rules say anathema are enforced by the deity" and "rules say anathema are enforced by other clerics."

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Like a Monk with ki ceasing to be a Monk because they changed to a non-lawful alignment? That's been previously stated as what happens but is now flatly impossible.

Actually, this is factually incorrect on a couple of levels. Firstly, there are several ways to be a non-Lawful Monk with ki in PF1, and secondly becoming non-Lawful does not make you an ex-Monk in the sense one becomes an ex-Cleric. You retain all powers of the Monk Class, you simply cannot level in it any longer. That's...not even visible in-world. Making for quite a difference between that and how Clerics work.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Ditto Barbarians who lose the ability to rage because they become Lawful.

Bloodragers and several other Classes had Rage in PF1 and could be Lawful, and which you could pretty casually retrain to from Barbarian if necessary. The PF2 Barbarian Class simply now includes those characters. There are also zero examples of this happening in the fiction, making it pretty easy to ignore.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Via an existing cleric, of course.

This comes in for a bit of a 'chicken and egg' issue with where did the first Cleric of Rovagug come from, though you could argue they predate his binding I suppose.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Yes, it would. And it was easy for me to come up with. So when you previously said

Deadmanwalking wrote:
But I was questioning how it made sense in a world like Golarion for one God (or even sect) to do this when no others do. And I still can't think of a good reason.
it reflected not an actual metaphysical difficulty but merely a lack of imagination, or possibly of trying, on your part. Consider that others with more imagination may be able to conceive of many of the things you keep saying are unconcievable.

It reflected it requiring either changing how Rovagug's prison works or something to be more restrictive than Rovagug's prison, since Rovagug doesn't operate like that per Golarion canon. So it requires adding to the mythos of Golarion something more powerful than the most powerful binding any deity has ever created on another, or changing how said binding functions. That's a pretty big metaphysical change right there.

Yes, by changing the metaphysics you can make it work, but I was saying I couldn't think of a way to make it work logically without doing that. Indeed, I repeatedly said it worked fine if you changed the metaphysics sufficiently.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Jarring to you. Just as non-lawful Monks with ki have been jarring to other people who consider it a major shift in how the world works.

No major plot points in any APs or major character decisions in any novels have been based on how Ex-Monks work. I could, and did, name several off the top of my head that were predicated on how Ex-Clerics work. That's a very real objective distinction, not solely me having a different opinion from other people.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
"May well not even have" == "we haven't been told if they have or not." Which means stipulating that they have wouldn't be a change, just filling in a previously unfilled detail.

I'm actually pretty sure we have factually run into Clerics who've never met another Cleric of the same God. I'm just not quite 100% sure of that so I was being cautious.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
One, even if what Golarion is like is super-relevant to the rules, it is not the only thing relevant.

For PF2? It's the single most relevant thing, if we're talking about consistency.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Two, we're discussing optional rules for PF2. PF2 Unchained will not make the assumption of Golarion, because Paizo isn't stupid enough to alienate all those customers who like to play Pathfinder in non-Golarion settings, and saying "sorry, if it's not Golarion it's no longer Pathfinder so we're not supporting it" would do exactly that.

Are we? I was under the impression that several people were arguing for Archetypes and the like (ie: non-optional rules content) rather than optional rules in an Unchained book. References were made to how the PCs should be able to point where in the book they were specifically allowed to play such a character.

If we're talking strictly Unchained stuff (ie: explicitly optional rules used at GM discretion), I have no objection to, well, anything ever. That's how optional rules work.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Three, while we debated whether the core concept of Cleric included falling, you claimed

PF1 rules were not integrated with Golarion, so what you're claiming there is that no-fall clerics are clearly no longer Clerics whether in Golarion or not. Has your position changed?

Please read what I claimed more carefully. I said:

"They'd certainly provoke a 'this is no longer a Cleric' response pretty widely."

That is a statement of fact that many people would not feel that such a character was a Cleric on a thematic level. A statement that I disagreed with your contention that 'very few people' would have seen it as no longer a Cleric.

It was not in any way a statement of my own feelings. It does not even imply that such are my feelings (and, in fact, they are not...my feelings on the specific subject of a 'no fall' Cleric Archetype in PF1 are slightly more complicated than that).

Frankly, if you're going to get upset when other people 'put words in your mouth' you should take more care to avoid doing so to others.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Because now you say

which rather seems to imply that you think no-fall clerics outside Golarion are a perfectly sound, viable concept.

I do. That's not a change or an inconsistency. It's how I've always felt, and announced precisely this in this post, quite some time ago (and followed up on in my next post with the Eberron reference).

My first post in this discussion may have been slightly unclear on this because it was arguing specifically about PF2...which is explicitly and specifically based on Golarion, metaphysics-wise, but I've now made this explicitly and repeatedly clear many times.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Yes, it would. And it was easy for me to come up with. So when you previously said

Deadmanwalking wrote:
But I was questioning how it made sense in a world like Golarion for one God (or even sect) to do this when no others do. And I still can't think of a good reason.
it reflected not an actual metaphysical difficulty but merely a lack of imagination, or possibly of trying, on your part. Consider that others with more imagination may be able to conceive of many of the things you keep saying are unconcievable.
It reflected it requiring either changing how Rovagug's prison works or something to be more restrictive than Rovagug's prison, since Rovagug doesn't operate like that per Golarion canon. So it requires adding to the mythos of Golarion something more powerful than the most powerful binding any deity has ever created on another, or changing how said binding functions. That's a pretty big metaphysical change right there.

I.e. "Rovagug's clerics couldn't possibly ever operate like that because Rovagug's clerics haven't operated like that before and any change at all is a huge metaphysical change."

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yes, by changing the metaphysics you can make it work, but I was saying I couldn't think of a way to make it work logically without doing that. Indeed, I repeatedly said it worked fine if you changed the metaphysics sufficiently.

You also indicated that changing the metaphysics sufficiently to allow any no-fall clerics would make it a completely different game. Explain how the tweak to Rovagug's relationship with his clerics makes it a completely different game when it wouldn't even come up 98% of the time.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Two, we're discussing optional rules for PF2. PF2 Unchained will not make the assumption of Golarion, because Paizo isn't stupid enough to alienate all those customers who like to play Pathfinder in non-Golarion settings, and saying "sorry, if it's not Golarion it's no longer Pathfinder so we're not supporting it" would do exactly that.
Are we? I was under the impression that several people were arguing for Archetypes and the like (ie: non-optional rules content) rather than optional rules in an Unchained book. References were made to how the PCs should be able to point where in the book they were specifically allowed to play such a character.

Tectorman is arguing for that. I'm not and never was. Please don't ask me to defend positions taken by someone else. I haven't asked you to defend statements made by PossibleCabbage.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Three, while we debated whether the core concept of Cleric included falling, you claimed

PF1 rules were not integrated with Golarion, so what you're claiming there is that no-fall clerics are clearly no longer Clerics whether in Golarion or not. Has your position changed?

Please read what I claimed more carefully. I said:

"They'd certainly provoke a 'this is no longer a Cleric' response pretty widely."

That is a statement of fact that many people would not feel that such a character was a Cleric on a thematic level. A statement that I disagreed with your contention that 'very few people' would have seen it as no longer a Cleric.

It was not in any way a statement of my own feelings. It does not even imply that such are my feelings (and, in fact, they are not...my feelings on the specific subject of a 'no fall' Cleric Archetype in PF1 are slightly more complicated than that).

Frankly, if you're going to get upset when other people 'put words in your mouth' you should take more care to avoid doing so to others.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Because now you say

which rather seems to imply that you think no-fall clerics outside Golarion are a perfectly sound, viable concept.

I do. That's not a change or an inconsistency. It's how I've always felt, and announced precisely this in this post, quite some time ago (and followed up on in my next post with the Eberron reference).

Let's look at that post you just linked to.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

That is, if we put the real world into Pathfinder terms, we must represent Catholic priests as clerics who cannot fall. They can be stripped of their powers by the Church through an appropriate ritual, but that is the only way for them to lose their powers, and that is not "falling" in the Pathfinder sense.

Priests like this are explicitly not a thing that exists on Golarion. They are thus pretty much not a thing that should be reflected by the rules thereof. And the rules of PF2 are specifically being more integrated with those of Golarion, remember.

Frankly, in a world with real, active, Gods who regularly perform miracles, having priests who worked via a covenant like this is super weird and will usually make very little sense. You could create a world where it did, but it's about as different a world from Golarion, at least in terms of metaphysics, as a world without magic items. That's not bad, but it's such a fundamental sea change in the default assumptions of the world that we're no longer talking about the same game in many ways.

Here you explicitly claim that no-fall clerics can't be put in without distorting the world to the point that we're "in many ways" no longer even talking about Pathfinder! Gosh, how could I have read that to mean that a book of optional Pathfinder rules aimed at people who fully intend to play Pathfinder shouldn't include options that turn it into not-Pathfinder?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
And no, that doesn't make them oracles.
No, but it makes them not Clerics on a fairly fundamental level. Or so different from other Clerics they might as well not be.

A cleric who isn't in Golarion is still fundamentally a cleric. So if they're "not Clerics on a fairly fundamental level," they're not clerics anywhere, Golarion or not. Exactly the attitude I saw in your statement about how many folks would call no-fall clerics in PF1 not clerics. And to state that no-fall clerics just aren't clerics is incompatible with supporting an optional rule that says "You can have Clerics that don't fall!"

So if you don't want to be read as supporting some position, don't make statements that clearly support it during a discussion of whether it's true.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I.e. "Rovagug's clerics couldn't possibly ever operate like that because Rovagug's clerics haven't operated like that before and any change at all is a huge metaphysical change."

A change like this that fundamentally alters the primary means the most dangerous single being in the setting uses to effect the world? Yes, that's a huge metaphysical change.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
You also indicated that changing the metaphysics sufficiently to allow any no-fall clerics would make it a completely different game. Explain how the tweak to Rovagug's relationship with his clerics makes it a completely different game when it wouldn't even come up 98% of the time.

I think we are using different definitions of 'different game' here. Clarifying that my definition included the difference between the Forgotten Realms and Eberron (both settings used by several D&D editions) was one of the first things I did. You seem to be using a different one and then holding me to it despite me repeatedly clarifying what I meant by that phrasing.

Which makes this an extremely pointless semantic argument.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Tectorman is arguing for that. I'm not and never was. Please don't ask me to defend positions taken by someone else. I haven't asked you to defend statements made by PossibleCabbage.

Okay. I was simply stating my own opinion on the issues. I disagreed with yours in several important ways (primarily, about how integral having a deity was to Clerics), so I responded to you. Not every single word of every post I make is solely about you.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Let's look at that post you just linked to.

Here you explicitly claim that no-fall clerics can't be put in without distorting the world to the point that we're "in many ways" no longer even talking about Pathfinder! Gosh, how could I have read that to mean that a book of optional Pathfinder rules aimed at people who fully intend to play Pathfinder shouldn't include options that turn it into not-Pathfinder?

Again, this is not what I meant by 'an entirely different game'. As can be seen even in the post you quote. I specifically equated it to a 'no magic items' game. That's actually an easy hack for most editions of Pathfinder, and remains Pathfinder...but it's fundamentally not the same game by the definition I was using.

I just meant that it was divergent enough to no longer resemble the default game in rather important ways, to the point that they might well play entirely differently in many ways.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
A cleric who isn't in Golarion is still fundamentally a cleric. So if they're "not Clerics on a fairly fundamental level," they're not clerics anywhere, Golarion or not. Exactly the attitude I saw in your statement about how many folks would call no-fall clerics in PF1 not clerics. And to state that no-fall clerics just aren't clerics is incompatible with supporting an optional rule that says "You can have Clerics that don't fall!"

The bit you quote was referring specifically to Golarion, something I've already said I regret not making clearer. I also noted only a post or two later that I phrased it poorly and corrected my own phrasing.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
So if you don't want to be read as supporting some position, don't make statements that clearly support it during a discussion of whether it's true.

So, it's fine for you to cherry pick things I've said that I immediately stated I misphrased, and those that never said what you claim they did in the first place, but me thinking you meant something involving formal training when you said 'ordination ritual' after using the Catholic Church as your primary example for several posts is 'shoving things in your mouth' and 'pisses you off'?

You didn't mean to say formal training for an ordination was necessary. I believe that, because I have no reason not to. And so I admitted fault immediately for misinterpreting what you said. When a similar situation occurred with you misinterpreting what I said and I called you out on it, you immediately refused to admit any fault and cherry picked my previous posts in an attempt to justify having done so.

Arguing with people who use tactics like this is generally not productive, and as mentioned I'm pretty sure this has descended into a purely semantic argument anyway.

So I'm done here.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So I am genuinely unclear on what is gained by having clerics that need not follow any rules given:

-It is possible for a non-cleric to convincingly pass themselves off as a cleric (else Razmir's whole thing makes no sense).

-It is possible for a cleric to pass themselves off as a cleric of a different god (this happens several time in APs, like in Carrion Crown there's a "Church of Gozreh" that is, in fact dedicated to Dagon, and it's a DC35 religion check to spot this.)

So if you need to tell stories about evil priests who aren't immediately apparent as evil priests- you can just have them be false priests or have one a clandestine god-swap. If you want to have the BBEG be a "Pharasmin" priest who secretly serve the Reaper of Reputation, that's entirely permissible within the playtest rules.

Honestly, "they violated the anathema of their putative god and nothing happened" might be a fun way to pull the mask off of someone like this.

Like when it comes to NPCs, the GM can finagle things to work (easy fix- make your "subtle badguy priest" an angelic sorcerer with high deception). When it comes to PCs I find most instances of "you have to follow these rules" to be a positive, as long as they rules aren't vague or ambiguous. Anathema does a much better job making the rules clear than "gotta keep a specific alignment" and the like.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Having read through this, I considered putting more than my comment on justice does not equal Lawful comment, but I'm going to make a few sentiments and then just leave this alone. It seems like some people here are talking past people rather than to them.

First, it is irrelevant what the flavor text is in the core rules as a GM can say it works however they see fit.

And second, falling clerics seems to be locked into the game, but like all "falling" character types I only think those sort of stories should occur if the player and GM see eye-to-eye on the subject. If the player's actions lead to a fall and they are not into the story, make sure they can atone quickly—sad personal experience here as GM. :(

Final note: if anyone thought that a more flexible Champion thread would be less controversial than a LG Paladin thread, let this thread stand as testament to their mistake (optimistic as it may have been).


Another thought on Anathema-

So when we get prestige archetypes, there are certainly going to be ones with codes of conduct. For example, if are found to own slaves, they will kick you out of the Eagle Knights immediately and with prejudice. However, these sorts of things are enforced by people and not transdimensional beings, so what is the correct mechanism for this sort of thing?

It's probably going to be more of a "when they find out you are an anarchist, they throw you out of the Hellknights" thing where you can't take any more hellknight feats, but you don't forget what you learned, so Anathema might not be quite right.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Good point. I assume those will be worded more like the 3.5 monk class restriction: you keep your old stuff but can’t further advance. But I wonder how that will interact with dedication feats? If you need two more Eagle Knight feats before you can pick up another class, but can’t get anymore Eagle Knight feats, that might be a predicament.

I suppose you can retrain out of them. Maybe that would be part of it, that once you’re out of the No-Homers club you’re required to retrain our of your No-Homers class feats at the earliest opportunity.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
But if you find yourself facing a moral dilemma involving anathema, it matters whether the GM will immediately yell "Fall!" on behalf of your patron or whether they have to wait for your superiors to find out somehow, to get the details from you and maybe witnesses, hear your defense, and then judge you. And if they find you guilty but repentant they'll probably offer you atonement, because that's what that spell is for!

Atonement comes after falling.

Also I consider in my game that should a character technically fall for an act that their deity would approve, said deity restores all their powers after they fall. This can be instantaneous or delayed depending on the circumstances and the message the deity wishes to send.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Can you seriously stop arguing for how it should make sense in the game world of the defined Core and then protesting that you want it to be an optional rule?

You can't have both.

People have constantly said how it doesn't work in the world of the defined Core, because that's what the Core says. You keep arguing against that, pulling from things like the Catholic church (which has absolutely no bearing on Golarion, the world of the CRB).

Yet if this rule is added in, it's not the same world as the defined Core. This is an immutable fact, whether the rule is optional or not. It's like if there was an optional rule saying "gravity doesn't exist". If you added that in, it doesn't matter whether the rule is optional or not. It's not the same world. A Golarion that can have clerics of Abadar trying to destroy civilization is not the same Golarion, and it doesn't matter what excuses you make up to support that.

So if you don't want to be conflated with the person who wants it to be a mandatory rule, stop making the exact same arguments as them.


Cyouni wrote:

Can you seriously stop arguing for how it should make sense in the game world of the defined Core and then protesting that you want it to be an optional rule?

You can't have both.

People have constantly said how it doesn't work in the world of the defined Core, because that's what the Core says. You keep arguing against that, pulling from things like the Catholic church (which has absolutely no bearing on Golarion, the world of the CRB).

Yet if this rule is added in, it's not the same world as the defined Core. This is an immutable fact, whether the rule is optional or not. It's like if there was an optional rule saying "gravity doesn't exist". If you added that in, it doesn't matter whether the rule is optional or not. It's not the same world. A Golarion that can have clerics of Abadar trying to destroy civilization is not the same Golarion, and it doesn't matter what excuses you make up to support that.

So if you don't want to be conflated with the person who wants it to be a mandatory rule, stop making the exact same arguments as them.

If you're going to compare his view with mine, then let me clarify my view for you because you're misunderstanding it here.

The bolded is not my argument. A character with the abilities and class features of a Cleric (or even a Cleric of Abadar) is exactly and only that: a character who has those abilities. None of that necessitates that he be known in-universe as a Cleric (of Abadar or anyone else).

He has the ability to cast prepared spells off the Divine list. How does he have these abilities? Take your pick.

1) He stood too close to a falling meteorite that radiated magic of the Divine variety.

2) He has a magical ancestor in his family tree and, for whatever reason, despite his Sorcerer-sounding background, he casts prepared, not spontaneously.

3) Long ago in Iomedae's past while she was still mortal, she chipped a sword in [insert significant battle here], leaving a sliver of that blade behind; hundreds of years later, this dude pricked his finger and somehow got a backdoor into Cleric-seeming spellcasting.

4) Actually, if we're talking about Abadar, then that would include the First Vault, where Abadar has a perfect version of everything that exists, which would presumably include the perfect security breach. So this dude stumbled upon that breach and now can do what bears a remarkable resemblance, despite a different origin, to Cleric spellcasting.

5) PossibleCabbage mentioned other deities (specifically ones that don't give a damn and don't check up on the mortals they grant their power to) being responsible.

6) Insert any other explanation an imaginative and motivated person might come up with here.

Character with class features the same as a Cleric of Abadar destroying civilization =/= Cleric of Abadar destroying civilization. Class =/= Concept. If I misspoke or didn't clarify otherwise, I apologize for the confusion.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

On 1-4, those aren’t Clerics, they’re just characters that have Divine spellcasting. That’s the only thing they have in common.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So some deities should have loose anathemas (I could see the Lantern King's be "Do not disobey the Lantern King, do not follow the rules, do not take things so seriously"). Some should probably have really strict anathemas.

I don't think there should be a way to apply a "no anathema" option to whatever god you like.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I think if you're gonna argue for why clerics-without-gods should exist you need to be able to explain the Church of Razmir. If you don't need the patronage of a deity to be a cleric then he should have real clerics at his disposal. It kinda breaks down the whole narrative if you open the floodgates on that.

Dark Archive

Arachnofiend wrote:
I think if you're gonna argue for why clerics-without-gods should exist you need to be able to explain the Church of Razmir. If you don't need the patronage of a deity to be a cleric then he should have real clerics at his disposal. It kinda breaks down the whole narrative if you open the floodgates on that.

Oh that's easy.

Razmir *is holding them back.*

A 'Cleric of a concept' still believes in something, even if that something is an abstraction like Mercy or Justice or Feudalism or Tyranny or Free Market Capitalism. Because the 'priests' of the Church of Razmir believe in Razmir, who is just some dude half of them may have met in the flesh, their belief is tainted by his various contradictory and short-sighted acts and statements and proclamations. If they actually believed in one of the higher concepts that he claims, like Law, Luxury or Obedience, they might have a chance of making it as a cleric, but he's just a dude, and a pretty flawed specimen for anyone to 'believe' in that way.

I see Razmir as the Golarion equivalent of a 'useful idiot,' who has a powerful bully pulpit and a 'loud voice,' but is surrounded by people who are in it for themselves, and don't really care for any of his proposed views, only in that they, like remora following a shark, can feed on the scraps of his path of carnage. Some are content to keep their heads down and follow and justify their actions thusly, 'Well, Razmir's gonna do what Razmir's gonna do, I might as well tag along and profit from it.' Others are right there on the top step, whispering in his ear and pointing him in directions that suit their own personal agendas, 'Those darned elves/Drumites/whatever-race-or-faction-I hate, they are so disrespecting you, Razmir, maybe you should focus more in that direction?' Others are all-too-aware that they are riding the tiger, and don't know how to get off, 'If I don't oppress others in Razmir's name, I'll just get oppressed by others in his name. I've got to think of my own safety and that of my family!'

Bear in mind that the whole conception of Razmir is based around having limited access to divine magic and healing, *which is doesn't.* It's always had access to divine magic through adepts, rangers, etc. and healing through bards, and as of the APG, it gained access to healing and / or divine magic through alchemists, oracles and witches (and, later, anyone with infernal healing). Having no clerics is literally a drop in the bucket, and even less of an issue in later years, after skill unlocks and Healer's Hands and similar means buff up the Heal skill, or in a PF2 scenario where the Heal skill has some serious teeth right out of the box.

Razmir (or even Rahadoum), conceptually, has far bigger fish to fry, than whether or not someone can be a Cleric of Razmir (or a 'Cleric of the Laws of Man' for Rahadoum, which could totally be a thing in a setting with god-adjacent Clerics), because that's really not going to change much, at all, at this point, where a dozen options other than Cleric exist for anything a Cleric brings to the table.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

...Clerics aren't important to the church of Razmir for mechanical reasons. Razmir's bards, sorcerers, and rangers all pretend to be clerics because they're trying to exploit the cultural capital of being a god with a priesthood and the ability to accept petitioners.

The story you're proposing is interesting, but it's a completely different situation than the narrative the Living God is trying to tell. Razmir's priesthood pretends to be clerics because it serves as immediate proof of Razmir's godhood; Razmir has clerics, therefore Razmir must be a god. If you didn't need to serve a deity to be a cleric then the whole scheme falls apart as people just assume they're getting their powers from a belief in the tenets that he teaches as a mortal man.


The Raven Black wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
But if you find yourself facing a moral dilemma involving anathema, it matters whether the GM will immediately yell "Fall!" on behalf of your patron or whether they have to wait for your superiors to find out somehow, to get the details from you and maybe witnesses, hear your defense, and then judge you. And if they find you guilty but repentant they'll probably offer you atonement, because that's what that spell is for!
Atonement comes after falling.

It doesn't have to.

Paladin wrote:
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
The Raven Black wrote:
Also I consider in my game that should a character technically fall for an act that their deity would approve, said deity restores all their powers after they fall. This can be instantaneous or delayed depending on the circumstances and the message the deity wishes to send.

I'm glad you run things that way. It's too bad many GMs don't. Maybe the PF2 CRB will have text encouraging that.


Cyouni wrote:

Can you seriously stop arguing for how it should make sense in the game world of the defined Core and then protesting that you want it to be an optional rule?

You can't have both.

I most certainly can. I believe it should be present as an optional rule. I happen to also believe it could (but shouldn't in Core) be put to work in Golarion. No contradiction.

Cyouni wrote:
People have constantly said how it doesn't work in the world of the defined Core, because that's what the Core says. You keep arguing against that, pulling from things like the Catholic church (which has absolutely no bearing on Golarion, the world of the CRB).

Here's what I actually said.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
That is, if we put the real world into Pathfinder terms, we must represent Catholic priests as clerics who cannot fall.

Pathfinder terms. Not Golarion terms. Until Pathfinder explicitly de-supports the idea of home non-Golarion Pathfinder games and tells half its customer base to bugger off, the two are not synonymous, no matter that the rules pull in some Golarion material.

Cyoni wrote:
Yet if this rule is added in, it's not the same world as the defined Core. This is an immutable fact, whether the rule is optional or not. It's like if there was an optional rule saying "gravity doesn't exist". If you added that in, it doesn't matter whether the rule is optional or not. It's not the same world. A Golarion that can have clerics of Abadar trying to destroy civilization is not the same Golarion, and it doesn't matter what excuses you make up to support that.

Well gosh, a world with alignments removed isn't the same as canonical Golarion either, yet I'm sure some people used those rules in 99%-Golarion home games and had them work fine. You seem to think that something is either canonical Golarion or totally unrelated to Golarion, no middle ground. That's as bogus as saying that anyone who plays Pathfinder with a single house rule isn't actually playing Pathfinder. Non-canonical Golarion makes a great basis for a home game, and I'm confident Paizo likes it that way.

And you do know that "optional rule" means "the GM chooses to use it or not in their campaign," right? A GM who chooses to turn off all the optional rules will be running in canonical Golarion. The fact that some things they're not using exist as optional rules is irrelevant. So it certainly does matter whether a rule is optional or not.

Cyouni wrote:
So if you don't want to be conflated with the person who wants it to be a mandatory rule, stop making the exact same arguments as them.

Tectorman went over things after you said this, so I won't bother to. But I will say you need to pay more attention.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I think if you're gonna argue for why clerics-without-gods should exist you need to be able to explain the Church of Razmir. If you don't need the patronage of a deity to be a cleric then he should have real clerics at his disposal. It kinda breaks down the whole narrative if you open the floodgates on that.

From which side?

From the side of the module writers or the GM, it's as simple as not having any NPC adherents of the Church of Razmir have levels in Cleric. They're all Rangers or Bards or Divine Clerics. They don't know that Cleric-as-a-set-of-class-features is an option they could technically pursue if not for the GM/module writer of whom they are unaware, they just know that they don't do Cleric-seeming spellcasting.

Just like if I use the Fighter class to represent a bunch of Aldori Swordlords. Are they proficient in more than just swords? Yes. Do they exercise this proficiency? No. Because I, the GM or module writer, am deciding to have them forgo those proficiencies for the sake of the story element they represent, despite the mechanics allowing for otherwise? Yes. And can they tell the difference? No.

And on the PC side, any PC "Cleric of Razmir" would be someone with the class features of the Cleric class, thinking that said class features are coming from Razmir, when in fact, they're coming from somewhere else.

Which is something that already canonically exists. In the second Pathfinder Tales novel with the alchemist and his thief buddy, the two of them are traveling through the River Kingdoms on their way to Numeria at one point. One of their fellow travelers is a crazy man capable of Cleric spellcasting, and the crazy man believes that his power comes from an entity that literally crapped reality into existence (no, I'm really not kidding, that's in the novel), with the anus-like Worldwound (it was still around at the time) being the direct manifestation of this entity's will. The alchemist and those few of his fellow travelers who care enough to speculate come to the agreement that the crazy man is definitely casting spells and getting the power to do so from somewhere, but certainly not from the source the crazy man thinks.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
From the side of the module writers or the GM, it's as simple as not having any NPC adherents of the Church of Razmir have levels in Cleric. They're all Rangers or Bards or Divine Clerics. They don't know that Cleric-as-a-set-of-class-features is an option they could technically pursue if not for the GM/module writer of whom they are unaware, they just know that they don't do Cleric-seeming spellcasting.
This makes absolutely no sense. The whole point of deityless Clerics/of Ideas is that they give themselves superpowers through their beliefs. Razmir and his cult presents himself as a god. With clap your hands if you believe in full effect his followers would get powers from it. You can’t arbitrarily decide “okay having faith in this this and this idea gives you powers but not this or that”.
Quote:
Which is something that already canonically exists.

It doesn’t. That man is never explicitly stated in the meta to be a Cleric, so most likely he is an Oracle.

Edit: Or a Channeler of the Void.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Can you seriously stop arguing for how it should make sense in the game world of the defined Core and then protesting that you want it to be an optional rule?

You can't have both.

People have constantly said how it doesn't work in the world of the defined Core, because that's what the Core says. You keep arguing against that, pulling from things like the Catholic church (which has absolutely no bearing on Golarion, the world of the CRB).

Yet if this rule is added in, it's not the same world as the defined Core. This is an immutable fact, whether the rule is optional or not. It's like if there was an optional rule saying "gravity doesn't exist". If you added that in, it doesn't matter whether the rule is optional or not. It's not the same world. A Golarion that can have clerics of Abadar trying to destroy civilization is not the same Golarion, and it doesn't matter what excuses you make up to support that.

So if you don't want to be conflated with the person who wants it to be a mandatory rule, stop making the exact same arguments as them.

If you're going to compare his view with mine, then let me clarify my view for you because you're misunderstanding it here.

The bolded is not my argument. A character with the abilities and class features of a Cleric (or even a Cleric of Abadar) is exactly and only that: a character who has those abilities. None of that necessitates that he be known in-universe as a Cleric (of Abadar or anyone else).

He has the ability to cast prepared spells off the Divine list. How does he have these abilities? Take your pick.

1) He stood too close to a falling meteorite that radiated magic of the Divine variety.

2) He has a magical ancestor in his family tree and, for whatever reason, despite his Sorcerer-sounding background, he casts prepared, not spontaneously.

3) Long ago in Iomedae's past while she was still mortal, she chipped a sword in [insert significant battle here], leaving a sliver of that blade...

My problem with those, as someone else noted, is really just that none of those concepts are Clerics.

CRB wrote:
Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods. Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith. Yet while they might share similar abilities, clerics prove as different from one another as the divinities they serve, with some offering healing and redemption, others judging law and truth, and still others spreading conflict and corruption.
Playtest wrote:

Deities work their will upon the world in infinite ways, and you serve

as one of their most stalwart mortal servants. Blessed with divine magic
granted through the grace of your deity, you live the ideals of your faith,
adorn yourself with the symbols of your church, and train diligently to
wield the weapon favored by your deity. Your spells might protect and
heal your allies, or they might punish foes and lay waste to enemies of
your faith, as your deity wills. Yours is a life of devotion, spreading the
teachings of your faith through both thought and deed.

I really think what you want would be better handled by Sorcerer or Oracle variants. The whole concept of the cleric is tied to their faith and deity, and taking that away removes the whole point of the class. It'd be like taking the ability to do alchemy away from the alchemist.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So here's the thing I think we are orbiting around. If, at your own table, you wanted to make the real power behind the throne in Cheliax "lizard people from space" and you want to make Pharasma the ultimate big bad of the setting, you can do that. But Paizo is never going to support this sort of thing in an official publication, nor do they need to tell you that you *could* do this except in vague terms about "change things to work how you like".

So when it comes to actual mechanics, well rule 0 is isomorphic to "all rules are optional rules." I figure "no cleric ever falls no matter what" is every bit as valid as "reptoids secretly rule Cheliax" (and vice versa!). But since "ignore anathema" is not really a new rule so much as "ignore an existing rule" it doesn't need to be an "optional rule" since "ignore or don't enforce rules you don't care for" is basically rule 0.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I feel that at least in PF2 removing anathemas has far greater consequences for the consistency of the setting than removing alignment.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Tectorman, I think you might not realize how rules-savvy one must be to see beyond the concepts presented for easy consumption by the game to the packages behind and how they can be retooled.

This is why what you ask for cannot be in the CRB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So, in the interests of turning back to Champions, I’ve brought up that I thought Hellknights could use a fair amount of the Champion chassis. Are there any other organizations/knightly orders that might work, perhaps even work better than Hellknights (which would require a more flexible alignment requirement than the playtest Champions has)?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
So, in the interests of turning back to Champions, I’ve brought up that I thought Hellknights could use a fair amount of the Champion chassis. Are there any other organizations that might work, perhaps even work better than Hellknights (which would require a more flexible alignment requirement than the playtest Champions has)?

Unless they make the Hellknghts a any-Lawful Champion setting I'd rather they follow the archetype approach they're currently running.

As for other groups? Hmm, none immediately come to mind. Maybe a Red Mantis Assassin for LE?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
So, in the interests of turning back to Champions, I’ve brought up that I thought Hellknights could use a fair amount of the Champion chassis. Are there any other organizations that might work, perhaps even work better than Hellknights (which would require a more flexible alignment requirement than the playtest Champions has)?

Unless they make the Hellknghts a any-Lawful Champion setting I'd rather they follow the archetype approach they're currently running.

Absolutely agreed, that’s what I meant by more flexible alignment restriction. I think the Champion class has room for both tight alignment restrictions, like the paladin oath likely will be LG-only, and ones that allow 2 or 3 alignments. Even if they go with a prestige class for hell knights, an “any evil” antipaladin might have made sense in Lost Omens.

351 to 400 of 436 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Chewing on Champions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.