New Thief For The party - Cleric Of Norberger

[Herobizkit]

It sounds like your group, or you specifically, is very hostile to the team play environment.

I'm not going to tell you your wrongbadfun is wrong, and if the players are cool with you always playing deceitful, thieving 1st-edition style thieves, that's great... so long as you're not attached to the character.

 

[Azgulor]

I'm playing Pathfinder not watching movies. The rules are clear. The symbol must be present. There are no verbal or somatic requirements. It doesn't even glow. (Although my current cleric yells..) So... No. No one will know I'm channeling, but they may begin to ask questions when the horde of goblins suddenly falls over.

1. Your GM's table, his/her rules win, so if that's how Channel Energy is run in your group, more power to you.

2. The rules are not that clear to me. Looking at more core rulebook, I see "wave of energy", "burst", etc. There's nothing that says that it's invisible, odorless, soundless, or isn't triggered by using the holy symbol in conjunction with a prayer (verbal component) for example. A quick scan of UM, the APG, and the Paizo boards didn't reveal a set interpretation either. If there is one, please direct me to the source.

That said, if casting spells around the PC, if I were the GM and other players in the party had ranks in Knowledge: Religion and they were trying to figure out what who the PC in question worshipped, I'd allow an opposed Bluff vs. Knowledge: Religion as I described earlier. Divine casters of different faiths worhsipping different gods are using the same verbal or somatic components RAW, either. For that matter, every verbal or somatic spell in a wizard's spellbook isn't cast the same way by different wizards.

 

[UHF]

It sounds like your group, or you specifically, is very hostile to the team play environment.

I'm not going to tell you your wrongbadfun is wrong, and if the players are cool with you always playing deceitful, thieving 1st-edition style thieves, that's great... so long as you're not attached to the character.

I could easily argue the opposite. What you are describing implies that no evil society could possibly exist, hence... bad guys. In your world, they would never work in conjunction with one another.

Working together for different goals is the very stuff of role playing. Any experienced player can tell you that. How else would thieves play for decades in AD&D? And they were required to be evil too. And they worked along side paladins.

2. The rules are not that clear to me. Looking at more core rulebook, I see "wave of energy", "burst", etc. There's nothing that says that it's invisible, odorless, soundless, or isn't triggered by using the holy symbol in conjunction with a prayer (verbal component) for example. A quick scan of UM, the APG, and the Paizo boards didn't reveal a set interpretation either. If there is one, please direct me to the source.

If there is one thing I've noticed about Pathfinder, it is extremely precise about the details of any ability or effect.

The rules are extremely clear in this case. "A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability." The victims suffer the consequences of a failed save.

If you wish to add or require more, that is your choice but it is house ruling.

There's no reason not to simply follow the rules and have the cleric of Norgorber will the living to die.

However, I personally prefer more descriptive narratives in my game. Our existing cleric of Sarenrae yells, "Back to the hell from whence you came!", and the undead are visibly blasted back. I dunno, it seemed a cool idea at the time.


I believe that the size and shape of the holy symbol needs to weigh into this. It would seem a bit trite to make it mini. Norgorber is a black mask with a star on it.


Calistra is looking a lot easier to use now. (No... he wouldn't be a nice kind of cleric. Negotiating bulk discounts in brothels would be right up his alley.)

 

[Herobizkit]

I could easily argue the opposite. What you are describing implies that no evil society could possibly exist, hence... bad guys. In your world, they would never work in conjunction with one another.

Working together for different goals is the very stuff of role playing. Any experienced player can tell you that. How else would thieves play for decades in AD&D? And they were required to be evil too. And they worked along side paladins.

Actually, thieves could be any neutral or evil in 1ed, including Neutral Good, though they TENDED towards evil. And Paladins were not permitted to work with any Evil characters, period.

Paladins will have henchmen of lawful good alignment and none other; they will associate only with characters and creatures of good alignment; paladins can join a company of adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals only on a single expedition basis, and only if some end which will further the cause of lawful good is purposed.

I think 1e Dragonlance was the first setting to allow Paladins to work alongside Evil characters, but that is setting-specific, not RAW.

What I am implying is that in a game where the PC's are expected to work together, a character that works AGAINST party goals is not a welcome party member. Interfering, on the other hand, can be annoying but doesn't have to be inherently Evil.

We're not going to agree on this point, and that is fine.

 

[N'raac]

I could easily argue the opposite. What you are describing implies that no evil society could possibly exist, hence... bad guys. In your world, they would never work in conjunction with one another.

I don't consider "working in conjunction with one another" and "stealing from one another" to be necessarily compatible, much less synonymous. The fact you see a need to hide your true colours, and kep your evil nature a secret, from the rest of the parties seems inconsistent with "working in conjunction" with them.

Working together for different goals is the very stuff of role playing. Any experienced player can tell you that. How else would thieves play for decades in AD&D? And they were required to be evil too. And they worked along side paladins.

When were thieves required to be Evil? In 1e, they could not be Good. I believe it was 2e that removed even that restriction. Similar goals? Works fine. Opposite goals? Not so much.

 

[N'raac]

What I am implying is that in a game where the PC's are expected to work together, a character that works AGAINST party goals is not a welcome party member. Interfering, on the other hand, can be annoying but doesn't have to be inherently Evil.

I think this is the key point. A character could very well be Evil, but have congruent goals with the other characters in the group. Perhaps he is Lawful Evil, and the campaign is focused on Law vs Chaos more than Good vs Evil, for example.

Much more possible is a non-evil character whose goals do not align with those of the party. Would Robin Hood fit well with a LN City Guard/Tax Collector? And Neutral Greedy character stealing from the party would be more likely to draw the ire of my honourable barbarian than a LE character who tortures prisoners for information, but does so in conjunction with the goals of the party.

 

[Azgulor]

If there is one thing I've noticed about Pathfinder, it is extremely precise about the details of any ability or effect.

The rules are extremely clear in this case. "A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability." The victims suffer the consequences of a failed save.

If you wish to add or require more, that is your choice but it is house ruling.

Except you're ignoring the text that describes the ability and focusing on the last sentence that states what is required to use the ability. Nothing in that sentence discusses the form (or lack) that channel energy takes.

You're choosing to ignore the "precise language" that precedes that sentence describing "wave of energy" and "burst".

You're welcome to play the ability any way you wish at your table. But your interpretation and decision to ignore the descriptive text of the ability in favor of the last sentence which focuses on the requirement (i.e. the equivalent of a material component in a spell), is just as much a house rule as my interpretation.

In any event, since you are required to present the holy symbol to perform the channel (p40 of the latest printing of the core rulebook), all it takes is for someone to see you do it and recognize the holy symbol. If your GM follows your interpretation rather than mine, then you're probably looking at Sleight-of-Hand vs. Perception to see which symbol you're really using.

Bottom line, if you're building this PC with the conceit that the only way it'll work is if the other PCs can't catch on to who your PC really worships, you're probably going to be disappointed somewhere along the way.

Best of luck with the PC concept. I'd get the GM's buy-in with your interpretation first, though.