| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...If anything, the atheist country wouldn't allow divine magic at all, whether or not a god was worshipped. So even if you were an atheist cleric somehow, you'd still be banned from operating in Ravounel. The solution is to be either an Occult caster, a Primal caster, or a science-based healer such as an alchemist.
...Rahadoum...
(^_')=b
|
I was wondering whether I should answer to this but I decided that yes it's better to address this.
Yes, there are other classes that can use the divine spells list and there are other classes with similar mechanics like medicine. At no point did I ever claim the cleric was the only healer or the only one with access to the divine spell list. I'm not sure where people got that from.
If any of you want to discuss whether occult or primal casters are as good at healing or whether other classes can be as good as a dedicated cleric with a healing font, we can make a thread about that.
However, what I'm talking about is how restrictions and mandatory behavior may affect players who may, for one reason or another, feel uncomfortable about it.
It's a matter of inclusivity and accessibility. Just as people should not be forced to engage with 18+ themes or other themes that require a trigger warning, people should equally not be forced to interact with the worship of fictional deities, especially in a world where people will sometimes beat and murder each other for worshiping in the wrong way.
Yes, I'm sure there are some atheists who don't mind and some religious people who have no issue with just playing another class. I never said every single atheist and theist had a problem with it.
I also never said clerics, deities, or anathemas should be erased, I only said people who may have a serious issue with religious themes should have an option to have similar mechanics.
I never said PF2 was an MMO or that it should be an MMO, it was just one example of how people from other games may feel like they want to play that specific character and I'm not sure why people are so hung up on that.
I never said healers are being forced to pick a cleric. I'm just questioning the claim that because they picked a cleric they did so because they wanted to have or liked the restrictions. I'm merely pointing out that saying they consented to it so they can't complain is dishonest.
I feel like what I said is at...
I understand better thanks to this post.
I feel it is best adressed at GM-level, for example with being a Cleric of a concept.
In fact it could be awesome for the player and GM to design appropriate edicts and anathemas for such a character.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like... a title like "Do you like options that feel bad" is not the most neutral and unbiased description of what anathema are and how they work, even if referring to mandatory anathema specifically.
And I kind of feel like "people shouldn't be forced to interact with 18+ content" is a weird purity culture stance to take when the context is somebody walking into the clearly marked 18+ section of the bookstore, as it were. Like, I fully agree, people should not be forced to interact with certain things, and that inclusiveness often looks like properly flagging these things for people to choose their level of interaction... But at some point theres a important conversation to be had around whether somebody is being forced to interact with something, or theyre just forcing their discomfort onto others.
If it were not clear, "people should not be forced to interact with religion," is a problem easily solved by, "people who object to even fictional religion can choose not to play the religious classes, and furthermore those people are likely adults who can understand and can navigate the fact that religion already exists in real life, and thus know what measures they need to take if the idea of being confronted by the existence of religiously themed codes (not even religion itself, as anathema rarely says anything about the character's religiosity) is painfully uncomfortable to them."
There is only so much you can do to sanitize uncomfortable topics, which is why clear signposting - such as content warnings or simple things like, "this class has a mechanic called 'deity'" - are so important for inclusiveness and accessibility. Especially when there are other options, "not everything is made for everybody, so there might be things you dont read/play/etc." is both a fine and normal statement.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man I'm not going to lie. Inclusivity is important but if someone sat down at one of my tables and hit me with the whole "humiliation of being forced to pledge servitude to the divine" thing I think it would be pretty hard for me not to be suspicious of them.
Particularly the combination of strangely self-inserting language (the phrasing of some of the comments suggests the player themselves feels like they're being forced to join a religion) with the whole 'demanding to play a cleric but I fundamentally hate clerics' thing along with the goalpost shifting, I'm just a little worried about what their table behavior would be like even if I gave them their way.
Not to mention that Pathfinder religion doesn't even really resemble real religion contextually in the first place, so the whole frame of reference and constant nods to 'real world' issues feels out of place and damaging.
I'd probably suggest they find another game. Like, not to try to gatekeep but I genuinely don't know how someone that antagonistic could function properly in a tabletop setting, especially one that so prominently features the thing they're so antagonistic toward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additional pertinent disclosure: I enjoy anathema as they very often give me an interesting start point for what kind of character might hold to these beliefs.
I *also* have a player who historically does not like religion as is described here. I have in my games allowed her to play a Paladin (1e) not affiliated with a deity because she didn't care for the religious aspects of the class. That said she doesnt actually have much problem with anathema as it is, and has played semi-religious characters when not required as she learns about deities in the Pathfinder universe that she finds more appealing (namely her Monk/Bard who venerates Desna and the Prismatic Ray, in-character a lapsed Pharamin who grew up raised by the church as an orphan).
We've talked about if she were to play her Paladin char again in 2e, since narratively the option for non-religious Champions has been elided, and deity is somewhat more present in the mechanics than it was. She is open to playing her as a religious character and I am open to finding an alternative, as much as anathema appeals to me. We havent had to decide what actually is going to happen since the opportunity has yet to arise, but maybe this shows how the conversation happens at the GM level. Now that the Guardian is out, maybe the character is simply no longer a Paladin period. We'll find out when we get there.
However, what I'm talking about is how restrictions and mandatory behavior may affect players who may, for one reason or another, feel uncomfortable about it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but what I'm not understanding is how a player ends up in this situation where they're forced to do something they're uncomfortable with: edicts and anathema are only mechanically enforced on a handful of classes, and it's perfectly possible to make a character that has none of those. In fact, with ancestry-related edicts and anathema, it's perfectly valid to disobey the ones you pick. Players thus never have to deal with those kinds of restrictions or mandatory behavior unless they pick one of a small number of classes bound by faith or superstition, both of which naturally hinge on doing certain things and not doing others. If you don't want to be misinterpreted on this, you may have to elaborate and provide an example of the situation you consider problematic.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, what I'm talking about is how restrictions and mandatory behavior may affect players who may, for one reason or another, feel uncomfortable about it.
It's a matter of inclusivity and accessibility. Just as people should not be forced to engage with 18+ themes or other themes that require a trigger warning, people should equally not be forced to interact with the worship of fictional deities, especially in a world where people will sometimes beat and murder each other for worshiping in the wrong way.
Yes, I'm sure there are some atheists who don't mind and some religious people who have no issue with just playing another class. I never said every single atheist and theist had a problem with it.
Maybe someone has significant religious trauma or triggers, but I don't think just removing Edicts and Amathema is enough to help them play a cleric. You should respect that by playing Shadowrun or something.
If someone has this severe trauma or triggers, I don't think they will enjoy the pathfinder universe, where other PCs and NPCS are influenced by the gods. There are many good RPGs, and it's probably easier to pick something else up.
No offense, but that is not a totally accurate description of what you said.I also never said clerics, deities, or anathemas should be erased, I only said people who may have a serious issue with religious themes should have an option to have similar mechanics.
For example, some may hear "a god of war" and think of a bloodthirsty berserker, a calm elderly tactician, or even a knight-like god obsessed with strength and honor as opposed to subterfuge. Having gods as people makes them good characters, but from a purely gameplay point of view, it can be quite limiting because you have to search for a god that matches a specific interpretation and study the entire lore to make sure you didn’t misinterpret it.Of course, one could just play very superficially and look only at the anathemas. But if it’s going to be that shallow, why not just be a priest of Life or a priest of War instead? **Honestly, I never liked the concept of anathemas, they feel like a seed of conflict because people end up arguing about interpretations and minutiae. It’s just an annoyance, in my opinion.**
(Emphasis mine) "Anathemas are just an annoyance" is a hair's breathe from "anathemas should be removed." The original statement makes clear anathemas have no redeeming qualities for you, unless you've changed your mind.
Now that we have Guardians, we can finally say that there is always more then one option to fulfill even the most hard coded old-school quad of tank, mage, healer, skill monkey.
The 'Old-school' Tank was just as much about the cannon as the armor. It was literally the fighter class. MMOs created the idea that a tank is supposed to be seen and 'draw aggro' instead of just standing in front. This is a disruption of the metaphor. The 'Old school' D&D players who invented the term were aware that tanks were vulnerable to the proper weapons and needed to hide or be supported just like any other weapon or party member.
Even in WW2, a tank that is not supported by infantry is dead, And in classic RPGs, a tank is a reliable source of damage, unless you fight a rust monster.
I was wondering whether I should answer to this but I decided that yes it's better to address this.
Yes, there are other classes that can use the divine spells list and there are other classes with similar mechanics like medicine. At no point did I ever claim the cleric was the only healer or the only one with access to the divine spell list. I'm not sure where people got that from.
If any of you want to discuss whether occult or primal casters are as good at healing or whether other classes can be as good as a dedicated cleric with a healing font, we can make a thread about that.
However, what I'm talking about is how restrictions and mandatory behavior may affect players who may, for one reason or another, feel uncomfortable about it.
It's a matter of inclusivity and accessibility. Just as people should not be forced to engage with 18+ themes or other themes that require a trigger warning, people should equally not be forced to interact with the worship of fictional deities, especially in a world where people will sometimes beat and murder each other for worshiping in the wrong way.
Yes, I'm sure there are some atheists who don't mind and some religious people who have no issue with just playing another class. I never said every single atheist and theist had a problem with it.
I also never said clerics, deities, or anathemas should be erased, I only said people who may have a serious issue with religious themes should have an option to have similar mechanics.
I never said PF2 was an MMO or that it should be an MMO, it was just one example of how people from other games may feel like they want to play that specific character and I'm not sure why people are so hung up on that.
I never said healers are being forced to pick a cleric. I'm just questioning the claim that because they picked a cleric they did so because they wanted to have or liked the restrictions. I'm merely pointing out that saying they consented to it so they can't complain is dishonest.
I feel like what I said is at...
I don't think about inclusivity in games like this. I think more in terms of find a group that is agreeable to what you like with a DM that is open to your character ideas.
When I look for a gaming group, I don't enter the group with the idea they should bend to me. I enter the group looking to adjust to them and their playstyle including world building. If I don't care for it, I leave and find another group.
That's all people are advising. The game is pretty open. If some DM wants to allow you to play a cleric that is just focused on "the power of life" or something of that kind, they might allow it. I know PF society might not, but I think a DM in some group may allow you to modify a class like the cleric to do what you want.
PF2 and any RPG at its base isn't hard-coded. PF2 designers are mostly tossing out ideas and saying, "Use these baseline designs to do what you and your group want."
It seems like you have this idea in your head all of this stuff is hard rules. It isn't. It's all very flexible and open to discussion and modification.
I'm not sure if you dealt with a DM that was very hardline in regards to the material, but that's the DM, not the game itself. Most DMs I've met aren't hardline about things.
In my own group, I play with a devout Christian that often makes a witch or cleric and glosses over the deity or patron part. I let him. What do I care as long as they're having fun?
Is this post brought about because some DM was taking a hardline with you on your personal preference? Or are you playing PFS games that are taking a hardline? I'm so used to RPGs allowing very open-ended character design that I don't quite understand what brought on the post.
Even with barbarians I mostly ignore the anathema as a DM. Barbarians are crazy. I can't see them caring very much unless the player wants to care as part of the concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or are you playing PFS games that are taking a hardline?
PFS RAW allows people to break anathema if its following the plot of the scenario. Like if the scenario expects you to work with an undead for the duration of it, a Cleric of Pharasma is explicitly not punished for doing so. PFS does not want anathema to get in the way of being able to play the game.
So the only way for a DM to be "taking a hardline in PFS" is if they either don't know the rules of PFS, or the PC is doing something egregiously against their anathema.
Because yeah, if I see a Cleric of Sarenrae executing civilians? Sarenrae is going to make her displeasure known.
|
|
Or are you playing PFS games that are taking a hardline?PFS RAW allows people to break anathema if its following the plot of the scenario. Like if the scenario expects you to work with an undead for the duration of it, a Cleric of Pharasma is explicitly not punished for doing so. PFS does not want anathema to get in the way of being able to play the game.
So the only way for a DM to be "taking a hardline in PFS" is if they either don't know the rules of PFS, or the PC is doing something egregiously against their anathema.
Because yeah, if I see a Cleric of Sarenrae executing civilians? Sarenrae is going to make her displeasure known.
A PFS mission would most likely not entail executing civilians.
A PFS mission would most likely not entail executing civilians.
Definitely not. I picked something egregious deliberately. In normal PFS play anathema isn't much of an issue unless the player is leaning into it or someone is doing something wrong.
I'm fond of edicts and anathemas in general as they're just good ways to note down parts of your character's personality and what motivates their decisions and actions. As far as class based ones, as long as they make reasonable sense like a Cleric offending the god that they worship or a Druid destroying nature makes sense to have negative repercussions if, for some reason, they decide to outright violate the anathema without some good reason. Realistically I'm not picking a class or god if their edicts and anathemas didn't already align with my concept in the first place so the likelihood of violating them isn't very high unless the story somehow forced it.
As far as the discussion about fantasy religion forced on Cleric being in conflict with real world problems with religion, that's simply the point where you pick another class or work with your GM to make a solution to choosing a god to worship. Assuming you're using Golarion or a similar setting where the gods are real and tangibly affect the world, it's difficult to avoid dealing with religion in some way in the game. I'm an atheist with strong opinions on real religion, but have no issues with a fantasy world with gods that exist and have real power and will gladly play a Cleric if it suits my concept.
|
|
Conveniently, all the gods whose anathemas would make it hard to play PFS are banned (you know, the ones that want you to execute civilians)A PFS mission would most likely not entail executing civilians.Definitely not. I picked something egregious deliberately. In normal PFS play anathema isn't much of an issue unless the player is leaning into it or someone is doing something wrong.
This is a tangent, but there was some concern about skeleton PCs and clerics of Pharasma.
Arazni's Edict can be a problem, too. Genzaeri's anathema would often be unhelpful. The scattered nature of a series of one-shots makes Zjar-Tovan difficult unless you're passionate about doing whatever the society tells you.
That's just the allowed ones out of the 60 most common gods, let alone hundreds of others, or charity boons that allow semi-evil options like Razmiran Priest.
|
Yes. Coming from 5e I really appriciate that taking options like a Champion oath or being a cleric comes with serious weight to it. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood but it really annoys me when characters that should be beholden to some tenants are incredibly flippant about it.
Certain edicts and anethemas are problematic either generally or for some games, but that's a discussion you need to have to your DM so you can make them work for that game or table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Restriction breeds creativity.
However, the more disruptive the restriction the more optional it must be.
As long as you know what you're getting into, I think any player won't have a reason to complain about having them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Session zero, X-Cards, etc. exist for any actual discomfort issues. GM fiat exists for the annoyance issues.
Removing the divine element you could easily have things like warriors codes, personal ethos, etc. Certainly I would be distracted an ineffective if I violated one of my personal anethema, like ignoring the suffering of a friend or treating someone as a stereotype instead of an individual. If I were a terrible person, I would similarly kicking myself for failing to take advantage of someone being in a bad situation, like one if them bleeding heart goody goody suckers.
It's all fiction in a world no more real than The Land of Oz or Wonderland, so what ultimately matters is the table experience, but I'm happy to use the rules as written.
Yes. Restriction breeds creativity.You keep that Universes Beyond talk back where it belongs.
Ha!
★★★☆
:p
LOL
No one makes you choose a class choice with an anathema or edict. So a player has 100% agency in making that decision. Once they do, that's they'll need to find a justifiable way in game to make another choice.
So as both a player and a GM, I love them and use them. I'd use them and adhere to them as a player even if the GM didn't enforce them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've talked about if she were to play her Paladin char again in 2e, since narratively the option for non-religious Champions has been elided, and deity is somewhat more present in the mechanics than it was. She is open to playing her as a religious character and I am open to finding an alternative, as much as anathema appeals to me. We havent had to decide what actually is going to happen since the opportunity has yet to arise, but maybe this shows how the conversation happens at the GM level. Now that the Guardian is out, maybe the character is simply no longer a Paladin period. We'll find out when we get there.Slightly ninjaed by somebody mentioning it already, but I'd suggest covenants to your friend if she wants to play a champion. I'm also pretty irreligious, and don't gravitate toward religious characters either, but covenants have interested me since they came out. It could be the term they use, or the fact that your "deity" is actually a group of entities affiliated with a concept, but I see covenants as more of a mutual understanding or veneration, which makes it much more amenable to me. Maybe your friend would agree with that.
If she does, but none of the current covenants sound good, you guys could always take some deity's or covenant's abilities and rework them as a covenant, as well. Though I guess at that point you may as well take that small extra step and allow them to embody a concept, which IMO is also a great route to take.
So I had a chance to look at covenants again today after seeing this a few days ago, and I didn't realize that the Green Faith had also been made a covenant! This is basically perfect for her, since I think we had kind of established (way back when) that her family probably venerated the Green, and on top of that, its anathema would absolutely have explained some of her actions taken in that adventure if she were following it... back before there was any such thing as anathema.
Even better, because this character had a simple farmgirl background, she often fought with a sickle... which also happens to be the Green's favoured weapon. This covenant almost could not have been made more perfect for her.