Is the Cleric a Common Fantasy Archtype?

[I'm A Banana]

It's a reasonable enough archetype IMHO. It's a 'healer.' I know my inspiration for D&D is positively *gluttonous* with examples (Take, for instance, half of Final Fantasy women characters -- y'know, the half that aren't offensive spellcasters).

The divide is that, in literature, no one is the support troop unless they're the sidekick, and the people that want to play the sidekick are few and far between.

In literature, you have warrior heroes and arcane heroes and trickster-heroes....rarely do you have a 'wise man' hero that can't be made with a Wizard. Because offense -- sneaking, striking, casting boom spells -- is what makes the book action-packed and the story sell. No one ever gets maimed or hurt or wounded beyond repair unless it serves the *plot*.

So of course it's not a popular archetype in fiction. But it's an essential role in a game where there is an option to die (unlike in fiction, when you NEVER die unless it makes for a dramatic moment). There has to be someone to stop that from happening.

Well, at least, there has to be in the way the game was originally and traditionally designed.

I think it's an OK archetype that represents a lot of fantastic figures that I could emulate. No problem with it from my end.

 

[Merlion]

*.

So of course it's not a popular archetype in fiction. But it's an essential role in a game where there is an option to die (unlike in fiction, when you NEVER die unless it makes for a dramatic moment). There has to be someone to stop that from happening.

[/B]

I understand that. but why does their have to be a class for it? Why cant anyone who can use magic have at least some meaningful ability to heal wounds and cure damage?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I suppose we're destroying the D&D "Fire and Forget" Wizard as only ONE source has wizards like that...

By the way... the butt-kicking Cleric is basically Archbishop Turpin for the Song of Roland. The original spell list was based of this plus some semi-random Bible miracles.

D&D is a set of archetypes distinct from the fantasy that it arose from. D&D is not, as you seem to want, a generic fantasy game. Sorry, it isn't.

This is similar to the evolution of the ranger, barbarian, bard, et al. In someways, the arcane/divine split is an integral par tof the brand identity.

 

[fba827]

I understand that. but why does their have to be a class for it? Why cant anyone who can use magic have at least some meaningful ability to heal wounds and cure damage?

Well that takes it back to a conversation on another thread:
Some people just believe that there should be three basic "core" classes --
- spellcaster
- fighter/"weapon person"
- "skills person"

Nothing wrong with it if that's what you prefer. D&D was just setup with the additional core classes because the designers felt a distinction was necessary. Why they (the designers) felt it necessary is anyone's guess, but I think that's what the responses above are getting at - trying to rationalize what thought process contributed to it being a distinct class for the cleric, etc.

 

[green slime]

I always thought the Cleric idea was based off Bishop Odo, who, IRC ran around in the 1100's armed with a mace striking folks on the head...

"because the mace didn't cause bleeding wounds..." or something to that effect.

 

[evildm]

But does the cleric have to emulate literature or have representation in literature outside of D&D novels? Is it necessary?

I never thought D&D was really inspired by fantasy literature per-se. I just thought it was based more on history, myth, legend, etc; than on any sort of established fantasy literature.

Personally, I think the cleric was created simply to fill a niche. There was a fighter, a wizard, and a thief. If they were to go on adventures, then it might be useful to have them be able to heal themselves quickly, so add a healer. Of course, they can't have him step on the toes of the wizard, so they make him a bit weaker with magic, but they need to balance him out, so they make him a bit tougher, but not so much to step on the toes of the fighter. This is all just hypothesis of course, I could be dead wrong.

EDIT: Edited for stupidity.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I would say that the relationship of any DnD class to fantasy literature is going to be fairly nebulous. At the very least any fantasy literature post DnD is going to have the obligation to work against the presence of DnD in the genre.

For instance, someone said that there are a lot of examples of wizards who look like DnD wizards, but I would challenge anyone to come up with a solid list of wizards who weren't based out of DnD who:

-memorize magic from a book
-have nine levels of spells which include everything from illusion to fireballs to raising the dead, summoning monsters, and teleporting
-have incredibly limited abilities outside of magic including no social, wilderness, athletic, or combat abilities to speak of
-build an array of magical devices ranging from scrolls to swords
-have familiars
-rely on no allegiance to any sort of supernatural being for their spells
-rely on no manufactured device, save for the book, for their spells
-do 'rely' on various spell components ranging from dancing to consuming gems
-automatically learn some spells and have to seek out others
-can only resist other forms of magic through other spells, whether its the counterspell mechanic or a the 'dispel' series

I would submit that I know of no type of wizard who fits these requirements outside of DnD. Now I can point to a few wizards who can fit two or more of these requirements, and I can point to a few wizards that people feel fairly comfortable modeling using these requirements.

The cleric on the otherhand has a few specific models that can be pointed to:
old testament prophets who do everything from fly on fire chariots, to healing people, to divination, to summoning fire, to fighting in battle alongside everyone else. Not too mention there cleric adversaries who also have a fair amount of divine power and tend to have greater martial prowress.
Medieval warrior saints and bishops who had a fair amount of both mystical and martial power. Many people have already pointed to the Templars, and while I think that doesn't really fit the class as well as actuall warrior clerics I wouldn't say it isn't valid.

And there are plenty of models that I can point to in the same vein as most associations of other types of wizards and DnD wizards:
Friar Tuck, St. Patrick, St. Francis, St. George, some versions of Merlin, holy men of Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu fable and fame. People like Van Helsing and Aramus from the heroic tradition who represent the supernatural and ecclesiastical aspects of the clergy respectively. The common tradition throughout pulp fiction of the two-fisted priest and the church as an institution of refuge and healing.
In prior to DnD fantasy fiction there are a wealth of characters who fit the archetype of the evil cleric. I would argue that the king of the Nazgul is more cleric than wizard and I would even argue that Gandalf appears to be more cleric than wizard in most circumstances. The man can certainly fight, his magical prowess seems to be more protective and beneficial than offensive, and he possesses both a connection to higher powers and a magical presence that wizards lack. Edgar Rice Burroughs and other pulp authors fill their books with characters who could not be identified as anything other than evil characters.

And as for the arcane/divine split, most magical traditions of the wester world recognize the existence of many 'types' of magic. In the medieaval world the knowledge of the alchemists was considered very distinct from the knowledge of various holy mystics, and the power of divine authority over other forms of magic is a theme throughout the religious traditions of the Western and near Eastern, please forgive the term, world. Even most shamanic cultures will draw a distinction between people who rely on magic based on some sort of communion and those who use magic based on personal power.

And in most of these splits those who have individual power are better at harming and those with communion based power are better at healing.

The cleric class presents a workable and valid construction of these realities into DnD fiction and narrative. A construction that also fills an important need of the game.

Certainly, I do not dispute anyone's right to be unhappy with the cleric class or even the inclusion of these themes in the game, but it does seem difficult to justify that unhappiness on the grounds that the cleric doesn't belong.

 

[s/LaSH]

Eric Van Lustbader's most recent couple of books, besides being really weird, have a bunch of religion thrown in too. It's not too close to D&D clerichood, but it's not too close to anything else either. Anyone else read those? I can't remember the name right now, for which I castigate myself. Silly me.

Anyway, they have mostly passive powers. 'Porting, some unusual healing rites, and demonfighting.

 

[Victim]

I think you're being very literal in your definition of a cleric.

Rand al Thor makes a mean cleric. He's swordmaster, and one of the greatest spellcasters ever. He can blow things up and heal (crappily, he must be house ruled so he can swap for his domain spells instead of cures). Taking any fighting class levels makes you a weaker caster. Even if you make up for the fact by piling on lots of levels, the character is still weaker at magic than he could be. I don't think that's the case. But a cleric has great spell ability and can fight. Flavor issues aside, you can make the dragon reborn as pretty much a single class cleric.

As demonstrated above, the cleric ability set can adequately model fictional characters that can both fight well and cast spells. Since most novels don't have a arcane/divine magic split, the religion issues of the cleric are usually meaningless.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Merlion,

I saw that you defended the bard in the worst class contest as being something with a lot of tradition behind it, and that makes me wonder if I understand your position on the cleric very well. Seems to me that someone who feels the bard class makes a proper core class for representing the entire spectrum of lore keepers, minstrels, troubadors, and, yes, bards should have some opinion on what sort of core class should represent the entire tradition of clerics, templars, rabbis, prophets, imams, monks, bishops, hermits, priests, cultists, missionaries, and generic deitie(s) or spirit(s) based vocations in human history.

Would you mind explaining in more detail what changes you think the cleric should get to make it fit into the sort of justification you give the bard?

Just curious since I've read so many of your complaints against the cleric and enjoyed posting on the threads you've started.

Thanks in advance.