Clerics without gods = huh?!

[Psion]

Therefore, I am in favor of having godless clerics as an option in the PHB

(emphasis mine)

I am too. What's the problem here?

rather than having Psion's homebrewed world determining the general rules of D&D for everyone.

Yet another misatribution. Why am I not surpised?

Please do me a favor and stop attributing stances for me that I do not hold, thankyouverymuch.

 

[LostSoul]

(emphasis mine)

I am too. What's the problem here?

I don't think he meant to have the emphasis in there - any more than saying "Therefore, I am in favor of having clerics worshiping gods as an option in the PHB". I think you know that, too, so now who's "attributing stances" to people?

The question of divine power is one that relates directly to the game world in which you play. Having an option means that the PHB is inclusive of both kinds of game worlds, rather than exclusive. I think that's a good thing. And it doesn't take much to handwave either way.

Let's see some examples about how your PCs didn't work.

 

[Psion]

I don't think he meant to have the emphasis in there

What kind of semantics mincing is this. The emphasis is mine, as indicated, and I emphasized it to show the point that I highlighted indicates that we are not in fundamental disagreement. It was not in any way, as you suggest, an attempt to change the meaning of the quote.

The question of divine power is one that relates directly to the game world in which you play. Having an option means that the PHB is inclusive of both kinds of game worlds, rather than exclusive.

The PHB doesn't have it as an option. It has is as a default. And that's the problem.

Let's see some examples about how your PCs didn't work.

I already provided an example. Please let me know what you would like amplified.

 

[LostSoul]

I already provided an example. Please let me know what you would like amplified.

The character's domains.

 

[Psion]

The character's domains.

Strength and destruction.

I should note before we get to deeply into what you probably consider my education that it's not that I couldn't handle the situation -- as stated, my world includes many undefined minor divinities with a variety of domains; I merely defined his deity as a new demigod with few followers. But, this was a very ad hoc solution, and had less depth that the existing well established divinities with well defined religions and roles in the campaign. Had he chose a well defined deity, I could have worked it in with the existing world background

The problem is that the player made his character proceeding from the PHB, and once he got his concept together he didn't want to depart from it. If the PHB more explicitly stated that "godless clerics" were strictly at the pleasure of the DM, he might have taken that point under consideration before getting his mind set on a concept that was unltimately less compatible with the campaign than using one of the existing deities would have been.

As I have already said, this is a minor point and has proven to be less of a hassle than including the Greyhawk deities as defaults. But I still think some simple verbage could nip some problems in the bud.

 

[hong]

The PHB doesn't have it as an option. It has is as a default. And that's the problem.

Just as using the Greyhawk gods is also a default. If you can deal with THAT problem, you can just as easily deal with this.

 

[LostSoul]

As I have already said, this is a minor point and has proven to be less of a hassle than including the Greyhawk deities as defaults. But I still think some simple verbage could nip some problems in the bud.

I think I understand your position more clearly now. That's cool. I guess we just have different opinions on what the default assumptions should be.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

The problem is that the player made his character proceeding from the PHB, and once he got his concept together he didn't want to depart from it. If the PHB more explicitly stated that "godless clerics" were strictly at the pleasure of the DM, he might have taken that point under consideration before getting his mind set on a concept that was unltimately less compatible with the campaign than using one of the existing deities would have been.

A player came to me with a TWF bastard sword character. The PCs were starting out in a Tech level 5 area and had no access to other parts of the campaign world yet. Bastard swords are Tech level 7.

I told him "Sorry, you can't have any bastard swords. The Tech level for this area of the world is too low for you to start off with them."

Even though the player had made his character beforehand, and the PHB lists "bastard sword" on page 99, he was able to alter his concept to use short swords instead. If your specific player is not able to alter his character concepts to fit your world, that's because you have a bad player, not a bad rules system.

All you have to say is, "Sorry, I don't have godless clerics in my world."
.
.
.
In my specific world, I don't have half-breeds, nor do I have PHB elves. The area of the world where the PCs are located is low-technology (no full plate or greatswords). I also don't have any gods (or more specifically, the evil gods defeated the good gods, and so the only gods that are left to grant spells are the evil ones). I do have philosophy-worshipping clerics, however, they are looked on as outcasts by the rest of society (along the same line as sorcerers in most other worlds.)

This means that each time someone makes a character, I need to spend time helping them build their concept to fit in with the rest of the world. (This is not a one-way street. I often use ideas that the players come up with to build my world.)
.
.
.

As I have already said, this is a minor point and has proven to be less of a hassle than including the Greyhawk deities as defaults. But I still think some simple verbage could nip some problems in the bud.

Then don't you think that that solution is to put a general disclaimer at the front of character creation, instead of nitpicking things that you don't feel are a valid part of the fantasy genre?

Something like this, maybe:

PHB, pg. 4----

0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the others are playing so that you can create a character that fits well with the group.

So whenever a player asks to play a godless cleric and you are about to cow to their wishes, just have them look on page 4 instead.
.
.
.
.
Also, godless clerics are only as wishy-washy as you allow them to be. If you let someone play a character with Strength and Destruction as their domains, and they don't give a character concept, that is a bad player. As a DM, if someone wants to play a godless cleric in my world, they either have to make up an order with a specific creed and worldview, or they have to make up a list of personal beliefs that the character draws strength from. Only after that is done do I assign possible domains that the player may select.

Examples:
1) A character follows the way of Bushido (honesty, justice, heroic courage, compassion, polite courtesy, honor, complete sincerity, duty and loyalty.) From this description, I would allow the player to select Law, Good or War.

2) A poor peasant midwife first learned the basics of medicine (the Heal skill) and hearth wisdom, then was utterly surprised when she suddenly was able to channel the divine gift of healing. She now travels the land, protecting the weak and healing the peasants for free. From this description, I'd allow Healing, Travel, Protection and Good.

3) A lowly scribe in a merchant house has a love of books and reading, but is bored with the constant copying of endless documents. He dreams of adventure and long lost artifacts and learning the history of the world. This character I'd allow Knowledge, Magic and Chaos.

 

[kenjib]

What kind of semantics mincing is this. The emphasis is mine, as indicated, and I emphasized it to show the point that I highlighted indicates that we are not in fundamental disagreement. It was not in any way, as you suggest, an attempt to change the meaning of the quote.

Actually LostSoul got it right. My use of the word "option" was an unfortunate mistake. I meant "option" in the more general sense of something that is integrally part of the rules and allowed, not option in the more narrow contextual sense of something that is not part of the rules but given as a possible variant. Putting information relevant to the players for character creation only in the DMG is not, in my opinion, the most flexible way to provide an option.

I do, however, agree with you that including the Greyhawk gods as default is more of a problem. One solution would have been for the PHB to say "gods are handled differently in various campaign settings. A cleric gets two domains. Depending on the setting, a cleric usually must choose these two domains from those offered by the deity they follow. Some settings may allow a character to choose any two domains and follow an ethos rather than a specific god. Consult your DM for information on clerics and domains in your campaign setting."

This has a big problem, however, in that it is not playable out of the box, so to speak. I think the PHB needs to be playable out of the box, and so I think that the way they handled it is actually a pretty decent lesser of evils solution. They provide all of the options for spiritual power (god granted and faith granted both), and use greyhawk to illustrate how they work. This was the design principle behind the core books and I think it worked out okay. It wouldn't have been very easy to get things going without a solid example of a pantheon in the PHB to base off of.

Perhaps the best solution of all would have been to say something like what I wrote above and then said, "Following is a sample pantheon of gods..."

 

[LostSoul]

This has a big problem, however, in that it is not playable out of the box, so to speak.

Actually, I think that the inclusion of the Greyhawk pantheon makes it more playable out of the box. All the DM needs to do is come up with a dungeon and/or series of encounters. The way things are presented in the PHB, the DM doesn't have to worry about anything at all. God or no god, whatever classes you want, etc. All the DM has to worry about is the actual game (which can be summed up as encounters).