Could you explain to me the appeal of playing a cleric?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 142 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
*shrugs* Is everything meaningless because everything ends?

There is no Meaning, but there can be meaning.

There's a related quote, from a discussion between Death and his grand-daughter in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather which I also find highly inspiring:

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET — Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Following along with these conversations, I like Clerics because you can fiddle with philosophies and engage in the world in a lot of interesting ways. The roleplay potential is great, but you need a player and a DM who are both on board, I think. It gets better the more people at the table know the setting.

I had an elf Cleric of Irori in one group, who was focused on being both the party healer, buffer, and the Recall Knowledge bot. They'd gently rib the Paladin of Irori about Starstone stuff, and contrary to what the party thought they'd do they only gave advice when asked, because everyone has their own path. They flavored their magic as being somewhat abstract and geometric, tinged with blue instead of the usual pure white light, and found as many ways to optimize the party as they could. They also would do small things that really brought out their character, like offering correct burial rites for people whose religions they could identify with Recall Knowledge, or making sure to catalogue interesting new finds or preserve knowledge where they could.

As a DM I also give the characters with codes of conduct or representatives of deities a bit more clout in the world if they act the part and they're in an area that respects their devotion. A fighter coming in front of the town council saying they'll help the town is one thing, but a Champion or Cleric might get a much more impassioned response if they roleplay it well. People might trust them more, or share their worship, etc.

I think it's fun to have something that can engage so fully in the world, but if you aren't into those smaller things it can be a bit mechanical.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

We've had a lot of discussion in this thread around the ideals and philosophies of playing a Cleric. All of which are important, and part of why I often gravitate to playing Clerics myself. That said, I'm going to set that aside and put on my powergamer hat.

Mechanically speaking, Clerics can be powerhouses.

Divine Font providing a pool of fully-leveled heal spells is an absurd feature. (Note that due to the wording of Miraculous Spell, Divine Font does go all the way to 10th level.) Heal is one of the most flexible and powerful spells in the system, and you can have an extra half-dozen of them.

The array of domains enables Clerics to do almost anything they want to lean into, with a vast selection of utility, defensive and offensive options that can be relied on in every fight.

Cloistered Clerics, with their array of specific "f!+& you" spells for certain enemies (especially undead, fiends, and anything opposed to your alignment) are almost as much the Batman of casters that Wizards are. Given foresight and preparation, Clerics have a lot of silver bullets they can deploy.

Warpriests, while difficult to build and play well, can be potent all-rounders capable of meeting the needs of the party in a variety of situations. They can bring the pain, hold ground, and support as the situation demands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:


Its part of why I argue that nihilism is actually pretty comforting thought, lack of intrinsic values is just nature of reality while on other hand its hard to argue that life has meaning if you see death as the end and you don't believe in legacy :p

Groetus awaits...


On the topic of afterlives, there are definitely worse ones out there than Pathfinder's. Take Kigal from the ancient Mesopotamian faiths. There is no judgement, there is no division. Every person goes to the same place and pantomimes living while consuming only dust.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Where are you from? It isn't only Westerners that make death scary. Some of the scariest ghost horror I've ever seen is from Asian culture. They make ghosts and dying into some frightening stories. I doubt it is just a Western trope.

Now if you were from Middle Eastern culture, I could see the difference. Middle Eastern folk don't seem to worry too much about death. But the jinn or ifrit are like ghosts. I've seen some scary stories involving the jin.

South Korean, and yes, the local traditional views on the afterlife were creepy, usually an amalgamated version of Taoist celestial hierarchy and Hinduism/Buddhism derived bureaucratical & punishing underworld (more traditional and ancient versions are only treated as snippets of myths due to much loss of records).

What's different is that in D&D terms the afterlife places were treated more as Lawful and/or Good, as their decisions on your afterlife was usually accepted as just (at least compared to mortal jurisdictions) and in tune with the cosmic order, thus disrupting it would be like a felony against said order. So accusing death related deities as Evil (however terrifying it is to face them in judgment) would be a total sacrilege.

By the way, personally I think the bolded part is why modern Koreans still treat death gods with good willed respect, due to the centuries long tradition of mistrust in jurisdiction authorities, but that's another story.


For what it's worth, I'm an agnostic with regard to most religious traditions and an atheist with regard to the one I was raised in, in RL; and one of the things I really like about the River of Souls and general afterlife layout in Pathfinder lore is it feeling to me like what underlies it is more like physics than like fairness or being nice to people; in RL fairness and being nice to people are concepts that exist inside people's heads, and manifest beyond that in so far as people act to make them do so, to my mind, and therefore I would be much less drawn to a fictitious universe that was fundamentally just because I'd find it notably less credible. (Also harder to tell interesting stories somewhere you can be sure things will come out all right in the end, that does mitigate the potential consequences of player decisions rather a lot.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:


It is indeed much better to make your own meaning for things than trying to find meaning in reality, especially when it really seems cruel and depressing.

(sorry, I'm mostly talking to myself here because depressing s+%* is happening in my life and this topic is actually really meditative to me :p )

My sympathies. This line of thought reminds me of an insight I really liked, from Ken MacLeod's story "A Tulip for Lucretius"; that if one is brought up with a concept of deity that is extremely focused on considering everyone as flawed and watching everyone closely for infractions to punish (which is true of the (different) branches of Christianity both Ken and I were brought up in) Lovecraft's cosmology can seem wonderfully appealing and relaxed, because the intellects vast and arbitrary and incomprehensible don't care about that sort of thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To try to redirect the thread off the tangent that was born from my depressive episode a week ago: Okay, thanks everyone. I think this is ultimately something I'm not gonna get, but some of the clarifications were pretty nice to know, and I guess clerics don't have to be as... Servant ish as I thought.

The idea that them getting power from faith is the same as wizards getting power from study still doesn't sit right with me, though. Kind of like, if anyone's seen the slayers anime, there's a scene where Lina inverse comments that she's the only one who makes herself strong, and I'm like "all your spells come from dark gods though." It's like, how can you claim that YOU'RE powerful when it's actually someone else's power and you're just channeling it and focusing it.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, look at Death's Heretic for how you can gain power without worship. Also, it's a really good book.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
The idea that them getting power from faith is the same as wizards getting power from study still doesn't sit right with me, though. Kind of like, if anyone's seen the slayers anime, there's a scene where Lina inverse comments that she's the only one who makes herself strong, and I'm like "all your spells come from dark gods though." It's like, how can you claim that YOU'RE powerful when it's actually someone else's power and you're just channeling it and focusing it.

Channeling the power of a God isn't something just anyone can do. Not even just anyone who's devout. It clearly requires a deity's notice and some special quality about you that allows your faith to grant real power, a depth of belief and devotion that goes quite a bit beyond the norm being the most obvious possibility (though not the only one).

It's not a lot like the Wizard's meticulous study, and I'm sure some Wizards look down on Clerics for that very reason, but it's certainly more effort than a Sorcerer needs to put in to get powerful, given that they're just born with theirs.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
The idea that them getting power from faith is the same as wizards getting power from study still doesn't sit right with me, though. Kind of like, if anyone's seen the slayers anime, there's a scene where Lina inverse comments that she's the only one who makes herself strong, and I'm like "all your spells come from dark gods though." It's like, how can you claim that YOU'RE powerful when it's actually someone else's power and you're just channeling it and focusing it.

Channeling the power of a God isn't something just anyone can do. Not even just anyone who's devout. It clearly requires a deity's notice and some special quality about you that allows your faith to grant real power, a depth of belief and devotion that goes quite a bit beyond the norm being the most obvious possibility (though not the only one).

It's not a lot like the Wizard's meticulous study, and I'm sure some Wizards look down on Clerics for that very reason, but it's certainly more effort than a Sorcerer needs to put in to get powerful, given that they're just born with theirs.

look at those isekai protagonists who are granted level 9999 by a god and go around wrecking everyone in the world sure they are powerful but would you say that they own that power? in reality you are basically fighting the god via proxy not the isekai dude

mechanics aside i think people are being too metagamey and ignoring what it would actually feel to be a cleric

aroden aside there are multiple gods and demigods that died like some who died when the starstone hit golarion others that changed alignment such as arazni, nocticula and most of the night queens or a priest of the monad before is became lawfull

so no a god becoming unavailable is not as unusual as people make it to be

how do you think a chaotic neutral cleric of the monad felt when it changed to lawful? or a chaotic evil cleric of nocticula? you get what i mean having anyone have the power to throw all your did into the garbage bin is something i personally would never do

and for the record that could happen mid session if you convert to 2e so no its not impossible

so the reason we say the power is not yours is because the choice is not your, no matter how much you twist it the gods are still individuals with their own will and like you said your efforts do not guarantee in any way your god will accept you or that your opinion will be respected

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Once you're a Cleric you're a Cleric, though. You have that inherent potential to channel a God's power, and nothing takes that away or prevents you from converting to another faith. In a setting with hundreds of Gods, if your God dies nothing at all prevents you from getting a new one.

Now, some NPCs are far too set in their ways to do this, but it's clearly possible in-setting. Heck, a lot of Aroden's clergy very specifically 'converted' to the worship of Iomedae when he died. It's why she's called the Inheritor.

So yes, theoretically, you can lose your God (though this is far more likely due to your own alignment changes or violating anathema than it is due to your God dying or changing)...but there's a really obvious and built in solution to that.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Once you're a Cleric you're a Cleric, though. You have that inherent potential to channel a God's power, and nothing takes that away or prevents you from converting to another faith. In a setting with hundreds of Gods, if your God dies nothing at all prevents you from getting a new one.

Now, some NPCs are far too set in their ways to do this, but it's clearly possible in-setting. Heck, a lot of Aroden's clergy very specifically 'converted' to the worship of Iomedae when he died. It's why she's called the Inheritor.

So yes, theoretically, you can lose your God (though this is far more likely due to your own alignment changes or violating anathema than it is due to your God dying or changing)...but there's a really obvious and built in solution to that.

i'm not saying being a cleric isn't practical i'm saying the power belongs to the god you are looking at it to much from a mechanic perspective and ignoring the lore aspect

its like saying that a hydroelectric power plant has a power of its own because you can just redirect another water source to use it

yes the power plant is there and it its worth a lot but in the end power still comes form the water not from the plant

hence a hydroelectric power plant has no inherent power of its own just like a flashlight has no power without batteries

in comparison to that the wizard is like a permanent magnet its power is a property inherent to it and its

to make it more simple a god is like a giant star a cleric is like a moon and the wizard is like venus, yes the moon can shine but it would be simply wrong to say its has luminescence of it own


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:

mechanics aside i think people are being too metagamey and ignoring what it would actually feel to be a cleric

<Snip>

so the reason we say the power is not yours is because the choice is not your, no matter how much you twist it the gods are still individuals with their own will and like you said your efforts do not guarantee in any way your god will accept you or that your opinion will be respected

You are starting from a baseline that the ideal is to have power, and for that power to be yours and yours alone. Which is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but any character that thought that way wouldn't become a cleric in the first place.

Being a cleric means surrendering part of your autonomy for a relationship with your deity, just as any relationship with other people involves compromises, but what you get out of it can make you much richer as a person. Not all relationships are equal, not all are neccesarily healthy, just as not all gods are the same in the way they interact with their worshippers, BUT the relationships that you make and the gods that you follow reflect the person you are and what you need.

You've said above that your god may not accept or respect you, but if you were someone who wanted to be accepted and respected by a deity, would you worship one who despised you? Wouldn't you find yourself gravitating towards a patron whose ethics and outlook matched your own?

Or, as my warpriest Tillie would put it: Sarenrae loves me. Nothing else matters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:


i'm not saying being a cleric isn't practical i'm saying the power belongs to the god you are looking at it to much from a mechanic perspective and ignoring the lore aspect

If the argument is that we should prefer to be wizards, because wizards have power that isn't subject to the will of another sentient being, should we not be arguing that we would prefer to be a deity? Would't we want more power?

I don't think this is a useful way to look at lore though. Lore tells us that there are clerics on Golarion. Further, the existence of clerics seems reasonable. In the real world, people become professional representatives of deities that are far less demonstrably real, and for whom the professions provides far fewer and less potent real world benefits.

So given that clerics exist in a sensible way in that universe, the idea that some people would prefer magic to be sources from the unknown instead of from a deity is not really relevant. To me, there are two interesting questions.

1) How would someone end up being a cleric on Golarion?
2) Is this a compelling personality to explore?

I am not interested in projecting myself in any great measure onto that person. It is hard enough to imagine what I would be like if I had been born to a different family here and now. It is much harder to imagine what I would be like if I had been born in a different culture or time. I've no idea what I would be like had I been born in a different universe with different rules of reality.

But I AM interested in getting inside the head of a fictional character. If that character is looking for as much magical power as they can get, without any ties to any gods, then sure, s/he might seek out arcane texts.

But what about a person who doesn't see their job as solely a path to power? What if they are primarily guided by a certain set of principles, and find that some god or another shares those views? What if they are seriously concerned with healing the sick and wounded? What if they have deep family and personal ties to a certain religious community?

The more I get into a character's backstory and personality, the less they are like me. Because people are a product nature and nurture, and my characters don't have my genes or background. As a player, it is simply more fun for me to tell the story of a fictional character than to project myself into a fictional world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:

mechanics aside i think people are being too metagamey and ignoring what it would actually feel to be a cleric

aroden aside there are multiple gods and demigods that died like some who died when the starstone hit golarion others that changed alignment such as arazni, nocticula and most of the night queens or a priest of the monad before is became lawfull

so no a god becoming unavailable is not as unusual as people make it to be

how do you think a chaotic neutral cleric of the monad felt when it changed to lawful? or a chaotic evil cleric of nocticula? you get what i mean having anyone have the power to throw all your did into the garbage bin is something i personally would never do

and for the record that could happen mid session if you convert to 2e so no its not impossible

The edition change was not an in-universe effect. The "one step" rule was always mainly for PCs, as in-setting, deities overwhelmingly have followers whose alignment… aligns. The Monad was "always" lawful, had very few worshipers, and CN Monad worshipers didn't make sense even before the change. Yes, Nocticula changed. Her clerics did have a heads-up from her granting spells to a splinter cult praying for her reform.

As for The Queens of Night:
Ardad Lili switched teams before Asmodeus conquered Hell.
Doloras switched "aeons ago".
Eiseth was "long ago".
Mahathallah doesn't specify.

… And, that's a lot of demigods. Demigods are less constrained than gods, and they are actually in the realm of things that could be statted up in PF1. I do think that worshipping demigods is a mildly riskier proposition.

Now, you did mention the two gods that died when the starstone fell. I don't think that it's super-relevant that their clerics lost their powers, because the entire continent had a meteor dropped on it. The non-divine casters also all lost their casting too, via "loss of hitpoints"

I think it is as rare as people are saying it is.

ArchSage20 wrote:
so the reason we say the power is not yours is because the choice is not your, no matter how much you twist it the gods are still individuals with their own will and like you said your efforts do not guarantee in any way your god will accept you or that your opinion will be respected

That's certainly true! But I feel like that ignores the in-setting difficulty in becoming a wizard. Consider the Acadamae. You sign up for ten years (tuition is unspecified), and the first three are just doing grunt work for faculty and older students. Those first three years alone have a 20% fatality rate. If you get through that, it's another seven years of study. At the end, the pre-graduation examinations are also often fatal, with no statistics given. Sure, if you're brilliant, have the capacity for arcane magic, and your family has the resources to get you an excellent education (preferably at a safer school), becoming a wizard makes a lot of sense. People talk about sorcerers having their magical power just handed to them, but wizards usually aren't levitating themselves by their bootstraps either.

It also ignores that you do know the opinions of the gods, broadly speaking. If you're a very legal-minded person with an interest in economics, Abadar is a pretty good choice of a god to worship. If you are passionate about art and are a kind soul who believes strongly in the value of life, why not worship Shelyn? If you believe in accomplishing things yourself and not being dependent on some higher authority… yeah, that doesn't exactly lend itself to worshipping a god, but Irori wants any followers of his to work on developing themselves personally as well.


Also, as far as "deities somebody would want to worship go", I feel that Calistria really stands out. She's the goddess of revenge. Even if somebody doesn't care about the rest of her portfolio, a goddess who wants to help you enact vengeance and overcome the barriers in the way of that could hold a lot of appeal.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:
i'm not saying being a cleric isn't practical i'm saying the power belongs to the god you are looking at it to much from a mechanic perspective and ignoring the lore aspect

I'm really not. Clerics switching deities happens all the time in the lore. I already mentioned what happened when Aroden died, but there are many other examples.

ArchSage20 wrote:

its like saying that a hydroelectric power plant has a power of its own because you can just redirect another water source to use it

yes the power plant is there and it its worth a lot but in the end power still comes form the water not from the plant

hence a hydroelectric power plant has no inherent power of its own just like a flashlight has no power without batteries

in comparison to that the wizard is like a permanent magnet its power is a property inherent to it and its

to make it more simple a god is like a giant star a cleric is like a moon and the wizard is like venus, yes the moon can shine but it would be simply wrong to say its has luminescence of it own

This is rather like saying that an incredibly persuasive cult leader with little personal combat skill has no power because it's really the fanatically devoted assassins who work for him who have the power, since they could turn on him at any time if they chose, despite the fact that they never would. It's technically true but couldn't matter less in practice.

Power is the ability to accomplish things in the world. No more, and no less. It very seldom matters in practice whether that comes from direct personal skill, or having connections to others, it's what it can accomplish that matters.

Sure, the Cleric, like the cult leader, has an 'external' power source in a sense, but also like the cult leader that external source is based on their own abilities. In the cult leader's case, they're extraordinarily persuasive...even if they lost their cult, they could likely found another one. That's power. Likewise, a Cleric can channel the power of a God in a way very few people can, and if they lose their God, or their God's favor, they can almost certainly go find a new one. That, likewise, is power.

Both are the power to get others to lend you their strength. And if you don't understand why that's power, I don't think you understand what power is at all.

A Cleric who loses their God loses no levels, and can return to their full power within a day of finding a new God, much as a Wizard can after losing their spellbook. They have the power to simply find a new one.

QuidEst wrote:
Also, as far as "deities somebody would want to worship go", I feel that Calistria really stands out. She's the goddess of revenge. Even if somebody doesn't care about the rest of her portfolio, a goddess who wants to help you enact vengeance and overcome the barriers in the way of that could hold a lot of appeal.

I've always wanted to basically play Inigo Montoya as a follower of Calistria (probably Inquisitor in PF1, Champion in PF2). Someone who has just warped their entire life around a quest for vengeance and receives power directly from said quest with little relation to the rest of the deity's portfolio in any direct way.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Power is the ability to accomplish things in the world. No more, and no less. It very seldom matters in practice whether that comes from direct personal skill, or having connections to others, it's what it can accomplish that matters.

do you think that is trump started speaking about how he loves socialism and we should all embrace the left people would follow him?

do you think that if the pope said yo god was wrong let embrace Satan's will and sacrifice people on inverted pentagrams that he wouldn't get kicked out of the Vatican?

do you think that if any king told his subjects all to commit suicide they would follow?

the answer is no and the reason for that is the true nature of power

the reason rulers often act in ways that common folk would think its stupid is because they don't see the big picture form the top and they think this power is unfettered

reality is though is that there is a difference between power that comes from outside from others and power that comes from oneself

that difference is that external power is circumstantial for instance you can be the richest person in the universe if you are left in a island with a tiger you are dead similarly if a cult leader gets teleport ed away from his assassins he is just a powerless old man

that is why countries are so obsessed with military that is why they care far more about the opinion of rich people over poor one's because they know that when push comes to shove one call of the military and all the common people will drop like flies and immediately back away because there is zero chance they can survie without the economy specially when everything comes form somewhere else and the whole world has become dependent on economy

people are often taught that life is random and uncontrollable that events are up to luck or fate or some abstract force but reality most things that happens can be predicted and avoided its simply that people chose not to because they are arrogant and the price of this arrogance is high

individual power can ways be trusted and relied upon external power is a tricking bomb strapped to your chest waiting to explode in the moment you least expect

that is why concepts like keys to power exist (check a youtube video called "the rules for rulers") and you will realize what i mean

a individual who does't rely on other controls great power and individual who relies on others is controlled by great power

if you argue that a cleric has power then e he is like a pistol he can find a new owner to shoot but he can never shoot of his own will lest his owner toss him away


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Boy, theres a lot of pseudo intellectualism, media quoting and general drivel in this thread.

I like playing a character that chooses to worship something that appeals to them, and be paragons of an ideal. Theres no slavery or subservience in that worship. If Shelyn were to compromise the own ideals she stood for, I could simply choose to worship a different god, or perhaps a religion based on those ideals themselves.

If my clerics powers were only from Shelyn and not my own, then I would be completely unable to choose who I worship, how I do it, etc. Clearly my power is coming from my attachment to the bonds that the today represents rather than the actual god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Archsage, I don't agree with your assessment of power personally.

I believe that "the power might hypothetically go away" to not be very meaningful in the interim. Even if it's borrowed, or could be withdrawn, or has certain limitations, you can still use it to accomplish goals in the meantime.

Moreover, it's not like wizards can't lose their powers if they seriously tick off Nehthys.
"Major Curse: Nethys severs your connection to magic. You lose all your spellcasting abilities and cannot gain any future spellcasting."
That'd be for a much more serious offense than it would take for Nethys to stop granting a cleric power, but they're both things he's unlikely to do without cause.

That said, while I don't personally agree with your assessment, it certainly sounds like a good way to write characters. Bards and wizards especially, but you could write an oracle as having worked out how to seize divine power for themselves directly. And, of course, Rahadoum is on board with the general idea that people shouldn't bend themselves to the whims of the gods.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
ArchSage20 wrote:
reality is though is that there is a difference between power that comes from outside from others and power that comes from oneself

Of course there is. But in practice, the difference is often irrelevant and immaterial.

ArchSage20 wrote:
that difference is that external power is circumstantial for instance you can be the richest person in the universe if you are left in a island with a tiger you are dead similarly if a cult leader gets teleport ed away from his assassins he is just a powerless old man

You think personal power can't likewise be rendered irrelevant? I assure you that it can.

No amount of personal prowess can inherently and on its own grant you the money to take care of a sick family member. You can sell that prowess, but as soon as you're selling your services, you're not achieving it with personal power any more, you're relying on external power (ie: someone being willing to hire you, and your willingness to obey their orders) every bit as much as the rich guy with his assassins.

And that assumes you don't just take away that personal power. Two broken legs and suddenly the best swordsman in the world is pretty helpless against someone even halfway competent. And breaking his legs is probably easier as kidnapping the cult leader and dumping him on an island is.

ArchSage20 wrote:
that is why countries are so obsessed with military that is why they care far more about the opinion of rich people over poor one's because they know that when push comes to shove one call of the military and all the common people will drop like flies and immediately back away because there is zero chance they can survie without the economy specially when everything comes form somewhere else and the whole world has become dependent on economy

Armies are every bit as much external power as money is. And they're only relevant if you can get them to obey you which is, once again, external power.

And yes, everyone is dependent on the economy, which is to say society in general, to function. That's true for every society more complicated than being a hunter gatherer, and even as a hunter gatherer if you ever got severely injured once you were dependent on other people to survive...which is to say, a form of external power (ie: how much those people liked and valued you) was all that stood between you and death.

Dependence on other people is fundamental to the human condition. We are tribal creatures, not solitary ones, and are not capable of complete self sufficiency over the long term.

ArchSage20 wrote:
people are often taught that life is random and uncontrollable that events are up to luck or fate or some abstract force but reality most things that happens can be predicted and avoided its simply that people chose not to because they are arrogant and the price of this arrogance is high

Some things in life can be controlled, but many cannot. You cannot will yourself to not get cancer, nor to never get mugged. You can work your best to avoid both and lower your odds...but you can't remove the possibility.

ArchSage20 wrote:
individual power can ways be trusted and relied upon external power is a tricking bomb strapped to your chest waiting to explode in the moment you least expect

This is completely false. External power in some measure is inevitable if you interact with other people in any positive way, and the idea that you should avoid it is sheer folly. You might as well say you should never talk to another person because you might come to care about them or rely on them. That's just impractical and crazy.

Internal power, which is to say skill and knowledge, is certainly valuable and harder to take away than external power (but not impossible as I note above, a pro athlete can still become paraplegic), but in many cases it is only useful inasmuch as it can be used to create external power. I mean...if you're the fastest runner alive but you refuse to tell people that or leverage it into a way to make money or acquire allies or anything else the usefulness of that ability is sharply limited.

That's less true in a game like Pathfinder where there are so much greater heights of internal power to reach, but even there you can still lose it and its uses are sharply limited without the necessary external power to support it.

ArchSage20 wrote:

that is why concepts like keys to power exist (check a youtube video called "the rules for rulers") and you will realize what i mean

a individual who does't rely on other controls great power and individual who relies on others is controlled by great power

Not relying on others is a good thing in the sense that nothing is certain and contingency plans are good, but there's a difference between having external power and relying on it completely.

This also assumes internal power is sacrosanct when it isn't. Once again, all power can be taken away. It's still real while you have it.

ArchSage20 wrote:
if you argue that a cleric has power then e he is like a pistol he can find a new owner to shoot but he can never shoot of his own will lest his owner toss him away

He's not, though. The Cleric chooses his own actions and his own targets, and can always just tell his God to f%%+ off if he feels the need.

He's a soldier, not a gun. And he can, to continue that analogy and unlike a real world soldier, go join another army whenever the mood strikes. The current military he works for can take his gun (ie: magic) when he leaves, but not his skill in using it, and there are plenty of others to join who will give him a new one.

Now, is his freedom more restricted than someone who isn't part of an army? Sure. But not necessarily a lot depending on the army in question, and that doesn't make him less powerful. Power and freedom are different things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the fact that clerics gain power from channel power form a deity is mostly about the nature of the divine spellcasting. Only one class so far channel divine magic directly and that the oracle and they get a curse for it. Divine magic is made up of life and spirit essence and in the least physical of the essences. As I understand it is that harnessing this magic takes understanding spiritual things with the exception of sorcerous and maybe the witch. To me that why a cleric devoting themselves to a diety is important. What I know about spirituality is understanding and drawing things that we may not see but believe are there threw there own spiritual strength. Cleric to me uses there own spiritual strength the connect and channel the power of a deity. The more they do it the stronger their spiritual strength becomes and the more power they can draw aka leveling up. Cleric does have the power of there own which a diety can add unto. They both need each other a cleric to access the divine ability and a diety for the to act in their name.

Grand Archive

Hail Nethys, the creator and destroyer! Through his glory I channel both the power of life and death!

I thought the idea of a gnome cleric of the god of magic who had the versatile font feat was pretty cool.

Scarab Sages

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I've always wanted to basically play Inigo Montoya as a follower of Calistria (probably Inquisitor in PF1, Champion in PF2). Someone who has just warped their entire life around a quest for vengeance and receives power directly from said quest with little relation to the rest of the deity's portfolio in any direct way.

While Calistria is a revenge goddess, she discourages obsession. Obe of her anathema is "become too consumed by love or a need for revenge".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
While Calistria is a revenge goddess, she discourages obsession. Obe of her anathema is "become too consumed by love or a need for revenge".

I'm aware, but it's still a fun idea and can be made to work with a little adjustment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I've always wanted to basically play Inigo Montoya as a follower of Calistria (probably Inquisitor in PF1, Champion in PF2). Someone who has just warped their entire life around a quest for vengeance and receives power directly from said quest with little relation to the rest of the deity's portfolio in any direct way.
While Calistria is a revenge goddess, she discourages obsession. Obe of her anathema is "become too consumed by love or a need for revenge".

"The best revenge is living well and also still getting revenge."

Grand Lodge

ArchSage20 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
That said, I'm also the person who invented Desna (along with many other deities in the setting), so in a way, I am Desna, since I'm the one who decided who and what she is. :-P
may i ask what what was going on your mind when you wrote pharasma?

Maybe it was school when many of us geeks were introduced to the toilet swirly. :-D

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
If you don't like religion at all on some level cleric isn't for your, neither is champion

I am a staunch atheist (former baptized christian), yet champion/paladin is my favorite class. I don't play a lot of clerics, but the ones I do, tend to be fairly zealous and preachy. I don't think real world has anything to do with fantasy. I don't have to believe in witchcraft and magic in real life to play a wizard, either.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Sapient wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Sapient wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

If you don't like religion at all on some level cleric isn't for your, neither is champion.

I can play either but I don't play preachy characters.

I enjoy playing religious characters while not personally liking religion.
Few are like that. In truth
I STRONGLY disagree. The late majority of people one played with enjoy playing characters substantially different than themselves.
Not in the circles I've ran in then. Yes different from yourself. But that seems to fall apart when it comes to religion.

I would think it would be the opposite. If you have a lot of faith and religion in real life, it would be hard to play as such in the fantasy game because no matter what you do in game it would be anathema to your real life religion. Granted its just make-believe, but most RL religions don't make such distinctions. Its why organized religions have traditionally been the #1 opponent of RPGs like D&D and Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

TOZ wrote:
All will be revealed.

Toz, again I gaze upon your works and despair :-D


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Classic fantasy deities can have very little to do with real world religions.

Depends on the real world religion...

Heck, even something like Hinduism, which is soft polytheism and quite different, is a lot more similar to the religion in something like Pathfinder than Judaeo-Christian religion is.

Quick note, and I know you don't mean offense, but... Judeo-Christian isn't a thing. It's a common parlance used by Christians to describe Jewish roots of Christianity but the two are very different in multiple ways. A better term might be Abrahamaic religions, to include monotheism among Jews, Christians and Muslims, and their related or adjacent sects. Full disclosure: I'm Jewish.

To get back to the OP, I often find those who play clerics should reflect on how faith is a motivator for the character, rather than as a set of rules. One should but become a cleric of any god without inspiration to do what that god might want, but that part is internal. The god then recognizes both the drive and the magical talent and so blesses it. But that's a result of some initial belief. And the belief should grow with the character, as should its expression. And beliefs can and do change, so a change in belief might negate deity-specific power but not necessarily ability. So, if one cleric in a multifaith society changes faith, it doesn't change their magical ability / divine casting. But it might change the spells they're able to use and any powers granted specifically but the deity. However, even if they do change deities, the new one might hear an honest converts' prayer and recognize their talent and bestow appropriate powers, especially in time of need. I don't think that would apply for a character that changes deities like they change socks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:


I would think it would be the opposite. If you have a lot of faith and religion in real life, it would be hard to play as such in the fantasy game because no matter what you do in game it would be anathema to your real life religion. Granted its just make-believe, but most RL religions don't make such distinctions. Its why organized religions have traditionally been the #1 opponent of RPGs like D&D and Pathfinder.

As some who is religious myself, I disagree it people who can't separate playing a character and enjoying fiction with a person's actual beliefs. It closed-mindedness, not religion that is the #1 enemy of RPGs. The cleric is my favorite class because I like the idea and for my being a religious person helps me connect with that kind of character. Though I don't think being religious or not have really much effect on if a person enjoys cleric as I think it more about the personality of the person and what they enjoy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I've always wanted to basically play Inigo Montoya as a follower of Calistria (probably Inquisitor in PF1, Champion in PF2). Someone who has just warped their entire life around a quest for vengeance and receives power directly from said quest with little relation to the rest of the deity's portfolio in any direct way.
While Calistria is a revenge goddess, she discourages obsession. Obe of her anathema is "become too consumed by love or a need for revenge".
"The best revenge is living well and also still getting revenge."

I cannot hear this without thinking of Frasier and Niles Crane arguing about the merits of living well as a method of revenge.

Niles : It's a wonderful expression. I just don't know how true it is. You don't see it turning up in a lot of opera plots. "Ludwig, maddened by the poisoning of his entire family, wreaks vengeance on Gunther in the third act by living well."

Frasier : All right, Niles.

Niles : "Whereupon Woton, upon discovering his deception, wreaks vengeance on Gunther in the third act again by living even better than the Duke."

Frasier : Oh, all right!

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
rdquodomine wrote:
Quick note, and I know you don't mean offense, but... Judeo-Christian isn't a thing. It's a common parlance used by Christians to describe Jewish roots of Christianity but the two are very different in multiple ways. A better term might be Abrahamaic religions, to include monotheism among Jews, Christians and Muslims, and their related or adjacent sects. Full disclosure: I'm Jewish.

Abrahamic Religions probably is better terminology and I'll try and use it more consistently in the future.

Shadow Lodge

TwilightKnight wrote:
TOZ wrote:
All will be revealed.
Toz, again I gaze upon your works and despair :-D

I am merely the speaker for those on high. ;)

Verdant Wheel

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
ArchSage20 wrote:
reality is though is that there is a difference between power that comes from outside from others and power that comes from oneself

Of course there is. But in practice, the difference is often irrelevant and immaterial.

ArchSage20 wrote:
that difference is that external power is circumstantial for instance you can be the richest person in the universe if you are left in a island with a tiger you are dead similarly if a cult leader gets teleport ed away from his assassins he is just a powerless old man

You think personal power can't likewise be rendered irrelevant? I assure you that it can.

I very much agree here, and wish to expand on that point because it has been a theme for me as of late. Disability and illness have taken my physical independence and significantly impacted my education, but the strongest connections I have had with the most important people in my life remain as strong and bright as they ever did. In a mechanical sense, I draw much of my power from others, and that is extremely reassuring when you know how fickle and out-of-control "personal" power can be. This is, of course, merely an extreme example. It's true for pretty much everyone, even if they don't realise it.

Nothing stops a Wizard from losing their ability to speak or the use of their hands, not from losing their cognitive ability to retain those complex laws of reality that allow them to cast in the first place. A devout cleric's god, however, could well step in to assist them if need be, just as a respected (and tenured) Wizard will likely be given the resources (and patience) with which to mitigate their impairment by their peers/college/students.

Very few people are really self-sufficient in this world. We rely on technological and medical advancements brought about by others through great spans of time and distance, on food brought to us from far-off-farms or, in some cases, hunted with weapons designed by smiths whose craft we could not begin to replicate alone. Even those that are somehow self-sufficient must rely on their own genetic and/or circumstantial fortune to maintain their lifestyles.

In that vein, the illusion that the Wizard is self-sufficient ignores all the support they receive through family or charity (well-earned or otherwise) to achieve the privilege of magical tuition; it also ignores their reliance on spells and techniques largely developed by others. This is similar to modern science, where we are blessed and cursed with a wealth of data from ingenious-yet-flawed forebears, not to mention the whims of our peers. All scientists are servants of the great powers of Funding and Approval, perhaps similarly to the Wizard adventurer who relies on having a Fighter friend to help them survive the dungeons wherein lie the scrolls of ages past.

The Cleric's friend on-high is, at the very least, vaguely morally aligned with their own ideals. Not everyone else can rely on divine mandate to be exactly who they want to be; that external power can be much more reliable than the whim of the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
While Calistria is a revenge goddess, she discourages obsession. Obe of her anathema is "become too consumed by love or a need for revenge".
I'm aware, but it's still a fun idea and can be made to work with a little adjustment.

Honestly, I think this would be fantastic backstory for an Oracle with the Battle Mystery.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a realization (and some ramblings) I wanted to share after reading some posts about the loss of memory and personality once you become a petitioner and how it affects your afterlife.

Opposed to RL religions, Golarion religions do not use the afterlife as a way to steer your actions (ie, if you do Good, you will live happily ever after, while if you do Evil, you will be punished forever).

Because who you are in the vast majority of cases does not survive Pharasma's judgement and becoming a petitioner.

So, you do not choose a religion in Golarion based on what will happen to you in the afterlife, but based on how close it is to your own worldview.

This goes doubly for a Cleric. They are not a slave to their deity anymore than they would be a slave to themselves.

And changing deity means that you have deeply changed your worldview.

The ability to transform your worldview into magical power is what makes you a Cleric in Golarion. And that cannot be easily taken from you.

Sovereign Court

KrispyXIV wrote:

"If religion isn't your thing, then Clerics are gonna be tough."

I completely agree with this comment. I was not a big fan of Clerics in 1e and 2e they seem even worse. However....

"The idea that followers of a Religion are somehow slaves to it or that deity is also fairly baffling, as I've not seen almost any religion in Pathfinder that treats its followers like that, excepting maybe those literally focused on slavery."

...one way I have made things a bit more interesting is in our group's Age of Ashes, I have a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon who is a non-evil PC. It has been interesting to put a non-evil twist on him yet still playing to the "Life is Pain" belief.

The only suggestion I have is you don't have to play a Cleric as "Religious Stupid." Find an aspect of the deity, instead of their entirety, to focus on and build your character around.

"They may derive their power from their relationship with their deity, but its their power."

(Sorry, not sure how to break up someone else's quote)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew the Warwitch wrote:
(Sorry, not sure how to break up someone else's quote)

Quotes start with (quote) or (quote="Username"), and end with (/quote). Except, with square brackets instead of parentheses.

So if you want to break up someone's quote, you would write (/quote) where you want to interrupt it, and go on with (quote) when your interruption is done. So this text:

(quote="Test")This is a demonstration text that will be(/quote)
Interrupted!
(quote)by some nuisance.(/quote)

will look like this:

Test wrote:
This is a demonstration text that will be

Interrupted!

Quote:
by some nuisance.

101 to 142 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Could you explain to me the appeal of playing a cleric? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.