Clerics without gods = huh?!

[Psion]

Not druids.

Do too. They just don't name their patron (or at least, some of them don't.)

Or rangers for that matter. But then the divide is a little easier to understand in the Scarred Lands.

Of course it is, because the divinities from which Druids draw their power is named... titans.

 

[Kyramus]

I've treated them in my campaign world as follows.

Most (like 99 percent) Clerics usually have a deity as their patron/matron that grants their spells.

The rest that are "godless" aren't actually without a god. There are some gods that remain anonymous and that's where they draw their power from.

My players don't know about anonymous gods, so eventually if things go well and an order is established, the deity in question might reveal him/herself. Great way to make your own gods too if you want to tinker and test how the god works.

 

[Psion]

What about a long-dead evil god with only a handful of cultists (or just one) but a huuuuge amount of power? There's not many believers, but the *quality* of the belief is probably very strong (mad cultists usually don't have many moments of doubt...). They certainly aren't much of a collective...

That works too. I don't use solely a beleif/fiath model. Gods can derive power from faith of many followers, but the divine energy becomes self-sustaining, and most deities existed in some form before they gained followers.

What about a religion that has a very strictly enforced tenent of "no representation of what we worship"?

Still not a problem, AFAIAC.

Actually, it is a rather safe assumption since the 3e core books certainly allow divine power not tied to a figurehead...

You are engaging in circular reasoning... its permissible for the book to foist the view of "godless priests" on people because the book foists that view on people? Uh, no.

The existence of such a statement is aggravating. It becomes a point that the DM has to beat into player's head if he does not want to play with the variant view of godless priests.

That said, it's not as bad as having the greyhawk deities in the core book. I've had to remind my players repeatedly that I don't use them, where I have only had to beat it into the head of one player that I don't use the (IMO) goofy "divineless divine magic" theory.

Maybe it's just that Planescape has tainted me...after all, if you need a god, how do clerics call on power within Sigil (where divine energies are disallowed)

Uh, no. GODS don't enter sigil, there is nothing that prevents clerics (or devas or solars or devils or proxies, etc) from entering sigil. Even if you do take that as a precedent, it doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[Psion]

I mention this example, because it's clear that you can't answer the question of the Cleric of No Deity generically.

Sure. But obviously, the books have to say something on the subject. But in my estimation, most GMs aren't going to bother with bizarre explanations of "drawing power from your own faith". They are going to use the classic "these are the gawds, pick one" approach, and players saying "but I don't wanna pick one, it says here..." is just a pain in the neck.

One thing I have noticed, discussing with other DMs, is the tendency of some players to choose to play Clerics of No Deity (CoND) not because they have an overarching principle, but because they want to munchkinize their PC.

Even if they don't, even if they "have this real cool idea for a cleric with the strength and trickery domain", it just smudges over one of the few opportunities in the game of making world design have a sensible impact on character design.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

That said, it's not as bad as having the greyhawk deities in the core book. I've had to remind my players repeatedly that I don't use them, where I have only had to beat it into the head of one player that I don't use the (IMO) goofy "divineless divine magic" theory.

I agree about the Greyhawk gods in the PHB, that was a horrible thing to do.

As to having to repeatedly tell your player he can't do it, that reason is no more valid then you don't like the idea and don't want to use it.

Ok, thats sound completely wrong. In other words, just because you don't like the idea and don't use it doesn't mean that it isn't a reasonable option, or is unbalancing.

 

[Psion]

In other words, just because you don't like the idea and don't use it doesn't mean that it isn't a reasonable option, or is unbalancing.

I'm not saying it's not a reasonable option. I am saying that the way that it is presented in the PHB is a hassle. Even a rephrasing to explicitly point out that the option is up to the DM would be an improvement. Sure, in reality, EVERYTHING is up to the DM, but that is not what drives a player sitting down with a book, especially a new player who is not familiar with the world yet.

Such a player will usually pull all of their ideas straight out of the book. In fact, many new players will formulate character ideas before they meet/get a chance to talk with the DM of the campaign. I've had many conversations to the tune of "You have a spot in your game? Great! I have this character who..."

If I had my ruthers, in the revised PHB, the whole "goddless cleric" (apply to all divine spellcasters) thing would be relegated to a sidebar with heavy emphasis on DM control, and the Greyhawk deities would be excised and replaced by generic concept deities that are unnamed and more likely to fit an existing concept in the DMs game... AND liberally peppered with "check with the DM" comments.

 

[HellHound]

I think what it comes down to is your own PERSONAL view on spirituality and magic.

I am a very spiritual person, but I do NOT worship nor truly believe in "a god" or "a pantheon". Thus I feel that the godless clerics make PERFECT sense and are quite empowering.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

If I had my ruthers, in the revised PHB, the whole "goddless cleric" (apply to all divine spellcasters) thing would be relegated to a sidebar with heavy emphasis on DM control, and the Greyhawk deities would be excised and replaced by generic concept deities that are unnamed and more likely to fit an existing concept in the DMs game... AND liberally peppered with "check with the DM" comments.

Like i said, i 100% agree on the Greyhawk gods deal, they should never have done that. On the godless cleric stand point it's obvious we're both biased, you because you don't use it, and me because i do(at least some of the time). IMO it should have just as much standing as an option as the "standard" diety worshiper does. Although i can and will admit that dealing with dense players can be a problem. Still by that reasoning there are many things that should be religated to sidebars. The monster PC option is a constant source of headaches for me.

 

[Tsyr]

Though I have long since stopped using vancian magic, here is how I used to handle it:

Arcane magic is working with existing energy, manipulating it and so forth. You never "channel" magic, you just work with what already exists.

Psionics is using your own energy in one way or another.

Divine magic is channeling magic from any other thing through you to shape spells.

Therefor, in my worlds, Clerics and Paladins had to worship a god... something had to exist as a source of their powers.

Druids and Rangers were a little different... They didn't need to worship a god, the world itself was their patron diety.

 

[Tsyr]

The way I took it, if the player did not like the gawds listed.
Then he could choose two domains, etc. And it was gawd not listed.
So you could have a god str and good and call it Thor
Or evil and trickery call it Loki
or healing and light call it Nurse Krackit.

That's not not worshiping no god. That's having the DM create a new god for your cleric to worship; an entierly different story.