Clerics without gods = huh?!

[LostSoul]

Actually LostSoul got it right. My use of the word "option" was an unfortunate mistake.

I think that Psion's defense made sense, but that his statement was... what's that stupid word... disingenous.

Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'jen-y&-w&s
Function: adjective
Date: 1655
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness

I really hate big, strange words. Misleading would be a better one.

 

[Psion]

Something like this, maybe:

Yes, yes, very cute, and I know all about step zero. And I hope my players do, too. But that fact is that players really do not think about this statement when they are making a character.

And sure, I could have simply lorded over him and said... "nope, pick one of these deities and find appropriate domains" (in fact I did suggest, but not demand it.) But I did only suggest it, be he was too fond of the concept he already had.

But funny me, I felt like accomodating my player's wishes.

So in short, I am not after more authority to force the players to bend to my will. I already have that and could do so if I had wanted. What I am after is a PHB that is more accomodating to the fact that the DM will have a specific cosmology, and will make that fact abundant when the player is conceiving the character. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of DM intervention and player hard feelings.

 

[Psion]

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.

Thats a default. Excuse me for not being able to see past your imprecise choice of words.

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.

Another thing that I never advocated. More misattributions. Do me a favor refrain from trying to arguing with me until you have read my posts and have an idea what my stance really is.

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."

That woould be a massive improvement and would kill two birds with one stone. Once again, it appears that we do not have a fundamental disagreement.

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

Indeed. I think you need some sort of default deity list. I just think it needs to be more expansive and generic than the greyhawk deities.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm absolutely baffled at the size of this thread, for one thing. There's a lot of things that I disallow in my campaign settings, not that I've run one recently. Typically, I like to specify upfront what I will not allow and then let the PCs develop whatever they like within the confines of what's left. I also prefer to have players build characters together on the first night of "play" so they can be more integrated together. Works around a lot of these problems.

I don't see how changing the wording of the PHB in regards to this will really help one way or another. From your description of the problem in question, do you really think that having the option of picking any two domains you like in a sidebar instead of in the main area of the text (as an example "solution") would have made any difference? You still would have had to tell him that you aren't allowing that option, and he still would have probably held on to his character concept, and I have a hard time envisioning that the final solution to his character would have been any different. And I say all this without knowing any of you personally, of course.

 

[Psion]

There's a lot of things that I disallow in my campaign settings, not that I've run one recently. Typically, I like to specify upfront what I will not allow and then let the PCs develop whatever they like within the confines of what's left. I also prefer to have players build characters together on the first night of "play" so they can be more integrated together. Works around a lot of these problems.

Nice in theory. Sometimes it doesn't work in practice. My first 3e campaign was in Alexandria and pulled together a group of people all across the beltway. When the possibility of the campaign came up, people had already created characters and were just looking for a game. The concepts were already grounded in the players' heads before the game even started.

I consider it normal, and in fact necessary, for the PHB to set up some expectation as to the content of the game. The problem is that in 3e, they threw some additional expectations in the mix that are, perhaps, too specific.

From your description of the problem in question, do you really think that having the option of picking any two domains you like in a sidebar instead of in the main area of the text (as an example "solution") would have made any difference?

Yes, I do. Would I have spent the last three pages defending against pedantic attacks against that opinion if I did not beleive so? I don't fall for the "here, have a strawman" tactic anymore.

 

[hong]

I'm absolutely baffled at the size of this thread, for one thing.

I'm all chaotic this week.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, wait....PC comes to you with his character.

Character does not fit in with the campaign setting.

....This is a potential problem in almost any D&D game *not* set in Greyhawk, and isn't much fundamentally different than a PC coming to you with a gnome PC in a world where Gnomes aren't allowed, or gaining a level of sorcerer at level 3, when you only allow them to do it at level 1.

And just like in this situation, you're going to have the same kind of problems...

....would it be better for the PHB to say "Your DM has information about the races available." and then put all the races in a sidebar, because they may or may not be available? Same with a sidebar rule for not taking Sorcerer or Barbarian above 1st level?

....why do we need this when there's really just one thing we should need: Rule 0?

Letting the player know that it's different before the character creation wouldn't be too bad an option (that's why Rule 0 is the first). But if this isn't possible (just like it's not possible sometimes when the player comes to your table with a gnome, or an evil character, in a campaign you wouldn't allow it), then you're going to have to expect some disagreements.

I honestly don't see how your situation, Psion, is any different from anyone else's who has a homebrew campaign world, meeting a million similar problems. And, IMHO, that doesn't mean that the PHB should have to bother to include "consult with DM" every couple of lines...it'd be redundant and silly, because it's one of the basic assumptions: The DM can change whatever they want to.

The PC doesn't fit. Now, you have a bit of an issue -- fit the PC in (a hassle for you), or disallow the PC (a hassle for the player). Really, it's not a whole lot different. And I don't think that the book really needs to give you any more justification for it.

I guess I'm kind of confused on on why you would think this is a big issue that needs to be addressed...any homebrew is going to have these sort of problems, because it's different than the assumption -- the assumption doesn't have to be changed to accomidate any DM's possible whim...and the assumption isn't nessecarily a wrong one because it doesn't suit the campaign you play in.

It's like....congratulations, you went beyond the rules and made your own world. Tell your players what's different (at least in terms of character knowledge and generation), and let them go wild. And if you can't tell them what's different, expect a hassle when they come to the table with something that doesn't fit...

Be that a halfling in a no-halfling world, or a godless cleric in a godded world. It's the same basic issue, and I don't think either halflings or possible paths of worship need to be relegated to a sidebar when you're playing in a homebrew that doesn't match the default assumptions *anyway*, and your players should know that (or at least be prepared to either give up the character or do some hand-waving to make the character fit...'I'm not a halfling, I'm just a pygmy human!' 'I'm not a Godless cleric, I'm just a worshiper of a minor god!')

 

[herald]

Psion

I have to mention that I like the fact that the Player's handbook explains that you can have Godless Clerics. I'll mention this right now to get this out of the way.

Here is my point:
Roleplayers come from all walks of life, and many creeds and colors. To teach new players a game, you have to be able to connect to them on a personal level. Most have some kind of spiritual belief system, and they a extremely varied and will continue become more varied in the future.

The statement as it is made in the PH shows that D&D can be as dynamic as it needs to be. Many people have a belief system that is not what many would call "a western religion"

Now you suggest that you could put "Godless Clerics" in a sidebar. Well think of what kind of message that sends people who infact have a religion that doesn't include a diety?

"We wanted to be PC, so were throwing you a bone. After all, we can't leave you people out."

And as for "expectations", expectations should be set before a game is even brought together. Even if your players are spread out, you could have your players send you character sheets via email, fax, you could talk over the phone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the assumption is that, in the game, you probably aren't going to get a religion like you have in life, Herald....I think that there's a clear distinction between the two, and just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you can't play a heathen-thumpin' deity of St. Cuthbert, eh?

I'm pretty sure Psion realizes that too...it seems a bit silly to me to have to include rules in the game just to reflect real life -- it is a game, after all.

 

[herald]

Well that would be a bad assumption Kamikaze Midget, when infact many other the religions do in some way resemble real world religions in one way or another.

it seems a bit silly to me to have to include rules in the game just to reflect real life

So we shouldn't have rules about getting killed, because that happens in real life, and hey lets take out the rules about getting hurt, after all, that happens too.

The point about an athiest playing a priest of Cuthbert is just silly.

No one is saying only people who have a spiritual belief can play a cleric. The point is that D&D is a game that covers a broad spectrum of settings and that is one of those concepts.

If you want to make limitations in your game, then feel free, but leave the book alone. The rest of us are doing just fine without your limitations.