Cleric shenanigans (metaphysical, no right answers)

[merwins]

I don't have time to fully respond to this right now. But the difference between faith and piety is fascinating.

My gut feeling is that for DnD, the divine relationship ("devotion to your deity") matters (since most game worlds use real gods). So in modern connotation, faith, with its relationship implications, seems to have enough religious association to remain the correct word. But I have to think about it some more.

With regard to how divine magic differs from arcane, and why spells lists are different... one possibility might be that the gods carved out territory in the Weave so that particular patterns belong to them. Classes like Divine Soul instill some aspect of the divine within the character, which gives them the same ability to access those patterns.

As far as power source, for my needs I've postulated that all spellcasting is based on focused force of will. But the ability to access the Weave varies. It's innate to sorcerers (they're magical creatures, more or less), its rigorous study for wizards, it's a deific passkey for clerics and druids. Without such access, you might be able to mentally punch or sneak your way through to some spells or spell-like effects (monk, arcane trickster).

 

[not-so-newguy]

Perhaps the question is what empowers a deity to empower its followers? Especially in the case of a deity that has countless followers, with many of them having divine powers. It’s not new question, but I think answering it requires some creativity.

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps the question is what empowers a deity to empower its followers? Especially in the case of a deity that has countless followers, with many of them having divine powers. It’s not new question, but I think answering it requires some creativity.

I usually choose to not answer that question. Unless you are making the metaphysics a plot point in the campaign, it isn't something that *needs* an answer.

But then, I run games in which the gods generally do not appear in person (or even in avatar), so that there's always a question as to what they are, or even if they exist.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Celebrim]

So, the following represents how clerical magic works in D&D as I understand it:

1) Clerics have no magical ability in and of themselves. This is precisely why clerics can completely lose their magical ability. If clerical magical ability was simply concentrated force of will that they had honed in some fashion, then they could not have their power turned off nor would they need to prepare spells.

2) Clerics receive their spells from divine powers or their agents. The cleric requests the spell and then has it granted to them either directly from the divinity or else through some agent of the divinity. The spell is transferred from some being that can cast it to the cleric, thus the source of the power is not the cleric. The spell is received by the cleric in a revelatory fashion. The cleric need only finish the spell that has been placed in their mind through the divine revelation, and after words they no longer have the power or even the memory of the spell.

3) Because of this when a cleric uses a spell, they are not directly channeling the will of the divinity. No miracle actually takes place at the time the spell is cast and the divinity does not have the direct ability to decide how and when the spell is used. The actual miracle occurred when the cleric received the spell. As such, a cleric can use a spell for purposes that the divinity may not have approved of though this breach of trust, that is the deity's lost faith in the cleric's judgment, could be punished by future loss of communion and revelation.

4) Because the source of the magic is not the cleric's own ability, clerical magic can accomplish things that no mortal magic could actually accomplish. The reasons for the limitations on mortal magic are generally either not explained or else are explained in a setting specific fashion, but even if the cause is not explained it is clear that they are there because otherwise there would be more overlap between the arcane and divine spell-casting lists. Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, the real distinction between an arcane and a divine spellcaster is whether or not the primary source of power is internal or external to the spell-caster. Divine spell-casters always get the majority of their magical ability from external sources, which is why they can lose access to it by breaking their bargains in some fashion.

5) Clerics receive spells from deities according to the deity's whims, with the particular conditions that they must satisfy varying from deity to deity. As an analogy, you can think of the deity logging into some supernatural website and downloading spells. ("Order of the Stick" actually uses this metaphor comically in world.) In order to log into the system, the cleric must know not only how to reach or contact the power source through prayers, but also must authenticate themselves in some way. That is to say, they have to be known to the divine powers and in good standing with them. For lawful deities, this probably means that they need to be ordained in some fashion and recognized by the clerical hierarchy - you can imagine that the cleric has their name in a book somewhere. For chaotic deities, this probably means that they have to be on friendly terms with the divine/supernatural personages that answer their requests. In any case, while receiving spells might involve some ritual, performance of that ritual alone in no way guarantees that you can get the spells. It's not a service available to everyone. Nor does the cleric have the right to demand spells because of some internal power. The basis of their access to spells is that they are in good standing with the powers that dispense them. Presumably, access to spells is limited solely because of lack of trust that the deity has in their servant and the limited ability of the deity (for whatever reason) to fulfill spell requests. The amount of trust that the servant has in the deity is in this setup meaningless, because its not normally a cleric asking for miraculous intervention and the deity has large but finite resources (for whatever reason). Giving spells to cleric involves some cost to the deity or to the deities even more limited agents. Maybe the spell comes from an agent that can only use that spell X times per day, and the transference of the spell means that the agent is now more limited in their ability to accomplish the deity's goals.

6) In this arrangement, there would be plenty of truly pious and faithful persons that would not be clerics, would not gain spells, and possibly could not gain spells. No matter how refined their spirit became, no matter how great their belief, no matter how faithfully they served, no matter how holy (or unholy) they were, no power would necessarily flow out. You might could create options for persons like that, but core D&D typically does not validate that sort of self-improvement as a valid path to spell-casting ability. See however the monk for an example of what in D&D self-improvement might possibly allow, at least by traditional mechanics.

7) Historically, there has been some limited discussion by D&D authors of clerics which are straying out of their defined role receiving spells from a source other than the one that they believe that they are receiving the spells from. That is to say, while the normal process of a cleric straying involve the deity getting locked out of access to their spells, in some rare occasions author's have played with the idea of a cleric being tempted to transfer allegiance to a different deity, occasionally without realizing that they've actually strayed and are now getting spells from a wholly new power source. However, it would I think be far from usual for this to occur, precisely because of the finite resources that D&D deities seem to be operating with. Thus, unless it suits the GM and story to think otherwise, I think you could be pretty sure that your Augury was being answered by some ally or servant of your chosen patron.

Putting this all together, I hope you see why I think it is utterly bizarre to speak of a D&D cleric having their Faith shaken, or using their faith to manifest something miraculous. The system really doesn't depend on the cleric's faith at all, except when anachronistically equating a religion with a "faith".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Clerics "loosing there spells" is I think only an actual rule in 2nd edition, and it's largely associated with the Forgotten Realms. Eberron treats religion rather differently - it is ambiguous about if gods exist at all. Ergo clerics in Eberron are self-powered. Dark Sun is less ambiguous- there are no gods. Clerics must draw thier power from sorcerer-kings and druids from the raw elements.

in third edition, it it made explicit that a cleric can gain thier spells from an idea or philosophy (e.g. A cleric of Good) but with the setting-specific rule that clerics in the Forgotten Realms must choose a diety.

 

[merwins]

So, the following represents how clerical magic works in D&D as I understand it:
.
.
.
Putting this all together, I hope you see why I think it is utterly bizarre to speak of a D&D cleric having their Faith shaken, or using their faith to manifest something miraculous. The system really doesn't depend on the cleric's faith at all, except when anachronistically equating a religion with a "faith".

I have played in several games that follow similar lines of thought, but I'm not certain the 5E rules explicitly dictate this worldview.

Just so I don't nitpick at everything, I'll focus on a couple of items:

For item #1, 5E tends to discourage documented mechanisms for losing abilities. I think that's why they leave the cleric, the paladin and the warlock rules (re: gods and patrons) so vague.

For item #6, any game character can be pious. They can even be fanatically devoted to a deity. I agree they get nothing from that piety. But you could certainly say that the in-game effort COULD pay off. The player chooses (meta) to be a cleric, or multiclass into cleric and that would open up spellcasting.
I'd suggest that a monk is not the only choice for gaining in-game power as a character that never has access to divine spellcasting. Even a fighter or rogue can pledge themselves to a god, donate regularly, do their god's work, and count their perfectly "mundane" evolving abilities as the gifts given to further their god's plan.

 

[generic]

Remember the word of the great god, the omniscient Dei Ym:

"I am that I exist, the maker and breaker of worlds. Fear for ye souls, for nothing is beyond my grasp."

All humour aside, it must be stated that the cosmology and divine aspects of each setting vary immensely. In order to comprehend the question, one must first give the context.

In terms of the Player's Handbook, all deity-related divination spells are worded carefully, so as to allow for (IMNSHO) contact of a being other than an explicit deity.

 

[Celebrim]

I have played in several games that follow similar lines of thought, but I'm not certain the 5E rules explicitly dictate this worldview.

It's likely that they don't. First edition through 3e offered a fairly consistent take on the cleric class, with the only modification to the class in 3e being a little used call out that you could be a cleric but not have a deity. Part of the reason that I say that it is little used, is not even WotC seemed to take that very seriously, as the vast majority of resources for clerics published by WotC assumed a tight relationship between a deity and their cleric, and you certainly didn't see a lot of published clerics of an idea or a philosophy.

There have been a few settings that tried to move the goal posts a bit, but with the exception of 2e 'Dark Sun' which had unique mechanics for magic use, they mostly seemed interested in moving the color while moving the mechanics as little as possible.

I'm not hugely familiar with 4e. It moved the mechanics of the game a ton, and thereby allows for all sorts of different interpretations as to how things work because things work very differently.

I likewise have only limited knowledge of 5e, and while it seems to have borrowed a small amount from 4e, mostly it was moving back toward the direction of mainstream D&D mechanics. Mechanically speaking a 5e cleric works almost exactly like a cleric of 1e through 3e, with the change in Orisons/Cantrips being the most significant mechanical change. In 5e, you could make a solid argument that the cleric's "Cantrips" at least represented personal innate spellcasting power, as these do not need to be prepared daily. Likewise, the domain specific abilities might represent the Cleric's increasing attunement with and control over the forces of that domain as a result of their increasing sacred or profane power derived from their own spiritual growth.

However, once again, if a cleric is the source of their own power, and the source of that power is their own will, why do they need to prepare spells? And why are their spells different than say Wizard spells? If a person can be the source of their own healing power, why can't a Wizard learn the art and lore of cleric magic and add those spells to their own knowledge? What makes it distinctive? And if simple force of will is the power source, why aren't delusional madmen mightier casters than anyone else, seeing that if the source of power is oneself and the object of faith is oneself, no one has has more faith in oneself than megalomaniacs, narcissists, and the deluded? A setting where megalomaniacs did spontaneously morph into world shaking monstrosities, and were the delusional could make the world resemble their delusions (thus ceasing to be delusional) would be pretty cool, but it would be nothing like traditional D&D settings.

I'm not saying you couldn't set up a world were clerics were the source of their own power, but my suspicion is that if you did do that and logically tried to model it, you'd end up with a very different set of mechanics than what D&D has - even 5e D&D. Instead what I typically see is, "We want to introduce a color of distinction for people troubled by the default set up, without introducing any actual alteration in how things work because on these supposedly fundamental changes."

I guess what I'm saying is, if you want to fundamentally alter the cosmology created to explain D&D spellcasting, you probably ought to do what 2e Dark Sun did and actually create new spell casting rules and classes. Even Eberron, which I don't think moved the rules as far as they needed to accommodate it's altered cosmology, at least made some changes in how the class worked and what existed within the setting (no Outer Planes, for example). Still, for all the changes, the populace of Eberron's "common sense" judgment that the Gods do exist and are the origin of Divine magic seems most likely to explain the mechanics of the game and the described fiction. All Eberron has really demonstrated is that it's Gods are a bit weird philosophically compared to the normal D&D pantheons, but they seem to function pretty much the same way.

 

[merwins]

And if simple force of will is the power source, why aren't delusional madmen mightier casters than anyone else, seeing that if the source of power is oneself and the object of faith is oneself, no one has has more faith in oneself than megalomaniacs, narcissists, and the deluded?

LOLz. Mega-LOLz.