Clerics without gods = huh?!

[ConcreteBuddha]

I show you a logical fallacy, you throw me a religion.

I threw you a religion that does not have gods. Actually, I threw you my religion. I personally draw spiritual strength from philosophy and principles. My point is that there are people on this planet who have a religious system who do not need a figurehead in heaven or hell telling them what to do.

I am addressing the circular reasoning of "the PHB has godless clerics, therefore it is okay for the PHB to have godless clerics."

My point is that your fallacy is ungrounded because the real situation is thus:

The Earth has godless priests, therefore it is okay for the PHB to have godless clerics.

Hence the reason why I am a supporter of godless clerics in DnD. Delegating my ideas and my beliefs to a sidebar because you happen to believe something inane like "all priests should worship gods" is just plain silly.

I don't think I ever made such a claim, thankyouverymuch.

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe all clerics should worship gods. (Or that should at least be the default and anything else should be a house rule.)

I don't believe that. I believe that there can be more to divinity than just gods (and that DnD divinity should keep that option open as a default.) Philosophy and belief can be just as spiritually fulfilling as the worship of a humanocentric figurehead.

If that's a hassle for you, it's because religion is not clear cut (as an absolutist would want), and is often messy.

 

[Psion]

I threw you a religion that does not have gods.

And in doing so, are demonstrating that you totally do not understand my point. If you are not going to refute or otherwise comment on my point, do not quote me in your reply.

I never once said that you could not have a religion in a game that does not center on gods. I've said as much in the previous reply, but you make me repeat myself. Are we clear now?

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe all clerics should worship gods.

When it comes to deciding the beleif system within the game, that is what I subscribe to. It's a game design element, nothing more. For what you do in a camapaign of your own, I certainly don't care what you do. Nor do I have a problem with running or playing such a game.

But for the purposes of what changes I would like to see in the PHB, I would merely prefer the approach that is least intrusive to be that standard, and other approaches should be variants. That does not mean I couldn't or wouldn't play with it or that you shouldn't.

(Or that should at least be the default and anything else should be a house rule.)

No, but it should be a variant. Some people may like that approach, but to make such specific elements the norm creates a problem for those who are not using the elements.

I don't believe that. I believe that there can be more to divinity than just gods

Sure, great. I am not arguing the validity or merit of that angle on spirituality in a game at all. To state that has anything to do with my vantage point is to misunderstand it.

 

[Psion]

Bullcrap.

Well, with flawless logic like that, how can I disagree?

Exactly why does following the tenets of truth, justice and honor, even if there isn't a man behind the curtain, constitute an "anything goes" philosophy?

Just what did you not understand about the previous statement? Just what is not clear to you?

This is totally repeating myself, but let's try it anyways to see if you get the point:

In a campaign in which you can draw power from your own ideals, you can define your PCs ideals however you like. However, if player A creates a cleric PC and arrive at the table of DM A who does not use this approach, there is a good chance that DM A will not find an exact match for PC A mechanically and cocneptually, because player A's concept could be anything, but the set of divinities defined for DM A's campaign is finite.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if a player B creates a cleric PC assuming a specific deity, and then arrives at the table of DM B where you do draw power from faith in your ideals, then that character can fit into the game just fine, because the characters ideals are sufficient to define the character and the existence of a discrete divinity within the mileu is not required. Thus DM B's approach is inherently more permissive.

The point here is that DM A will have a problem with a character that is not created specifically with the mileu in mind while DM B will not. It only makes sense to make the method used to create PC A a variant to prevent these sorts of snags.

 

[hong]

Well, with flawless logic like that, how can I disagree?

Psion, you're out of practice.

In a campaign in which you can draw power from your own ideals, you can define your PCs ideals however you like.

... subject to DM approval.

However, if player A creates a cleric PC and arrive at the table of DM A who does not use this approach, there is a good chance that DM A will not find an exact match for PC A mechanically and cocneptually,

... because DM A doesn't have an imagination.

because player A's concept could be anything, but the set of divinities defined for DM A's campaign is finite.

... and, if it's anything like FR and Greyhawk, probably very large. Your objection is not borne out in any game I've been in. Having to choose a patron deity does not present any special barrier to anyone wanting to minmax or take advantage of rules loopholes.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if a player B creates a cleric PC assuming a specific deity, and then arrives at the table of DM B where you do draw power from faith in your ideals, then that character can fit into the game just fine, because the characters ideals are sufficient to define the character

... subject to DM approval.

and the existence of a discrete divinity within the mileu is not required. Thus DM B's approach is inherently more permissive.

... assuming DM B is spineless.

Furthermore, DM B's approach being inherently more flexible does not equate to any individual philosophy being inherently more permissive.

The point here is that DM A will have a problem with a character that is not created specifically with the mileu in mind while DM B will not.

DM A therefore needs to grow some imagination.

It only makes sense to make the method used to create PC A a variant to prevent these sorts of snags.

It only makes sense to leave the method used to create PCs as flexible as possible, to accommodate all possibilities.


Hong "channeling Robert Scott Clark" Ooi

 

[Henry]

...One thing I definitely felt was that the domains were not balanced overall. One of the first things I did was go through and balance the domain granted powers against each other, weakening some and boosting a few others. Now I know the argument is that you must look at the domains balanced as the list and the granted power. But since you have only one domain slot per spell level, I found people considering taking one domain for its spells and another for its granted power. All Clerics might be blanaced over a full 17 levels of advancement (to level 9 spells), but they'd be unbalanced early on, particularly for Cleric/XXXX multiclasses.

I have to disagree here, because the granted powers that ARE powerful, are all level dependent. Most players I know think the most powerful domains are those of strength, destruction, knowledge, and magic. All of these domain granted powers, except for the magic domain, are level dependent. So, they start off quite weak (as in the case of strength domain) and grow from there. They cannot grow in power, if all that you are going to do is take one or two levels of cleric - it's kind of pointless to take one level of cleric as a fighter if all you want is the strength domain - you are better off with a bull strength spell.

Of the ones with powerful granted powers, the Strength domain at mid and higher levels gets QUITE powerful, especially when combined with the destruction domain, but even when combined, these two are not game-breakers. I should know - my favorite clerics are clerics of St. Cuthbert. However, that one "uber-smite" is a one-time effect that has the potential to miss horribly.

The most powerful one there is Magic, in my estimation, because its benefit is immediate and not level dependent. However, even then, its powers do not warrant any exceptional desire to take for higher level, as most of its powers are of a divinatory nature.

Of any of them, the ones that need the most work are the alginment domains, because their granted powers, while in keeping with the power of the domains, are just plain unimaginative.

I hope this explains my point better, because of any of the domains, the level dependency of most of the powers keeps the granted power in check at low levels.

 

[Psion]

Psion, you're out of practice.

What? Did you set me up the bomb?

Let's gather these replies into convenient bundles:

... subject to DM approval.
... subject to DM approval.

To these replies I merely say "this is true, but anything that the book can do to support the GMs role as the final arbirter and creator of the mileu will only help."

... assuming DM B is spineless.
... because DM A doesn't have an imagination.
DM A therefore needs to grow some imagination.

This I will dismiss as mere insults and having no bearing on the discussion.

... and, if it's anything like FR and Greyhawk, probably very large. Your objection is not borne out in any game I've been in. Having to choose a patron deity does not present any special barrier to anyone wanting to minmax or take advantage of rules loopholes.

To this I will merely repeat that the minmaxing objection is not mine and I am not arguing it now. (I could argue it as I don't beleive that they are balanced, but since I don't design my deities to balance out the domain selection, it is largely a moot point. That said, the anecdote I refer to was a character with strength and destruction, so I won't dismiss that munchiness has a bearing... but I dismissed the character because he didn't fit, not because he was munchy per se.)

Furthermore, DM B's approach being inherently more flexible does not equate to any individual philosophy being inherently more permissive.

I'm thinking you are not understanding me here. I am not saying the character's philosophy is more permissive, but that the approach of basing divine magic on personal philosophy is more permissive, since a character can have any personal philosophy you care to name.

It only makes sense to leave the method used to create PCs as flexible as possible, to accommodate all possibilities.

And to this, I can only say that I disagree. A compelling setting may have a quite specific set of assumptions on how cosmology and divinity operate, and allowing characters that do not fit with the campaigns fundamental cosmological concepts is disruptive to the continuity of the game. I would as soon allow space marines in my current as I would allow a cleric that draws his power from his own faith... it just doesn't fit.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

To these replies I merely say "this is true, but anything that the book can do to support the GMs role as the final arbirter and creator of the mileu will only help."

The problem is there are two many variants to support all DM's, from what i can tell you understand this, but may be a little too caught up in your view to see that the other veiw is just as worthy of support. Even if it causes your players to irrate you.

 

[hong]

What? Did you set me up the bomb?

I dunno. You seem to be setting it off, though.

To these replies I merely say "this is true, but anything that the book can do to support the GMs role as the final arbirter and creator of the mileu will only help."

... including the possibility of a milieu that doesn't involve pantheons of gods. You realise, of course, that your arguments are completely symmetrical with regard to the possibility of non deity-specific clerics, and so irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

This I will dismiss as mere insults and having no bearing on the discussion.

I have not yet begun to insult.

To this I will merely repeat that the minmaxing objection is not mine and I am not arguing it now. (I could argue it as I don't beleive that they are balanced, but since I don't design my deities to balance out the domain selection, it is largely a moot point. That said, the anecdote I refer to was a character with strength and destruction, so I won't dismiss that munchiness has a bearing... but I dismissed the character because he didn't fit, not because he was munchy per se.)

... of course, this is why you said:

But if someone shows up at my game set on a character concept that hinges around the anything goes philosophy, then it is a problem for me.

Do make up your mind, will you?

I'm thinking you are not understanding me here. I am not saying the character's philosophy is more permissive

... of course, this is why you said:

Because the godless cleric is inherently more permissive.

Again, do make up your mind.

but that the approach of basing divine magic on personal philosophy is more permissive, since a character can have any personal philosophy you care to name.

And this remains true, regardless of what cosmology you use in your game world. With a big enough pantheon, you can match just about any personal philosophy with a pre-existing god, without too much handwaving. Your point is what, exactly?

And to this, I can only say that I disagree. A compelling setting may have a quite specific set of assumptions on how cosmology and divinity operate, and allowing characters that do not fit with the campaigns fundamental cosmological concepts is disruptive to the continuity of the game.

So disallow them. Just like I don't have clerics of specific deities in my campaign.

I would as soon allow space marines in my current as I would allow a cleric that draws his power from his own faith... it just doesn't fit.

Tell me again why I should care what you allow in your own campaign.

 

[Psion]

The problem is there are two many variants to support all DM's, from what i can tell you understand this, but may be a little too caught up in your view to see that the other veiw is just as worthy of support.

Caught up in my view, eh? Not trying to be hostile, but from where I am standing, you "godless religion" folks seem like you are the one caught up in your views.

But in short, yes I do understand that there are a variety of views, and I do think that the idea of a cosmology that doesn't require discrete divinities is worthy of support... and I think I have spelled this out to ConcreteBuddha above, so I am repeating myself. The sole issue which makes me desire a change in the PH's phraseology and arrangement is that having it as an assumed element creates more problems for those who don't use that approach than giving it sidebar status would create for those who do use that approach.

A sidebar is support. It's the same support you have now, except it is less problematic in creating player assumptions that will be a problem later.

In reality, I consider this a pretty minor issue compered to the bigger thorn in the side that are the Greyhawk deities. But I find this continual misattribution and badgering of me maddening.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Caught up in my view, eh? Not trying to be hostile, but from where I am standing, you "godless religion" folks seem like you are the one caught up in your views.

I can understand that, at least on my part it's not intentional. To clearify my possition though, I feal both have equal merit and should be supported equally.

The sole issue which makes me desire a change in the PH's phraseology and arrangement is that having it as an assumed element creates more problems for those who don't use that approach than giving it sidebar status would create for those who do use that approach.

Same agruemant can be made for folks that don't use dieties though.

A sidebar is support. It's the same support you have now, except it is less problematic in creating player assumptions that will be a problem later.

Don't you think it would be better to demphise both and make it more clear that cosmology is the domain of the DM and you should consult with him on character design?

In reality, I consider this a pretty minor issue compered to the bigger thorn in the side that are the Greyhawk deities.

Still can't disagree with that.

But I find this continual misattribution and badgering of me maddening.

one of the hastles of defending your opinions.