Most RPG's treat polytheism as simply "choose your deity" monotheism- pathfinder is much better than most in this regard, but for the setting I am building it gets... complicated.
For example since clerics must be exclusive in their service (not worship, but service), I'm following a sort of Roman template where some deities have dedicated priests wo can be clerics and others do not.
The tricky part comes in with Champions. First of all most deities are going to be far more lenient with accepting champions because if nothing else champions will defend their temples. Plus you don't want your soldiers to have divided loyalties if a holy war breaks out. However there is at least one deity who just really isn't all that interested in being worshiped (being the keeper of the dead she has all the attention she needs from the souls of the dead) but mortals keep pestering her anyways... so would someone who is devoted to this goddess still be able to be her champion or would the goddess themselves (or her representative- like the designated angel) need to bless the position?
I suppose the question would be, does this Goddess empower clerics in your setting? If she doesn't, she probably wouldn't empower Champions either. And if she's mostly uninterested in worship I suppose that would be the case.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this is a rules question. The rules are deliberately kept loose and vague - for this very reason... so that a particular campaign can have their relationships between deities and Cleric/Champion/Exemplar/Animist/Witch tailored to the needs and desires of the campaign rather than limiting the campaign and the creativity of the players because of hard-and-fast rules.
So if you want to allow Clerics and Champions of this aloof deity of death, then allow it. Either directly with the deity themselves as patron or indirectly through a representative that bestows the powers.
And if you don't want to allow Clerics and Champions of this deity, then don't. Maybe have certain sects of NPCs that think that they are Clerics of the deity...
But this is all world-building and campaign design. Don't let pesky things like rules get in the way of your creativity.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The others are right, this is a setting lore question--but some rules-based context may help inform. From a game-mechanical standpoint, there are several entities which grant divine power which are not themselves deities.
This can include groups of deities (pantheons, obviously) but also groups which don't include any deities at all (covenants). If you don't want the death goddess to grant power (at least directly; perhaps she fosters witches on the side?) and you don't want clerics or champions to be able to gain power without a divine body granting it, you could still always create a covenant tied to the themes of the death goddess which count her as important to them but don't directly worship or gain power from her.
A "Keepers of the Dead" or "Voices of the Ancestors" type covenant could be concerned with ensuring the proper rites are given to the dead and that the legacy of a society's ancestors are respected in this world, and see the goddess as their unofficial patron.
Yeah, you could have a group that take up the cause of protecting the dead, and could see this goddess as an ally and patron, even if they don't derive any specific power from them.
Anyways, this is definitely not rules related but is a setting question. And not Golarion setting, but your homebrew.
My thought was that there could be champions if they are empowered by an intense devotion to the death goddess instead of being empowered by the death goddess herself.
There would definitely be the covenant style groups, but while they might have mystical traditions associated with them they would not, for example, be actual clerics, because a group of mortals simply can't grant that type of power...
At the same time priests who serve multiple deities (in his setting) tend to be oracles instead of clerics.
It is rules related at least as I am trying to keep this close to RAW...
My thought was that there could be champions if they are empowered by an intense devotion to the death goddess instead of being empowered by the death goddess herself.
There would definitely be the covenant style groups, but while they might have mystical traditions associated with them they would not, for example, be actual clerics, because a group of mortals simply can't grant that type of power...
At the same time priests who serve multiple deities (in his setting) tend to be oracles instead of clerics.
It is rules related at least as I am trying to keep this close to RAW...
In Pathfinder, being empowered by intense devotion to something that isn't empowering you directly is occult rather than divine. (See: Razmiran Priest archetype.) Divine power isn't generally something that is created through faith, worship, or devotion. (There is something going on with goblin hero gods, though, but that's understood to be out of the ordinary.)
It is rules related at least as I am trying to keep this close to RAW...
The only thing to worry about as far as game rules and mechanics, is that the end result on the character is equivalent to any other generic example of that character class.
Basically, a Champion of this custom deity doesn't get any particular advantages or disadvantages from this that aren't standard for a similar Champion. For example, if the character is a Desecration Champion, then they are going to get the standard Selfish Shield reaction. They aren't going to get the effects of the Cleric domain spell Cry of Destruction cast as a reaction - even if it is more thematic.
RAW governs things like what character build options are available, how actions work, which dice to roll, and what the DC needed for success is.
How a character interacts with NPC characters (including deities) is something that the players can decide for themselves. No rules should govern that.
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've moved this discussion to Advice instead! It feels more suited there since the rules are intentionally open for interpretation. We appreciate the community coming in to help OP discuss varying interpretations to help them with the campaign. That's exactly what we want to see!
Good call. That will attract more responses like Sibelius Eos Owm gave.
|
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good call. That will attract more responses like Sibelius Eos Owm gave.
That's what I'm hoping! As much as I enjoy helping out as well, it's really great to see members of the community helping each other for things like this, and putting this in the right place is the best way to get more eyes on it!
okay, let me ask this- if I use this idea of meta-organizations with champions, a noble house established for centuries has their own order of priests- the order directs the worship of multiple deities whose goals align with the house's goals, and this order has champions- what is the difference between being a champion of this household order and being a house guardsman, aside from being able to do neat divine stuff?
|
How your worship shapes your character. a Champion is a warrior defined by how their faith in their deity drives and guides their actions. They would not only be seen as a respected warrior, but also as a part of the church.
A Guardian may or may not worship, but even if they do it does not shape their combat doctrine.
Right now I am looking at this from a world design point of view and I am frustrated by how much the need for a "patron deity" is emphasized. This wasn't really a part of any paleo-paganism and just feels like an imposition of a monotheistic framework into the system- sure there are many gods but you have to pick one to follow.
unfortunately simply doing away with that breaks some very real mechanisms of balance since the entire edicts and anathemas system ties in. The best I am coming up with right now is removing the rule about needing a patron amidst a covenant or pantheon (and trying to understand how you have a patron in a covenant of non-deities anyways)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the simplest answer to wanting more polytheistic clerics is just to treat pantheons as if they were deity statblocks. Pantheon already have all their own deity mechanics with anathema and edicts, domains, and spells. Baseline 2e requires you have a patron among the pantheon for lore reasons, and because its founded on a system that focused on one deity being the primary thematic font for each cleric. Nothing mechanical seems to break to me if you do away with patrons, and I can't see any indication that covenants use distinct patrons outside of the covenant at all.
If you want High Priest of Jupiter to be a title befitting the top-ranking cleric of the Imperial Cult rather than a description of personal devotion to a specific sky deity's creedo, that seems eminently doable. Advisable, even.
The first trick I see is figuring out how to break down the divisions so that not all clerics are members of the same divine cult. Since you're going for a polytheistic angle you could do worse than put the focus on the cultures doing the worship. In fantasy Rome they follow the Imperial Cult, in fantasy Greece its the Olympians, in fantasy Norway, there's Aesir. These priests follow the whole pantheon and appeal to each specific god according to their field. This would de-emphazise the individual gods, but this may be a boon for presenting a richly polytheistic setting, and might allow you to conjure niche gods at will. "You say a quick prayer to--" pretends to check notes "--Janus, the god of doorways as you search for traps"
And actually, maybe you invert the pantheon system. If somebody wants to be part of the cult of Cybele, they still follow all the normal practices of worship for the prevailing religion and make sacrifices to the appropriate deities according to their needs, but who also attend the mysteries of a specific deity and follow extra anathema while gaining access to a set of specific spells tied to that cult.
And of course, sure your death goddess doesnt actually give powers special to her mystery cult, but that doesnt stop them from gaining power generally from the pantheon while devoting their service to her, personally.
okay, let me ask this- if I use this idea of meta-organizations with champions, a noble house established for centuries has their own order of priests- the order directs the worship of multiple deities whose goals align with the house's goals, and this order has champions- what is the difference between being a champion of this household order and being a house guardsman, aside from being able to do neat divine stuff?
You might also get a situation were the deities supposedly represented by the noble house are rebuked by the established organizations directly representing those same deities at points where their interests aren't completely aligned.
And in a world where direct communing and literal heralds from that deities can talk to mortals, it is easier to know a deity's will.
|
|
Right now I am looking at this from a world design point of view and I am frustrated by how much the need for a "patron deity" is emphasized. This wasn't really a part of any paleo-paganism and just feels like an imposition of a monotheistic framework into the system- sure there are many gods but you have to pick one to follow.
unfortunately simply doing away with that breaks some very real mechanisms of balance since the entire edicts and anathemas system ties in. The best I am coming up with right now is removing the rule about needing a patron amidst a covenant or pantheon (and trying to understand how you have a patron in a covenant of non-deities anyways)
I guess I would question how divine magic works in your setting. That's not a criticism of your setting, just advice to make sure the mechanics mesh properly. because there is NOTHING wrong with building a "Patron" out of the noble house, if the noble house is seen as divine, and divinity flows from belief.
And I agree that the the whole patron deity thing is a bit of monotheism leaking in. that said, this is a home game. your world your rules, remember the most important rule, and the FIRST RULE in every Paizo rule book: if something they wrong makes your game less fun, changing, or throw it out. If you want this to be more the the 5e vein of not necesarrily about deities, and more about belief and dedication, you can do that, just homebrew your patron information to match the noble house.
And I agree that the the whole patron deity thing is a bit of monotheism leaking in.
That's an interesting take, or perhaps I just don't care about the presence of monotheistic elements.
But I always imagined it as, in a polytheistic society the majority of people would venerate multiple gods and depending on the situation application they would pray to the relevant one.
But some priests/cleric/clergy would be dedicated to individual deities. In my mind, these are the ones the deities actually invest their power into. It takes a stronger connection for the deities to want to share their power than what the common lay worshipper provides.
To me, it's a very human kind of approach.
I might be willing to give "minor gifts" to anyone, like holding open a door I'm already walking through. But if you want me to do something serious, like give you a bunch of money, I'm going to need a more serious relationship connection. The boons of a deity look different, but it's the same concept.
Edit: I think I completely misunderstood your statement, you just meant that requiring a patron deity out of pantheon didn't make sense. Which I do agree with. I think it was done simply to not have to rewrite a bunch of stuff (although it seems like they did write individual ones in some cases).
I will amend, the way you're thinking of it is the way Greeks and Romans did things. Other polytheistic peoples around the world operated VERY differently. So it's not so much monotheism leaking, like I said before, it's Western bias leaking in.
It's true I'm unfamiliar with polytheistic approaches from non-Roman/Greek sources, but from a gameplay perspective...it honestly doesn't matter IMO.
Get rid of a specific Patron requirement, and a Pantheon is "equivalent" to an individual deity. They provide the same benefits and have the same kind of restrictions. But rather than representing a single entity, it represent multiple entities.
It simple means writing up those benefits/requirements for each Pantheon as though they were an individual deity.
It has to be that way from a game mechanics perspective. Else you're either short changing the polytheists, or the single deity worshippers. Neither is desirable.
I also recommend taking a step back from trying to make the NPCs in your world operate according to the set up for PCs. PF2 is not D&D3.x. Rules for PCs are the special exemption rules for characters that will have to progress through levels of play together at roughly equal amounts of power increases.
There can be whatever special reorders of knights/protectors/whatever you need to make your world work. You can base them on fighters, guardians, champions, rangers, bards, whatever basic mechanical function they need and then just toss on some divine spell casting or abilities to tie them to the gods of your world the way that fits best.
Then, if you have a player interested in joining one of these orders, you can just throw together some feats from various other places that make sense and call it the xyz archetype. If the issue is that you are turning this world building exercise over to other GMs that are going to want every possible game option spelled out before any champaigns begin, then you just make a series of archetypes for your world, but I wouldn’t rush that stuff for a campaign where maybe one of these options might get chosen by one out of 4 players. You can always just reflavkr the options players are interested in to fit in your world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
100%, you could have an "NPC archetype" that lets them cast thematic spells of their deity as focus spells, but also have that be generally unavailable to PCs.
Honestly, you don't have to justify the mechanics in any particular way as Unicore mentioned, and NPCs aren't meant to be built the same as PCs.
If players become really interested in it, you'd have to figure out some custom archetype that accomplishes it.
Single deity devotion within a polytheistic culture is a very complex issue. Within Rome, for example there was an imperial religion with a priesthood which "managed" all of the gods and temples. A few gods who were seen as leaders had their own dedicated priesthood, and a few that were borrowed from conquered people had their own cults of followers that might not even have a regular priest, or where a sort of ritual specialist might cover a few different deities.
How much a priest was devoted to a singular deity had more to do with the demands of time and administration than with theology. At the same time those gods weren't running around granting spell lists or sending clear plain messages to anyone they considered significant. An unreasonable deity could demand devotion, but if there isn't the work and income to justify it (priests need to eat) then it just won't happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will amend, the way you're thinking of it is the way Greeks and Romans did things. Other polytheistic peoples around the world operated VERY differently. So it's not so much monotheism leaking, like I said before, it's Western bias leaking in.Now I'm curious. How much different could it be? In essence, not in details. This kind of polytheism feels like a human thing, not a Western thing. Also from bits and pieces of different religions I know (very limited, granted) I don't remember anything crucially different.
Patron gods, on an individual level, work differently than they do in Pathfinder. IRL polytheism is universally orthopraxic rather than orthodox, so what you do is way more important than what you think. The whole thing is about reciprocity, so in most traditions a patron deity is one that you've built a relationship with over time and repeated offerings, rather than a default thing that everyone has. Unless your character is like a member of the royal family, having a patron deity represents a relationship that they've deliberately chosen to cultivate. (some traditions IRL have more common patron gods - some strains of Hinduism are more likely to have one than others, while it's fairly uncommon in Shintoism.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having tried my hand at implementing a couple of different pantheons, namely the Olympian pantheon and divine figures from Elden Ring, I've found that a lot of the implicit expectations of deities in Pathfinder are a bit rigid, and don't really accommodate pantheons where morality or worship are treated differently. Pathfinder's deities are centered around this manichean model of altruistic good versus selfish evil, for instance, which doesn't really work when describing pantheons whose deities are routinely capable of both benevolence and selfishness, and whose associated cultures based their morality around different norms. As others have mentioned above, worship in Pathfinder is defined mainly in terms of singular devotion, when many cultures have priests pay tribute to different deities, sometimes in a manner that's very transactional, and other times in a manner that pays respect to a plurality of deities that may not always be connected to each other. Although I do think it's possible to worship several deities at once as a Champion or Cleric via a pantheon, I can agree that it's a bit of a kludge where said pantheon is for all intents and purposes treated like a singular deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question wasn't about Pathfinder, but how western-greek-roman (-nordic-celtic-slavic-baltic-finnic...) crucially differs from everything else (polytheistic). Here I don't see it yet.Patron gods, on an individual level, work differently than they do in Pathfinder. IRL polytheism is universally orthopraxic rather than orthodox, so what you do is way more important than what you think. ...I will amend, the way you're thinking of it is the way Greeks and Romans did things. Other polytheistic peoples around the world operated VERY differently. So it's not so much monotheism leaking, like I said before, it's Western bias leaking in.Now I'm curious. How much different could it be? In essence, not in details. This kind of polytheism feels like a human thing, not a Western thing. Also from bits and pieces of different religions I know (very limited, granted) I don't remember anything crucially different.
NoxiousMiasma wasn’t talking about Pathfinder, but how the differences are IRL. To take it one step further, because your worship is tailored around what you do, where you do it, and [i] who else] is involved, the implications are that you’re more likely to worship a local deity rather than an overarching god of nature or death or whatever.
In a truly polytheistic religion, you pray to, and provide an offering to the local spirit/god of the forest to safely negotiate a long journey. There is no singular god of nature or travels. As another example, if there are problems in the community, you turn to an ancestral spirit if it is a family problem, a local ‘medicine doctor’ if it’s a community problem, or a ruler’s ancestral spirit if it’s a wider issue.
The emphasis is on location, situated in direct human connection with the spiritual realm rather than all these puny humans going to this deity in charge of a realm of narrow interests. The non-Western category of polytheism is often called ‘animism.’ Pathfinder doesn’t reflect that well in its structuring of the spiritual realm. Those distinctions are part of much larger philosophical discussions that are debated in sooo many disciplines.
But that’s the crux of the issue, according to my understanding. I’m kind of curious as to if there are any RPGs that approach their rules construction from this non-Western perspective. Has anyone seen such a game?
So to bring the discussion full circle back to the OP, in a truly polytheistic / animist religion it is hard to conceive of a champion - in the Pathfinder rules-based sense of the term - for the forest. Perhaps the loa of voudun? As a champion of community, the closest thing might be the mhondoro, or ancestral spirits of the kings of nation states in Zimbabwe.
I hope that provides some clarity. It’s a completely different way / philosophy of existing in the world.
Having given this some consideration I think I have been approaching the entire topic in a backwards perspective. If you consider how oath taking works in paleo-paganism then there would be a singular deity or patron that you swear the oath to, even if you worship, deal with or even serve in some context other deities. At that point the real question becomes which deities will (sometimes, because deities are never fully predictable) grant the boon of champion like powers in exchange for taking , and holding to, each specific champion oath.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having given this some consideration I think I have been approaching the entire topic in a backwards perspective. If you consider how oath taking works in paleo-paganism then there would be a singular deity or patron that you swear the oath to, even if you worship, deal with or even serve in some context other deities. At that point the real question becomes which deities will (sometimes, because deities are never fully predictable) grant the boon of champion like powers in exchange for taking , and holding to, each specific champion oath.
This is an interesting take which seems to have legs for informing how you design your setting. That's great! To spare you a minor rabbit hole, you may be interested in drawing a minor distinction. Speaking of Europe-inspired historicity, oaths tend to be agreements made between people and which were witnessed and/or enforced by a god. On the other hand, when you offer a promise of something to a god in exchange for some boon, that is making a vow. Neither pathfinder nor modern English really draw this distinction, but it could interest you and help flesh out further parts of the setting.
I think making champions into specifically sworn warriors of individual deities sounds cool, although I wonder if there might not be a less individually sworn temple guard type class of champion who are sworn to defend the temples more generally, who act more like clerics in how they obtain divine power from the pantheon acting together rather than an individual relationship with a deity. It seems to me that such temple guardians wouldnt be too far out of the champion wheelhouse, even if the individual oaths colour the nature of the Champion's relationship with their society significantly.
There will definitely be temple guardians, but the fact is that Champions as written are far more "go out into the world and further my goals" type characters than "watch the door". I'm thinking temple guardians are more likely to be stat block characters who may have champion or cleric like spells only while on the temple grounds. (Which then allows it to connect to my sanctity system for how powerful the guards are without cranking the PC's up to 20 because they build a great church...)
|
|
I will amend, the way you're thinking of it is the way Greeks and Romans did things. Other polytheistic peoples around the world operated VERY differently. So it's not so much monotheism leaking, like I said before, it's Western bias leaking in.Now I'm curious. How much different could it be? In essence, not in details. This kind of polytheism feels like a human thing, not a Western thing. Also from bits and pieces of different religions I know (very limited, granted) I don't remember anything crucially different.
One major idea I know if is placating worship. their are deities worshiped in some belief systems who are forces of destruction and known not to have mercy or kindness in them, worship is done to placate and keep them placid. Sekmet in some versions of Egyptian paganism comes to mind. she was a goddess of mindless war and destruction, her worshippers did not want this unleased without cause so their offerings and actions were done to keep her subdued, maybe asleep, in some versions to keep her in her Bastet form, who was more a goddess of protection and justice.
In Shintoism there are violent spirits who are given offerings to appease them, and help purify them, or at least keep them contained.
One interesting trend I have run across is that deities which are worshiped for propriation (keep them quiet so they don't hurt us) often later evolve into benevolent gods of protection from the same hostile forces that were originally threatening the population with...
Some of this, I'm sure, is a simple matter of divine diplomacy. If you don't want the scary god of storms to blow you away with a lightning bolt you express gratitude for his protection to try and reframe the relationship into something more benevolent. Part of it might also be a sort of theistic Stockholm syndrome...
|
|
I think it would be interesting to see worship morph and change across time, like Agoak mentioned. The Egyptian empire lasted so long that they at various points had to re-discover their own gods. Neith for example was originally just a goddess of weaving and hunting, but she eventually, when discovered by later dynasties became associated with fate.
Set was originally a loyal soldier of Ra. but when invaders really liked him, the egyptians saw him as a traitor, and his story became one of betrayal and wickedness. which has linked him with chaos and desert storms.
|
I think it would be interesting to see worship morph and change across time, like Agoak mentioned. The Egyptian empire lasted so long that they at various points had to re-discover their own gods. Neith for example was originally just a goddess of weaving and hunting, but she eventually, when discovered by later dynasties became associated with fate.
Set was originally a loyal soldier of Ra. but when invaders really liked him, the egyptians saw him as a traitor, and his story became one of betrayal and wickedness. which has linked him with chaos and desert storms.
Much less likely to happen when the deities themselves have something to say about it, as they do on Golarion.
Not completely unknown though : Lissala, Arazni, Nocticula, Achaekek spring to mind.
I think it would be interesting to see worship morph and change across time, like Agoak mentioned. The Egyptian empire lasted so long that they at various points had to re-discover their own gods. Neith for example was originally just a goddess of weaving and hunting, but she eventually, when discovered by later dynasties became associated with fate.
Set was originally a loyal soldier of Ra. but when invaders really liked him, the egyptians saw him as a traitor, and his story became one of betrayal and wickedness. which has linked him with chaos and desert storms.
Much less likely to happen when the deities themselves have something to say about it, as they do on Golarion.
Not completely unknown though : Lissala, Arazni, Nocticula, Achaekek spring to mind.
I like to imagine (for my own satisfaction and explanatory headcanon) that it's not so easy for a deity to 'say something about it' as we imagine on the face of it. For a relevant example, the Old Sun Gods of Mzali (Chohar, Luhar, and Tlehar) were not only forgotten about, but knowledge of them was actively erased from the culture that worshipped them. You'd think if it were easy for them to call down "hey we still exist," knowledge of them would not have had to be rediscovered in ruins - even with another divine being working to eradicate trace of them.
It's none too difficult to imagine some mechanism by which gods might get forgotten or lost in a polytheistic society. For example, perhaps a god can only communicate in vague omens and visions unless/until somebody actually takes it upon themselves to build and consecrate and altar in their name. In this way, clerics (and champions) might be the only ones capable of receiving and interpreting relatively direct and unambiguous communication, further increasing their significance in society.
I like this because it can lead to interesting narrative moments, like Sarenrae being unable to send a clear message to the Gormuzites, and the nature of religion varying from place to place by local cultural standards, instead of all being a xerox of exactly what the deity decided to every letter.
(Further, I also like the idea that in order to become a cleric, you have to be sanctified at a consecrated altar - meaning that if you're the first/only worshipper of a god in a region, first you have to construct an altar, figure out how to consecrate it (perhaps with visions from your patron helping you out), and then gotten around to dedicate yourself to receiving powers, which serves a double function for explaining why insular evil cults even build altars that can be discovered by the authorities... but that's an increasingly tangential matter)
I like this because it can lead to interesting narrative moments, like Sarenrae being unable to send a clear message to the GormuzitesAs far as I read she did, several times. They just tried their best to understand it in the opposite way. Or were actively mislead by bad actors.
She definitely sent several messages, its true; the word 'clear' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
|
|
I think it would be interesting to see worship morph and change across time, like Agoak mentioned. The Egyptian empire lasted so long that they at various points had to re-discover their own gods. Neith for example was originally just a goddess of weaving and hunting, but she eventually, when discovered by later dynasties became associated with fate.
Set was originally a loyal soldier of Ra. but when invaders really liked him, the egyptians saw him as a traitor, and his story became one of betrayal and wickedness. which has linked him with chaos and desert storms.
Much less likely to happen when the deities themselves have something to say about it, as they do on Golarion.
Not completely unknown though : Lissala, Arazni, Nocticula, Achaekek spring to mind.
I like to imagine (for my own satisfaction and explanatory headcanon) that it's not so easy for a deity to 'say something about it' as we imagine on the face of it. For a relevant example, the Old Sun Gods of Mzali (Chohar, Luhar, and Tlehar) were not only forgotten about, but knowledge of them was actively erased from the culture that worshipped them. You'd think if it were easy for them to call down "hey we still exist," knowledge of them would not have had to be rediscovered in ruins - even with another divine being working to eradicate trace of them.
It's none too difficult to imagine some mechanism by which gods might get forgotten or lost in a polytheistic society. For example, perhaps a god can only communicate in vague omens and visions unless/until somebody actually takes it upon themselves to build and consecrate and altar in their name. In this way, clerics (and champions) might be the only ones capable of receiving and interpreting relatively direct and unambiguous communication, further increasing their significance in society.
I like this because it can lead to interesting narrative moments, like Sarenrae being unable to send a clear message to the...
I get your point, but we have AFAICT rather rare examples of deities changing their divine identities, much less to the extent shown by Zoken44, in the canon setting.
There must be a reason for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get your point, but we have AFAICT rather rare examples of deities changing their divine identities, much less to the extent shown by Zoken44, in the canon setting.
There must be a reason for that.
If I were feeling more impish, I might be tempted to say that fantasy stasis and conservation of detail are the most probable reasons for that, but I've been typing too much already tonight, and you make a valid point.
Whether or not the gods can communicate easily or directly, it makes sense that core aspects of their identity remain consistent over time. After all, even if Sarenrae were to be forgotten for 1000 years, her clerics before and after probably still care about healing and redemption, and risk losing their powers if the lie.
Pathfinder's gods are self-sufficient and immortal, and so generally don't have any reason to change who they are barring major plot events that alter the course of history, like Nocticula. Most character development (if any) seen in the gods happened so far in the distant past that it doesn't even have a date.
I figure if one were going to create a setting where the gods changing their branding occasionally made sense, you could do worse than starting with the idea that gods need followers/sacrifices enough that they might pivot like a corporation looking for new customers or retain old ones.
|
|
I get your point, but we have AFAICT rather rare examples of deities changing their divine identities, much less to the extent shown by Zoken44, in the canon setting.
There must be a reason for that.
If I were feeling more impish, I might be tempted to say that fantasy stasis and conservation of detail are the most probable reasons for that, but I've been typing too much already tonight, and you make a valid point.
Whether or not the gods can communicate easily or directly, it makes sense that core aspects of their identity remain consistent over time. After all, even if Sarenrae were to be forgotten for 1000 years, her clerics before and after probably still care about healing and redemption, and risk losing their powers if the lie.
Pathfinder's gods are self-sufficient and immortal, and so generally don't have any reason to change who they are barring major plot events that alter the course of history, like Nocticula. Most character development (if any) seen in the gods happened so far in the distant past that it doesn't even have a date.
I figure if one were going to create a setting where the gods changing their branding occasionally made sense, you could do worse than starting with the idea that gods need followers/sacrifices enough that they might pivot like a corporation looking for new customers or retain old ones.
Note that the latter actually happened with Lissala IIRC. But it is definitely not a rule in Golarion that deities need worship.
And, yes, breaking anathema will have an immediate and visible effect that the deity does not approve, at least as far as Clerics and Champions are concerned.
Domains are an interesting case since the alternate domains allow for a wider range of areas of interest to the deity and the Splinter Faith feat opens up many other possibilities. Except again for what is anathema to the deity.
I wonder is we have canon cases of a deity actually changing their anathema.
For myself I tend to follow the broad strokes of The Primal Order, where gods receive power from worship but aren't really dependent on it. Plus it takes power to maintain worship in terms of the magic and miracles that mortal worshipers expect.
That is on the deity's side of things- from the mortal side I tend to go by the way societies actually worked before monotheism became predominant, but with a bit more in the way of actual delivery on expectations.
|
|
For myself I tend to follow the broad strokes of The Primal Order, where gods receive power from worship but aren't really dependent on it. Plus it takes power to maintain worship in terms of the magic and miracles that mortal worshipers expect.
That is on the deity's side of things- from the mortal side I tend to go by the way societies actually worked before monotheism became predominant, but with a bit more in the way of actual delivery on expectations.
TBT I have long been fascinated by how religion works, especially in the settings of my favorite hobby that is TTRPG. Ever since I heard of the Immortal box of basic DnD a very long time ago.
I thus got the Primal Order book too.
For how it works on the mortal side, I really enjoyed reading "The Book of the Righteous" for 3.0 and its take on how cults of different alignments allowed by the same deity emphasize different aspects of said deity.