Clerics without gods = huh?!

[I'm A Banana]

Hmmm....Psion what you seem to be saying to me is "Because I play in a world where Gods are required for clerical spells and most people I know or have heard about do, that should be the point addressed in the rulebook, and giving divine magic without gods should be relegated to an option, but not an assumption."

....I'd say "Who's it hurting by being there?"

The domains are balanaced. The default assumption of the implied setting is that belief comes before gods. There's nothing wrong with that way of presenting it. It certainly doesn't invalidate your campaign setting's rules in any way -- you don't play in the implied setting, and the players should understand that you're the DM and have the authority to change things, often on just a whim if you want.

There's no need to really cheapen the concept of a godless faith by relegating it to a side bar of having them fooling themselves into being godless. If it doesn't work for your campaign, it doesn't. No biggie.

I really don't understand why that means that the rule shouldn't exist. It wasn't made to suit your campaign -- it was made to suit a certain style of generic campaigning. And, in general, the campaign assumes that there's kind of a cycle for how the power of belief flows....from worshiper to concept (in the form of actions and activities in the name of the concept), and from concept back to worshiper (in the form of spells). The concept can, but need not be, embodied in a deific form.

So you're different. I don't think the rules should cater to how you happen to play, nor do I think that just because you don't like godless priests that they need to be regulated to a side-bar/optional rule.

Mechanically, it's really no different. It's only the campaign flavor that seperates godless preists from the goded. And it's the DM's job to establish flavor for his/her world. If the suggested flavor of the core books isn't important, you, as DM, can change it...it's really not important as long as you want it different.

Sorry if I might sound a mite inflamatory up there. I hope I did give a pretty honest representation of your argument.

 

[Psion]

Hmmm....Psion what you seem to be saying to me is "Because I play in a world where Gods are required for clerical spells and most people I know or have heard about do, that should be the point addressed in the rulebook, and giving divine magic without gods should be relegated to an option, but not an assumption."

....I'd say "Who's it hurting by being there?"

I've already addressed why I think it is a problem.

The domains are balanaced.

I've never addressed the balance of the domain or lack therof, so if you are making an argument with me personally on that basis, you are missing my point... especially since I have said that I explicitly allow players to mix and match domains.

There's no need to really cheapen the concept of a godless faith

Cheapen it? We are talking about a game here, and ultimately the books goal should be facilitating a game. The fact is, players proceeding from this misplaced esoteric assumption are a positive headache for GMs who don't use it.

And you say "I can change it". Well, you can make godless clerics if that is what you want, too. What's good for the goose...

I really don't understand why that means that the rule shouldn't exist. It wasn't made to suit your campaign -- it was made to suit a certain style of generic campaigning. And, in general, the campaign assumes that there's kind of a cycle for how the power of belief flows....from worshiper to concept (in the form of actions and activities in the name of the concept), and from concept back to worshiper (in the form of spells). The concept can, but need not be, embodied in a deific form.

Actually, that is quite a bit more esoteric than the norm. The norm assumes that there is a deity who grants spells to its clergy.

So you're different. I don't think the rules should cater to how you happen to play,

But as long as the cater to the way you play, that is okay. Excuse me if I don't feel like this esoteric concept should be foisted on me. And yes, I can change it. But its a hassle. Putting it in a sidebar makes it an option... like it should be... just like the monk and paladin multiclassing restrictions should be... and does not hurt you or me. Right now YOU don't see a problem with it because YOU are a beneficiary of it. Excuse me if I say I think you are being very shortsighted.

nor do I think that just because you don't like godless priests that they need to be regulated to a side-bar/optional rule.

Again, how does it affect you to have it in a sidebar? Because I can tell you it affects me NOT having it in a sidebar.

Mechanically, it's really no different.

You're right, which is all the more reason that it shouldn't be there. Adding the explicit flavor of the game is the DMs job.

Sorry if I might sound a mite inflamatory up there. I hope I did give a pretty honest representation of your argument.

You may well be. You just aren't seeing my viewpoint. Putting it in a sidebar hurts neither one of us.

Answer me this one question: Just how does putting the option in a sidebar and presenting it as a variant "cheapen" it? I'm just not seeing it. It does nothing but more explicitly put the choice in the DMs hand. There is no loss for you that I can see.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Cheapen it? We are talking about a game here, and ultimately the books goal should be facilitating a game. The fact is, players proceeding from this misplaced esoteric assumption are a positive headache for GMs who don't use it.

The same argument could be made for deity worshiping clerics to be a side bar, if the Dm in question uses the ideal option but has no dieties.

 

[Psion]

The same argument could be made for deity worshiping clerics to be a side bar, if the Dm in question uses the ideal option but has no dieties.

No, it can't. Because the godless cleric is inherently more permissive. And that is why it is a hassle. If a player arrives at the table with a cleric of Heironeous, if you assume that all you need is someone with faith in the ideals for Heironeous, it is not a problem for you. 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.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

Haven't you said that is exactly what Druids do in your campaign? They might think they worship the concept of "nature", but in fact they worship a god/godess.

All you have to do is pick a god that fits with their ideas, and you're set. If this seems like a big problem to you, I can't argue.

 

[LostSoul]

There are plenty of plausible explanations, you just have to look.

My point isn't that it's implausible to draw your power from a god, it's that from my point of view - my religious beliefs, I guess - I'd assume that Clerics to draw power from an ideal, not from a god. That would be my default worldview.

 

[Psion]

All you have to do is pick a god that fits with their ideas, and you're set.

Speaking from experience, that is easier said than done. I totally did not have a match in concept for a character who wanted two specific domains. I had to make up a demigod specifically to accomodate him, one that will not be well worked into the game.

If this seems like a big problem to you, I can't argue.

I wouldn't characterize it as a big problem. I would, again, characterize it as a hassle.

 

[Nightfall]

Speak for yourself, buddy. My druids follow the mother goddess. Even the ones who think they follow "nature".

Fine. That's your preogrative Psion.

 

[Deadguy]

Apologising in advance for taking this discussion off on a tangent:

several people have said that they think the domains are balanced. One thing I definitely felt was that the domains were not balanced overall. One of the first things I did was go through and balance the domain granted powers against each other, weakening some and boosting a few others. Now I know the argument is that you must look at the domains balanced as the list and the granted power. But since you have only one domain slot per spell level, I found people considering taking one domain for its spells and another for its granted power. All Clerics might be blanaced over a full 17 levels of advancement (to level 9 spells), but they'd be unbalanced early on, particularly for Cleric/XXXX multiclasses.


Returning to your normal viewing, one thing I don't have a problem with is the DM saying 'no your Cleric concept doesn't fit with any of the deities of my world'. If I run a game where there are specific gods and they are the only source of clerical power, I don't think there's an obligation on the DM to make stuff up just to accommodate a player's desire to have just any two domains he fancies, or to create new deities just because his favoured pair doesn't come from a god whose alignment he wants to take! Psion is right that Gods (or their substitute Ideals) are a definite part of the flavour of the game world. I don't have to redo my campaign just because it doesn't suit a player (and that player has the right to take his gaming elsewhere if he isn't happy about that). Maybe it's just part of a deeper attitude: I don't have to accommodate every player's whim of what his PC should be. If I don't want PCs draw from the Minotaur race, then there are no PC minotaurs. Period. If the only Clerics with access to the Fire Domain are followers of Huilva, Lord of Flames, then no amount of whingeing will make it available to the Goddess of Healing... It's just part of the contract.

edited for clarity!

 

[hong]

No, it can't. Because the godless cleric is inherently more permissive.

Bullcrap.

And that is why it is a hassle. If a player arrives at the table with a cleric of Heironeous, if you assume that all you need is someone with faith in the ideals for Heironeous, it is not a problem for you. 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.

Exactly why does following the tenets of truth, justice and honor, even if there isn't a man behind the curtain, constitute an "anything goes" philosophy?