Clerics without gods = huh?!

[Psion]

No, it is trivial. Your own example showed just how easy it is to deal with.

No, I showed you it could be done, but there were still consequences. The character still was less well grounded in the background of the campaign than it could have been if the character was conceived with the DM's universe in mind.

This has nothing to do with rules. It's more of a Player-DM control issue. And I know that Psion doesn't like to give his Players that much control during character creation, based on his comments about skill-based games.

This is nothing but an ad hominem jab. I have already mentioned that I let the character stand despite my reservations; I think you are making a hard sell that I simlpy want to lord over the players. If that is what I wanted, I could have done so.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

My point is that if your cosmological paradigm is that any philosophy can have divine power without a discrete being associated with it, fitting in a cleric made around the assuption of a specific deity is trivial, since you can merely explain that it is not the discrete divinity that provides the power, but the belief in the philosophy.

Understood.

OTOH, fitting a cleric conceived with the idea that any belief can yield power independant of a divine entity to a campaign that assumes you require a discrete entity to grant divine power is non-trivial, since the disctrete entity you would have to fit might contradict the history of divinities in the game, may not fit a pre-defined division of portfolios, and will lack the background that grounds the religion in the campaign that other clerics will have.

Got it. I recognize the discrepancy that you are refering to:

In the first instance, there is limitless divine energy, while in the second, divinity is limited. In the case of an infinite amount of philosophies or causes, there can always be a new philosophy that can be born. In the case of a limited amount of gods, then there are only so many sources of divine power.

So the problem, from my perspective, is not the philosophy/diety split, but the amount of divine power, be it infinite or finite.

If I were to build a cosmology that is both limited and philosophical (maybe there are only a few ideas that can grant divine inspiration), the exact same problem would occur.

For example: If there is only Bushido and the Tao, and these are the only two philosophies that can grant divine spells in all of existence, then a player who wants a character of a different philosophy is out of luck. They are stuck with whatever portfolios Bushido and the Tao provide.


I'm guessing this is what you have been trying to explain all along and I was just being obtuse. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Psion---
Well, that is not my major point, but that is part of it. How would you suggest the PHB address this, if at all?

That's just it. I wouldn't have the PHB address this. Rule Zero is already blatant enough. It is the DM's job to change whatever they want and tell the players beforehand. Players, IMX, have multiple ideas for characters, and are not going to get upset if you explain the world (and the options available) to them previous to character creation.

If you say, "No orcs! No evil! No godless clerics!" before they make characters, then they won't make those (unless they are petty.) *grin*

 

[hong]

I have to say, I don't care how long godless clerics have been around, they are another aspect of D&D trying to run a medieval world based on modern values and ideas with armies that have precisely 50% female soldiers.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

The 20th century and 21st centuries have been the only times there have been true godless clerics.

Uh...

I have to say, I don't care how long godless clerics have been around, they are another aspect of D&D trying to run a medieval world based on modern values and ideas with armies that have precisely 50% female soldiers.

Uh...

If people want to create a spellcaster class that can wear heavy armour, good for them -- just don't call them clerics and change the spell list so things like "miracle" aren't around. Clerics are religious officials -- period.

Chapter and verse, please. I expect a page number from the PHB that supports your claim. I would also like you to explain to me why a godless cleric could not be a religious official. Also, I would like to know why your version of a cleric is strictly "European Middle Ages" and not generic "fantasy."

In some worlds, I base clerics'
*snip everything*

Notice your use of the word "I". This means that this is what "you" do. If "you" would like to see how DnD (which is NOT "you") handles godless clerics and spellcasting, please read the PHB and Dieties and Demigods. They are available at a local bookstore near you.

My view

Note the use of the "my."

The point is that if people want a heavily armoured spellcaster, they should make their own class rather than piggybacking this idea onto a class that has a an existing set of generic associations.

Sorry to be blunt, but your "generic associations" are "ignorant assumptions".

 

[I'm A Banana]

Okay, sorry. I realize what you are trying to get at

Works for me. *hug*

I think Joshua hit on the same point I was going for: Psion's problem seemed to be (at it's base) with a palyer making something that didn't fit into his world.

That's a problem that's always going to happen when you play D&D...the DM's vision and the player's desires conflict. They will.

Personally, I don't think all rules need to be in a sidebar just to justify the DM exclusion of them. Rule 0 effectively sidebars anything you want to. Tell the players the paradigms in which they can make characters, and they won't dissapoint you (IMXP). If you don't let them know how your world is limited, then both of you should probably expect some problems.

And then, you have to decide to allow it (and somehow shoehorn it, sometimes unsatisfactorily), or dissalow it (and run the risk of hurting the views of the player, or seem heavy-handed).

IMHO, if you can't comfortably shoehorn it, the DM is within his rights to say: "Sorry, man..." (Of course, then the DM should also try to illustrate how the same character can be illustrated in their world). And the player should accept that with a minimum of griping.

Of course, I haven't had much of the same experience -- the one time I did weirdly limit PC's, I told everyone, and they were happy creating the characters they did. Most of the time, I allow anything...often to bizzarity...so I think my Players would have to *try*....*very hard* to make a character that didn't fit in a normal world I designed.

Oh, and fungasite...I think we disagree on a much more fundamanetal level about this, so I won't drag it in, but I *really* don't agree with a lot of what you said.