D&D 5E Clerics and Wisdom

[Einlanzer0]

No it doesn't. I personally believe in God for the same reason I believe in gravity.

So, here, you basically admit that you took liberties in interpreting my original post due to your own biases and used that interpretation to derail the thread into a meandering cringe-fest of largely semantic rants motivated from your own personal religious convictions and the false perception that I in some way attacked them. I respect you as a fellow human being, but I am not one to coddle or enable this type of irrationality. You brought the discussion to this point, so I won't shy away from it now.

As an aside, God and gravity are not the same thing. Gravity is empirically observable and testable; God is not. Your faith does absolutely nothing to change that.

In my opinion, the productive approach to this discussion would have been to not advance the idea that there was one right approach to fantasy religion, but instead exploring the implications of what it meant to define clerics primarily by wisdom or primarily by charisma actually were. For example, if you define clerics primarily by charisma, then it could mean that clerics can be and often are shysters, tricking and cajoling deities into doing their will, and who gain power by gaining control over others. And that would be fine and even interesting. Instead the OP wanted to make the argument that clerics should be defined primarily by charisma, because real world clerics can be and often are shysters, tricking and cajoling deities into doing their will, and who gain power by gaining control over others, and so forth.

This, again, is a blatant strawman of my original post designed to further your own agenda. Being charismatic, and deriving power and influence from it, does not automatically mean you are a charlatan, or wicked, or anything else. Preachers and leaders of all kinds gain clout through the cathartic power of the messages they convey, which is usually proportional to the confidence with which they convey them, and this is what serves to attract large followings. This is how cults are born, and it's how religion (along with other types of philosophical ideas) spreads. It's really just about that simple, and no amount of defensive, high-minded chicanery really changes that.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Isn't that just a matter of deciding which authority you are choosing to accept.

You get religious scholars debating points of doctrine just as scientists debate theories. You won't tend to get an astrophysicist challenging the theory of Evolution without extraordinary evidence however: she has faith that the scientists in that field have acted according to scientific dogma and thus regards them as the authority on the subject.

This is an oversimplification, at best. There is a degree of authority within science as there is anywhere else, but scientific theories are expected to contain both explanatory and predictive power, and they fall apart very quickly when they don't.

An astrophysicist is unlikely to challenge the theory of evolution, but it doesn't have much to do with authority - it's because the evidence is enough to be conclusive to anyone, including a lay person, who looks at it and understands it objectively. Without a basic understanding of the evidence, she's unlikely to get involved in the fight at all. You won't see, for example, too many astrophysicists weighing in on the topic of punctuated equilibrium.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Einlanzer0]

From the enworld faq-
"And in this category I should mention the "no religion, no politics" rule -- please refrain from discussion of a religious or political nature. This last may seem a rather draconic rule, but it has helped keep the peace around here for a long time."

I hope that we can all disambiguate whatever ideas we have about the real world from a game, and, further, that in the gameworld, the gods do exist, which may make conversations about RL faith and science not only a bad idea for civility, but not necessarily germane to the game.

I do think it's a draconic rule (people should be challenged, honestly) , but I agree completely on the second part.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is an oversimplification, at best. There is a degree of authority within science as there is anywhere else, but scientific theories are expected to contain both explanatory and predictive power, and they fall apart very quickly when they don't.

An astrophysicist is unlikely to challenge the theory of evolution, but it doesn't have much to do with authority - it's because the evidence is enough to be conclusive to anyone, including a lay person, who looks at it and understands it objectively. Without a basic understanding of the evidence, she's unlikely to get involved in the fight at all. You won't see, for example, too many astrophysicists weighing in on the topic of punctuated equilibrium.

Precisely. She is going to trust the scientists to whom evolution is their field of expertise, and accept the scientific consensus as her authority for matter in which she doesn't have the requisite expertise. She has faith in the scientific dogma of objectivity and evidence, and that those to whom she defers to as the authority on these matters have followed it.

Just as generations of clerics have discovered that calling upon Aureon when attempting to identify strange magics works better than invoking Balinor for example. Its not just logical based upon the lore of the Sovereign Host, its backed up by evidence.

 

[Celebrim]

Preachers and leaders of all kinds gain clout through the cathartic power of the messages they convey, which is usually proportional to the confidence with which they convey them, and this is what serves to attract large followings. This is how cults are born, and it's how religion (along with other types of philosophical ideas) spreads. It's really just about that simple, and no amount of defensive, high-minded chicanery really changes that.

Keep digging the hole you are in.

Again, your argument for charisma and against wisdom has been repeatedly based on asserting that various biases and opinions of yours are incontrovertibly true about real world religion, and even more ludicrously therefore must also be true of fantasy world religion.

I took no liberties with your posts. For example, you assert that I'm the one that brought real world religion into this, even though I can quote you doing so on the first page, for example: "Regardless of whether gods are real or not, FR religion (using your example) more or less works just like real world religion." You are taking no responsibility for what you have actually said. I didn't bring the discussion to this point; it's right there in your first post.

Your argument has been from the beginning predicated on people accepting your personal views regarding religion, even where they are in the particulars debatable, skewed, or outright distorted. You repeatedly keep offering up as your evidence "how religion works". It comes up in every single post you've made. But the problem with that is that they are all from the perspective of someone who has explicitly rejected religion, and is evidently hostile to it, so at the very least, they aren't the perspective of someone for whom religion is incontrovertibly real - as it must be in a typical fantasy setting - and valued, as it must be for a cleric. So that perspective is not very useful for understanding is it?

One can't really draw inferences about fantasy religion based off real world religion, since the two are self-evidently not the same - even from what must be your viewpoint. You are the one spouting self-evidently irrational nonsense like: "Regardless of whether gods are real or not, FR religion (using your example) more or less works just like real world religion." Really? You can't even imagine how the reality of a hypothetical deity might change how religion actually works? I don't even have to assert anything in particular about reality to note how wrong that is.

And, you don't know as much about how religion works as you think you do, as you seem to have a background versed in just one religion that you are drawing all your inferences from, and your bias from explicitly rejecting that background is at least as large as mine is for not doing so.

Just a few examples, you assert:

It's not really about esoteric knowledge, at all.

That's certainly not true of Mithraism, Gnosticism, or any other number of mystery cults. Real world religions are highly varied. Some are entirely about esoteric knowledge. Just because the one religion you are reasonably familiar with denounced mystery cults doesn't mean they are all like that.

Devotees of the various religions act as representatives of the gods they worship, and their primary goals generally involve evangelizing, or spreading the (usually simple) tenants of their faith to new followers

"Usually simple" is a good laugh, as I invite you to study Buddhist sacred scripture or Thomas Aquinas, but many real world cults religions - like the Shakers or the Yazidi - do not accept new converts at all. They certainly don't see their primary goals as evangelizing or spreading the faith to new followers. Others, like many branches of Judaism, only rarely and passively proselytize. Indeed, Catholicism traditionally has not seen the highest form of service as serving the goal of spreading the faith, which is why they have monasteries and seclusion. Most Buddhists would not assert their primary duty is to evangelize, but rather to seek personal enlightenment. Let me guess, you come from an evangelical Christian background, or at least that's your primary exposure? You realize don't you that the vast majority of fantasy religions would have nothing in common with American Evangelical Protestant Christianity, right? The vast majority of real world ones don't either.

So perhaps you might back down from lecturing people on the particulars of what is a forbidden topic on these boards. How is anyone supposed to discuss this topic as you continue to frame it without debating real world religion? You've made the argument of wisdom/charisma right from the beginning a proxy argument about the nature of religion, and you did it again in the latest post I'm responding to.

 

[Mercule]

I like Wisdom for Clerics.

Going back to basics, the Paladin and Clerics are both "holy warriors" of a sort. Paladins, though, are modeled after the romantic Knights of the Round Table. They aren't ordained members of any religious order. Instead, they are Fighters who are inherently such paragons of virtue that their very identity (read: personality) serves as a shining beacon and example for all around them. They're not priests in any way, but are rewarded by God (or the gods) because of their intrinsic personality traits. While one hopes they also act with forethought, understanding, etc. they act virtuously by "instinct" and this grants them a certain effortless, personal magnetism.

Clerics, on the other hand, are those who have chosen (or been led to chose) to follow God (or the gods) and do so with intent and diligence. While they may draw others to their faith, their first concern is to act as tools of their god. The biggest prerequisite to this is to understand what their god wants -- and, let's face it, divine beings tend to be a bit enigmatic.

While both Clerics and Paladins can have their faith shaken or broken, the Paladin tend to fall through hubris, trickery, or some other scenario that causes their actions to fall short of the "shining beacon" -- their identity is attacked and they stop believing in their own mythos, in a matter of speaking. The Cleric, on the other hand, changes their understanding and loyalty of their patron's motives -- their faith and resolve are attacked and they stop believing in their calling, which is subtly different than their identity.

If you want to know what the moral/virtuous/whatever course of action is, the Paladin will be able to tell you as well as the Cleric. The Cleric will be able to walk you through why it's the right thing to do, though. This difference is why the slur of "Lawful Stupid" exists; a low Wisdom Paladin is a hammer in search of a nail. On the other hand, the Crazy Street Preacher may know exactly what God wants you to do, he's just ineffective at relating that info in a consumable fashion.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Precisely. She is going to trust the scientists to whom evolution is their field of expertise, and accept the scientific consensus as her authority for matter in which she doesn't have the requisite expertise. She has faith in the scientific dogma of objectivity and evidence, and that those to whom she defers to as the authority on these matters have followed it.

Just as generations of clerics have discovered that calling upon Aureon when attempting to identify strange magics works better than invoking Balinor for example. Its not just logical based upon the lore of the Sovereign Host, its backed up by evidence.

No, again, that's precisely what doesn't happen. The evidence for evolution is ubiquitous and drawn from multiple independent sources, and scientists across most fields are well versed in it. It's not about authority, at all, or else you would see scientists from all fields readily discussing science across all fields, which doesn't happen at all.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

No, again, that's precisely what doesn't happen. The evidence for evolution is ubiquitous and drawn from multiple independent sources, and scientists across most fields are well versed in it. It's not about authority, at all, or else you would see scientists from all fields readily discussing science across all fields, which doesn't happen at all.

That's why your suggestion of punctuated equilibrium as an example was so much better than evolution as a whole: because the debate surrounding it is not really accessible to someone outside the field, which means that the decision as to its veracity must be taken on faith.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Your argument has been from the beginning predicated on people accepting your personal views regarding religion, even where they are in the particulars debatable, skewed, or outright distorted. You repeatedly keep offering up as your evidence "how religion works". It comes up in every single post you've made. But the problem with that is that they are all from the perspective of someone who has explicitly rejected religion, and is evidently hostile to it, so at the very least, they aren't the perspective of someone for whom religion is incontrovertibly real - as it must be in a typical fantasy setting - and valued, as it must be for a cleric. So that perspective is not very useful for understanding is it?

One can't really draw inferences about fantasy religion based off real world religion, since the two are self-evidently not the same - even from what must be your viewpoint. You are the one spouting self-evidently irrational nonsense like: "Regardless of whether gods are real or not, FR religion (using your example) more or less works just like real world religion." Really? You can't even imagine how the reality of a hypothetical deity might change how religion actually works? I don't even have to assert anything in particular about reality to note how wrong that is.

I don't really have to imagine it. It's explicitly stated in various places that adventuring clerics are normally trying to spread the faith of their deities to other people, as this is how deities grow in power. Although, I will admit that times have changed and there is now a bit more ambiguity with regard to what might be motivating a cleric to be an adventurer, which serves as the only legitimate counter-argument to my original post.

It's not really about esoteric knowledge, at all.

That's certainly not true of Mithraism, Gnosticism, or any other number of mystery cults. Real world religions are highly varied. Some are entirely about esoteric knowledge. Just because the one religion you are reasonably familiar with denounced mystery cults doesn't mean they are all like that.

I actually studied religion, so your persistent condescending assumptions are getting tired. Of course real world religions are varied, but religion is not spread through esoteric knowledge, it's spread through authority. This is in part why the Gnostics remain a very small sect.

"Usually simple" is a good laugh, as I invite you to study Buddhist sacred scripture or Thomas Aquinas, but many real world cults religions - like the Shakers or the Yazidi - do not accept new converts at all. They certainly don't see their primary goals as evangelizing or spreading the faith to new followers. Others, like many branches of Judaism, only rarely and passively proselytize. Indeed, Catholicism traditionally has not seen the highest form of service as serving the goal of spreading the faith, which is why they have monasteries and seclusion. Most Buddhists would not assert their primary duty is to evangelize, but rather to seek personal enlightenment. Let me guess, you come from an evangelical Christian background, or at least that's your primary exposure? You realize don't you that the vast majority of fantasy religions would have nothing in common with American Evangelical Protestant Christianity, right? The vast majority of real world ones don't either.

Yes, and the (original) D&D cleric is not modeled from any of those concepts; they are modeled almost entirely from crusaders of medieval Christianity. Here again you are relying on a strawman of my original post to construct something resembling a point. Please identify where I implied that I thought all faith-based magic users should use Charisma instead of Wisdom. Here's a hint: I didn't, you just extrapolated it from your own biases and an apparent desire to feel personally slighted.