Clerics without gods = huh?!

[Sagan Darkside]

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

You have given people a reason to claim they are being repressed.

On topic- I agree with you. It should be a sidebar/option, and it should be one in the DMG. It is not the players who should define the cosmology of the campeign.

I am all for a dm working with players to help them meet the idea they have for their character, but the PH should have some basic god examples and a clear note to speak with the DM about the options available for their character.

Let the DMG explore the different options.

SD

 

[hong]

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

It's character building.

 

[Psion]

So Hong, are you being deliberately obtuse?

I said: To this I will merely repeat that the minmaxing objection is not mine and I am not arguing it now.

To which you said:

... 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?


Now do you care to show me where the second statement talks about minmaxing at all? It doesn't. My objection is on how it fits the game conceptually.

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

To which you said:

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

Because the godless cleric is inherently more permissive.

Again, do make up your mind.

Its not the character of the godless cleric that is more permissive, but the approach of using the godless cleric that is more permissive. However, you picked that quote from I explicitly pointed this out. From this, I can only conclude that you are only trying to jerk me around and have zero intereste in actually understanding what I am trying to say.

And this remains true, regardless of what cosmology you use in your game world.

So, I am obligated to make an expansive FR-style overbloated pantheon just to accomodate a statement in the PH? I think not.

With a big enough pantheon, you can match just about any personal philosophy with a pre-existing god, without too much handwaving.

Creating new gods just to accomodate a character is handwaving.

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

Thank you, once again, for not reading my prior posts with any depth of understanding. Yes, I can disallow them. In the long run, that works. But in practice, it creates problems. The player arrives at the game with this preconceived notion of a PC that does not fit my world, I have a problem... we quite likely have to hammer the character concept to fit, and/or waste a few hours making a new character, whereas if the same words were in a sidebar following the phrase "if your DM allows it, you can create a cleric or paladin that does not have a specific deity", that would have dispelled the expectations that the character would automatically be accepted.

 

[Psion]

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

I've already discussed why the situations aren't equivalent.

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?

Yes, that would be great. But the scope of this discussion has focussed on why, specifically, I find this part of the PH to be a problem, But yes, in truth, structuring the whole divine spellcasters should explicitly reference the options that the DM may invoke for cosmology.

one of the hastles of defending your opions.

Tell me about it...

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

"if your DM allows it, you can create a cleric or paladin that does not have a specific deity",

or, "If your Dm allows it you may have a cleric that worships a specific diety."

Same thing differnt POV.

 

[hong]

So Hong, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Well, I never do anything accidentally.

I said: [/i]To this I will merely repeat that the minmaxing objection is not mine and I am not arguing it now.

To which you said:

... 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?


Now do you care to show me where the second statement talks about minmaxing at all? It doesn't. My objection is on how it fits the game conceptually.

I think you just don't really know what it is you're trying to say by an "anything goes" philosophy. When you've figured it out, get back to me.

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

To which you said:

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

Because the godless cleric is inherently more permissive.

Again, do make up your mind.

Its not the character of the godless cleric that is more permissive, but the approach of using the godless cleric that is more permissive. However, you picked that quote from I explicitly pointed this out.

Well, sue me for reading the words you wrote.

From this, I can only conclude that you are only trying to jerk me around

So stop jerking, then.

and have zero intereste in actually understanding what I am trying to say.

I suggest you go from trying to say things, to actually saying them.

So, I am obligated to make an expansive FR-style overbloated pantheon just to accomodate a statement in the PH? I think not.

Did I say you're obligated to do anything?

A creative player can shoehorn just about any philosophy into a pre-existing pantheon. If the pantheon is small, that just means more handwaving is involved.

If you want to enforce consistency in your theology, you're going to have to stomp on your players' toes eventually. By sheer coincidence, this also makes your whinging below about dealing with conflicting player/DM vision completely moot.

Creating new gods just to accomodate a character is handwaving.

Did I say anything about creating new gods? Of course not. How Baconian of you.

Thank you, once again, for not reading my prior posts with any depth of understanding. Yes, I can disallow them. In the long run, that works. But in practice, it creates problems.

It does? I haven't noticed.

The player arrives at the game with this preconceived notion of a PC that does not fit my world, I have a problem... we quite likely have to hammer the character concept to fit, and/or waste a few hours making a new character,

You're making a mountain range out of a speedbump.

Player comes up with a character who follows Wee Jas. Problem: Wee Jas doesn't exist in your world.

Player comes up with a character who's a halfling monk. Problem: halflings and monks don't exist in your world.

Player comes up with a character who's a CN anti-hero. Problem: everyone else is playing a bright, shining LG hero.

Player comes up with a character who's a monster with a high ECL. Problem: everyone else is low level.

There are umpteen ways in which player concepts and the DM's vision can clash. This issue of clerics who don't have a specific god is TINY.

whereas if the same words were in a sidebar following the phrase "if your DM allows it, you can create a cleric or paladin that does not have a specific deity", that would have dispelled the expectations that the character would automatically be accepted.

The exact same argument applies if you remove the "not" in that phrase.

 

[Nightfall]

Alright folks, let's not get TOO worked up here. After all this is just a game and we shouldn't let ourselves get too personally worked up about it.

*will say he doesn't support the idea of godless clerics but godless shamans sure works out for himself.*

 

[Unseelie]

I've really been stumbling over this one lately. The Player's handbook states that a cleric does not need a particular god to sponsor him.

This leads me to believe that the cleric in turn represents a philosophy, creed, or religion based on the two domains he chooses.

Ok.

So where does he get his powers? Who, or what, grants him his spells.

I played a Barbarian/Cleric in a game for awhile... we didn't worship a god or gods. Instead we worshiped/revered/coerced nature spirits and our ancestors for our 'spells.'

 

[Unseelie]

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.

The opposite is just as true... if they show up for my game having used one of the Greyhawk gods, or hell, even assumed that there are gods in my world they could find they don't match.

I agree with one of the other posts, all of the religion/gods/lack thereof material should have been in the DMG, and players should have been told to consult with ther GM first.

Besides, if anyone shows up at my table and says here's my character, I'm going to make them start over with me there so I can make suggestions and provide guidelines. It's my gaming style, but one does not just 'show up' with a character.

 

[kenjib]

Allowing both godless and god following clerics *at the rules level* is more flexible and open ended than only allowing god following clerics.

I prefer the system to be more flexible and support more options so that I can make those choices myself.

Therefore, I am in favor of having godless clerics as an option in the PHB (which the DM clearly has an implicit right to not allow) rather than having Psion's homebrewed world determining the general rules of D&D for everyone.