Cleric shenanigans (metaphysical, no right answers)

[Sword of Spirit]

That's the point, the ones who don't cast spells aren't in the adventures. The game fiction assumes the world is full of people who aren't plagued by monsters or hatching evil plots for world domination. The farmers farm, the laborers labour, and if they get hurt the local priest can't cast Cure Wounds on them. They are just part of the background scenery, like trees, birds and squirrels.


It's pretty much essential to the standard D&D plot set up that villages have few, if any, people with class levels. If they did, they could deal with the monster infestation themselves, and wouldn't need to pool their life savings to hire the first group of adventurers who happen along.

Well, I didn't really want to spend the time, but I went ahead and did it anyway. Cold hard, published facts to back up what I'm saying.

2e AD&D detailed basically the entire town of Daggerfall in a dedicated booklet of about 35+ pages. Here's one of the intro paragraphs for context:

"This self-styled city is a town of about 500 folk. The town is the largest stop on the
High Road between Waterdeep and Baldur’s Gate. It’s home to human craftsmen, a few
halflings, and a handful of folk of other races. There are about 20 farming hamlets within
a day’s walk of Daggerford (15-20 miles), each of which is home to around five families.
Each hamlet has a fortified building where the residents retreat in case of raids. There are
also isolated farms and a few estates of minor nobility. In all, about 1,200 people depend
on the Daggerford market for goods they can’t make themselves." - The North - a Guide to the Savage Frontier, 1996.

There is a temple of Lathandar staffed by Liam Sunmist, a 10th level cleric.
There is a shrine of Tempus staffed by Baergon Bluesword, a 7th level cleric.
There is a shrine of Tymora staffed by Bando the Lame, a 7th level specialty priest.
There is a mosque to Tyr 2 days to the east staffed by Elorshin, a 6th level specialty priest.

It doesn't really tell us if any of the other clergy that might be at those temples or shrines are spellcasters. But let's read the shrine to Chauntea for context:

"95. Chauntea’s Shrine (Harvest House)
Maerovyna (LG hf D9) presides over this large, stone establishment
which is also known as Harvest House. Not
far from the Farmers’ Gate, she administers 14 priests and
about 30 lay brothers between 2nd and 5th level. This
shrine to the Great Mother is of great importance to all
the farmers and ranchers of the Daggerford area, as the
priests spend their time fulfilling the needs of the community,
including blessing fields and researching new plants.
The oldest apothecary in town is Duneden (LN hm C3).
He has the ingredients for most common spells, but he depends
on caravans for more exotic ingredients."

There is also the Physician's Order:

"This guild hall is home to apothecaries, physicians, embalmers,
and healing clerics"

Moving on to other published settlements...the next one I took a gander at is in Night of the Walking Dead, a Ravenloft adventure, so we're looking at low magic.

In the 300 person village of Marais d'Tarascon, there is only one church, and it is presided over by Brucian, a 2nd level priest.

I don't have a lot of 5e adventures. I'm less than half way through reading Out of the Abyss, but here's what I've seen so far. The Svirfneblin in the small village of Blingdenstone have only one religious organization, and it's overseen by at least one priest (the NPC statblock that is a simplified 5th level cleric). The 500 Kuo-toa have an archpriest in their little neck of monsterdom.

I've got pdfs of a bunch of short freebie 3e adventures that WotC put out--so not anything recognizable. Let's see what the clergy are like in the first 3 villages I can find that have clergy.

Eye of the Sun: 3rd level Adept
Ghosts of Aniel: Two 1st level clerics, and a note that many of the highest level characters in the village had recently died. They seem to have followed the DMG instructions for giving classes to inhabitants of towns. The DMG from 3.5e (p.139) says that a typical hamlet of 200 people (Aniel has 146 currently) would have one 3rd level cleric and two 1st level clerics, and they seem to be actually following the suggestions in the DMG (though it would have been the 3.0e for this adventure).
Last Breaths of Ashenport: 6th level Adept

I've only addressed small villages because they are telling us about all the shrines and temples in them. Some of these have maps with every building on them! They aren't just telling us the ones that have casters and assuming there are others that don't. No, this is what they have--and it's spellcasters.

Are there any counter-examples you can find from official published settings or adventures?

 

[Laurefindel]

Are there any counter-examples you can find from official published settings or adventures?

I think @Paul Farquhar meant that examples given in adventures are not representative of the game world because if they were, the adventure would not happen there.

You and @Celebrim are advocating that despite the guidelines restricting character classes to a minority, nothing in the published material seem to support that claim according to the examples we are given.

From where I stand, it appears to me that both sides are pointing at some inconsistencies, but are comparing apples to oranges. Both claims are true and coexist simultaneously.

To a certain point, I like that the players aren't the only casters around. There needs to be enough of them to make believable adversaries (casters can't be THAT rare if that's the 5th one we battle in the last 5 days...) and to support the described economy of spell material components, spellbook supplies etc that is hinted at in certain settings (mainly Forgotten Realm and Eberron).

Due to the wide breath of power level from lvl1 to lvl20 (or even lvl10), D&D struggles at giving believable quests for 1-3 lvl characters. Either they become king of the hill by lvl5, or you wonder why the other lvl5 npcs aren't taking care of business themselves.

 

[Celebrim]

I think [MENTION=6906155]Paul Farquhar[/MENTION] meant that examples given in adventures are not representative of the game world because if they were, the adventure would not happen there.

You and @Celebrim are advocating that despite the guidelines restricting character classes to a minority, nothing in the published material seem to support that claim according to the examples we are given.

From where I stand, it appears to me that both sides are pointing at some inconsistencies, but are comparing apples to oranges. Both claims are true and coexist simultaneously.

I agree both claims are true and coexist simultaneously. Neither in of themselves though proves a particular ratio between non-PC classed individuals and PC classed individuals.

So I'm also making further claims.

a) While the locations where adventures happen are not representative of the whole world, they are representative of more than 1/10000th of the inhabited world.

b) In all settings where any locations have been detailed, the ratio of PC classed individuals to non-PC classed individuals is such that there are less than between 10-100 non-PC classed individuals for each PC classed individuals. This is consistent not only across settings, but all supplements, including the demographics of "Men" in the Monster Manual, the implications of random encounter tables for Urban areas in the Dungeon Master Guide, the demographics of latter supplements such as the 2e Thieves Handbook (which details how many thieves and of what level exist in a community).

c) There are no counter examples despite the fact that over time the game began to detail more and more mundane locations in the world as the game evolved from it's simple Haven/Delve roots.

d) Since there are no counter examples, it's reasonable to suppose that even if adventuring areas have uniquely high percentages of PC classed individuals that the ratios in the undescribed areas are not more than an order of magnitude or so different and are probably less. Again, the 2e Thieves Handbook details the numbers of thieves in all possible urban environments, and the thieves alone have ratios around 1/100 inhabitants (or higher, depending on the community). Since it's reasonable to assume that fighters and clerics are at least as numerous as thieves and probably much more so (since they are not parasitical and are actually useful to the community) then its reasonable to assume that, lacking actual counterexamples, ranges like 1/10000 occur nowhere and such ratios were never really supported in play by the publishers of the game. If they ever at one time asserted such a ratio, they must have thought better of it.

e) Even if we approach the question from a simulation perspective, it's highly unlikely that extreme disparities exist between environments were adventuring occurs and the ones where it doesn't for two significant reasons. First, there would be economic pressure for leveled PC individuals to migrate from the area where adventuring occurs to the ones were it doesn't, because their skills in those environments would be rarer, more highly valued, and their disparity in power compared to the ordinary inhabitants would make more influential and able to assert their will on the population. In other words, there would be pressure for the leveled individuals to conquer the non-leveled individuals. This would also tend to immediately turn the locations where adventuring doesn't happen into areas where adventuring happens. Likewise, there would be economic pressure for monsters to desist in attacking areas where adventuring happens (and leveled PCs occur) and turn their attention to the areas where their plundering and depredations could not be easily resisted. Again, this would immediately turn the areas where adventuring doesn't happen into areas where adventuring does happen. Further, if we suppose that these populations of non-leveled individuals exist, we have to explain how in fact they are surviving in a world with creatures like ghouls and werewolves if in fact they have no real ability to resist such creatures. The obvious answer is that leveled individuals exist in sufficient quantitates and with sufficient organization to protect them from such common threats. The result is that even if we are purist to simulation of a so called gritty, "grimdark", pseudo-medieval setting that we are forced to concede that the only stable arrangement of society is one where "adventuring" occurs everywhere and leveled PC's exist in approximately the ratios established by the areas that have already been described and detailed by the game publishers.

As a subset to those claims, the ratio between clergy who can cast spells and "laity" who are serving a cult seems to be as described quite high, and that in general all temples seem to contain at least some clergy and all individuals identified as clergy tend to be or always are clerics.

I will introduce a caveat. Forgotten Realms is far and away the most detailed setting TSR/WotC has ever published, and we have very good reason to believe that FR entirely abandoned the demographics that prevailed in other settings. In general, it appears to me that on average FR characters of all sorts are about twice the level that prevailed in Greyhawk, Krynn or Eberron. In those settings, 15th level is a fairly high level character and typical characters are 1st-2nd level with leaders who are 3rd-5th level. In the FR, 30th level is a fairly high level character, typical characters are 2nd-4th level, and have leaders that are 6th-10th level. But that's only a general approximation, and I don't think any effort was made to consciously double the levels normally used. I just think that high level NPCs were introduced for a variety of gamist and personal reasons and it happened to work about that way. Thus, comparing FR demographics to what prevails anywhere else tends to be apples and oranges.

Dues to the wide breath of power level from lvl1 to lvl20 (or even lvl10), D&D struggles at giving believable quests for 1-3 lvl characters. Either the become king of the hill by lvl5, or you wonder why the other lvl5 npcs aren't taking care of the business themselves.

The way I typically handle this is to begin the campaign with some sort of widespread crisis, so that the leaders in the community are obviously busy doing their thing, and you are forced to do something of lesser scope, but still valorous and heroic, for the sake of survival (or loyalty to the community, or opportunity for violence and plunder, or whatever motivates the character). Thus for example I might start campaigns with natural disasters or invasions or magical tribulations or whatever, so that the whole of the community is swept up in the problem. Gradually, the PC's thereafter take more and more central positions in the story, and the PC's are recognized as destined heroes and people more and more turn to them for aid.

But you are correct that D&D's traditional Haven/Delve set up invariably runs into the problem of, "If 1st level characters can go retrieve this treasure, how is it that some NPC's of higher level ages before hasn't plundered these halls?" Typically, no good answers are given to that question. In fact, with T1: Village of Hommlet, the question has so few answers, that it calls into question emersion in the setting - the NPCs not only have the ability to plunder the moat house, but in the text are given the motives for doing so.

 

[Laurefindel]

I'll give one thing to 5e however,

For the first time (AFAIK), D&D has NPC entries that represent human(oid) NPCs that are neither lvl0 commoners nor characters with PC class levels, yet can cast spells, use one or two abilities, and a variance of hp. It is now a lot easier to implement that few NPCs have class levels, yet fit in a game world that can be challenging for the players.

You could play a whole campaign using only NPC stat blocks for adversaries.

 

[Celebrim]

2) Strictly speaking "Faith" shouldn't really exist in a fantasy game setting. Faith is "belief that is not based on proof" (Dictionary.com) Since the presence of Clerical magic is indisputable, proof exists and therefore "faith", in the strictest sense, can't exist. So I'd substitute the concept of Devotion for "Faith".

As a pet peeve, the definition of Faith has evolved greatly over the last 150 years - at least as it has been presented in dictionaries. Early dictionaries, say those of the 19th century, presented a very different definition of faith than the one that has been trending to dominance among lexicographists over the last 50 years. My contention is that this evolution has occurred as the proportion of lexicographists who are pious has diminished, producing a situation where the people judging the meaning of the word "Faith" are increasingly the ones that don't have it.

This produces a huge disconnect in modern conversation between the pious and the irreligious, since the irreligious when they say "faith" are using something like your dictionary.com definition, but the religious and pious when they say "Faith" are using an entirely different older definition. The result is a massive disconnect where neither side understands what the other is saying, and which were neither side agrees to the others axiomatic claims. The two groups are literally speaking different dialects where words with particular sounds are related to one other, but convey very different meanings.

For example, the reason that I would tend to say that "Faith" shouldn't really exist in a fantasy game setting, is that the vast majority of fantasy game settings have some sort cosmology that is pastiche polytheism, and in general polytheistic religions consider correct ritual vastly more important than faith (if they consider faith at all) and what separates the clergy from the common worshiper is not a degree of faith, but the fact that the clergy possess the esoteric and often secret knowledge (to say nothing of the paraphernalia) necessary to correctly perform the rituals. The logic of that is based on the assumptions of polytheism, which do not require that the worshipper form an attachment to any particular deity. Monotheism holds faith higher than ritual, because it emphasizes in a way that polytheism doesn't, attachment to the person of a particular deity. (As Gene Wolfe recently died, the conversation between Severian and his deceased Master concerning government, and the faith of his three legged dog comes to mind here.)

 

[Celebrim]

I'll give one thing to 5e however,

For the first time (AFAIK), D&D has NPC entries that represent human(oid) NPCs that are neither lvl0 commoners nor characters with PC class levels, yet can cast spells, use one or two abilities, and a variance of hp. It is now a lot easier to implement that few NPCs have class levels, yet fit in a game world that can be challenging for the players.

You could play a whole campaign using only NPC stat blocks for adversaries.

There is something to be said for that.

The reason I resist it is mostly a grudge I hold against 1e AD&D, which treated NPC's and PC's differently, and invariably gave to NPC's benefits that PC's could not receive. The unfairness of this when I was a player frustrated me greatly, and so as a DM, I generally prefer to have a situation where the game system at least doesn't distinguish between PCs and NPCs, and any NPC could be a PC and any PC could be an NPC.

 

[Staffan]

For example, the reason that I would tend to say that "Faith" shouldn't really exist in a fantasy game setting, is that the vast majority of fantasy game settings have some sort cosmology that is pastiche polytheism, and in general polytheistic religions consider correct ritual vastly more important than faith (if they consider faith at all) and what separates the clergy from the common worshiper is not a degree of faith, but the fact that the clergy possess the esoteric and often secret knowledge (to say nothing of the paraphernalia) necessary to correctly perform the rituals. The logic of that is based on the assumptions of polytheism, which do not require that the worshipper form an attachment to any particular deity. Monotheism holds faith higher than ritual, because it emphasizes in a way that polytheism doesn't, attachment to the person of a particular deity. (As Gene Wolfe recently died, the conversation between Severian and his deceased Master concerning government, and the faith of his three legged dog comes to mind here.)

My impression is that the people in most D&D settings are not exactly polytheistic... rather, are monolatrous. Or even individually monolatrous, which is not generally something we've seen much in our world.

That is, a polytheistic culture would worship many deities more or less equally, as the situation calls for (but maintaining some default level of propitiation for all of them just in case - you don't want to not give Eris her due). A monolatrous culture would say "There are many gods, but this one's ours." That seems to be what's going on on an individual level in most D&D worlds - in Greyhawk you have followers of Hieroneous opposing the followers of Hextor, but a polytheistic culture would recognize that each of those have their place in the universe. The one D&D setting I've seen that features proper polytheism is Eberron, where the Sovereign Host is commonly worshiped as a group.

Anyway, the point I was going to make is that monolatry probably leads to a closer attachment to a deity than polytheism - possibly more than monotheism even, on account of a greater likelyhood of there being a god around that's a good match.

 

[Staffan]

There is something to be said for that.

The reason I resist it is mostly a grudge I hold against 1e AD&D, which treated NPC's and PC's differently, and invariably gave to NPC's benefits that PC's could not receive. The unfairness of this when I was a player frustrated me greatly, and so as a DM, I generally prefer to have a situation where the game system at least doesn't distinguish between PCs and NPCs, and any NPC could be a PC and any PC could be an NPC.

I see your point from a principled perspective. However, years of playing/running 3e and Pathfinder taught me that this principle is, well, not a particularly useful one.

See, there are a couple of big differences between PCs and NPCs.

1. PCs are usually being played week after week for months on end, for hours at a time. An NPC involved in combat is lucky to survive five rounds.

2. PCs have one player wholly dedicated to playing that one character. An NPC shares the space in the DM's head with a bunch of other NPCs, plus plots, plus dungeons, plus long-term plans, plus setting information, and so on.

3. PCs are the stars of the game. NPCs are supporting cast, there to challenge and/or support the PCs.

All of these have lead me to strongly believe that NPCs don't need anywhere near the detail PCs get. In particular, resource management needs to be simplified. An ability like the 5e bardic inspiration is awesome as a player, but a complete no-go as an NPC. If I'm making a bard-ish NPC, I'd instead give them an ability to use a reaction to add +d6 to an ally's roll, and then have it recharge on 4+ or something.

The problem in AD&D was related to the way the novels were driving various meta-plots, and how a large portion of various books (particularly in FR) were dedicated to statting out the pro- and antagonists in these books. As the novels were generally not written to hew directly to the game rules, adapting their characters to the game often required some shenanigans, and then players who got their hands on those books wondered why they couldn't do the same things. But with 5e, there aren't all that many big-name NPCs around in the books occupying a lot of space.

 

[Celebrim]

My impression is that the people in most D&D settings are not exactly polytheistic... rather, are monolatrous. Or even individually monolatrous, which is not generally something we've seen much in our world.

Don't get me started on how ridiculous most religion is in most published settings. Most of it tends to be polytheism, but polytheism as imagined by someone with absolutely no knowledge of actual polytheism in practice, and so polytheism as imagined through the lens of someone who has a vague Judeo-Christian derived view of what religion is like and so assumes all religion is basically like that.

It's hard to say whether the default religious observance of characters in D&D fantasy worlds is more like monolatry or more like henotheism, simply because most authors don't even seem to realize that there is any distinction to be made. Generally, it seems characters are expected to choose a patron associated with their profession which not coincidentally is much more like Catholocism with its patron saints than it is anything like polytheism. I tend to describe this as universal henotheism.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make, aside from the comment that most people who actually say that they have "Faith" aren't asserting what the dictionary.com definition would lead you to believe, is that most D&D religions are poorly thought out and as shallow as a puddle - so much so that I find it hard to believe anyone in most published settings has any real attachment to the described deities at all.

 

[Celebrim]

All of these have lead me to strongly believe that NPCs don't need anywhere near the detail PCs get.

I agree with just about everything you say, so I'm not really treating my preference as anything but a subjective preference. There are objective reasons for me to have the preference and advantages that go along with doing it my way, but those advantages have to be weighed against the real advantages of treating PC's and NPC's differently - and that's a value or practical judgment based on what comes up in your campaign most often.

Generally the way I deal with the fact that NPC's don't need anywhere near the detail PC's get is that I just don't detail them, and if I ever need to detail them, I do so on the fly, knowing that being off a point or two here or there on a skill check or even attack bonus doesn't matter worth a hill of beans. NPCs that are meant to be combat foes are either copied from short stat blocks I've developed over the year ("sailor", "marine", "town guard", "ruffian", etc.) or else given enough of a detail that a combat can be run. Since high level NPCs are rare, I don't template a lot of characters (other than the occasional vampire or werewolf), and I don't have PrCs, this isn't usually the problem it would be in say full canon RAW 3.5 or Pathfinder.