Clerics without gods = huh?!

[HellHound]

Kamikaze Midget - that is EXACTLY where I think too.

Don't need the figurehead of a religion to make divine magic work, you just need that divine spark of energy that is created by worship.

It just happens that these creatures created by worship (called gods) use this power better than most people do, and people learn to worship the gods instead of what the gods originally represented.

 

[Nightfall]

Do too.

Not druids. Or rangers for that matter. But then the divide is a little easier to understand in the Scarred Lands.

As for his handle, so what? Am I supposed to be all dark and shadowy because of my handle? *pauses* Oh wait I am.

 

[drdevoid]

I tend to take this view as well. Being able to draw this power is what separates the deity-less cleric from the devout peasant. However, I still think the granting deity keep tabs on what the cleric does with this power.

Should the cleric violate one of the tenets of the deity (even though he doesn't believe in the deity), I'm sure he can still be spanked --in a way appropriate to the deity. With power comes responsibility, or failing that...a price.

Not to repeat what's already been said, but my 2 ways of looking at the divine power source. The spells/domain abilities are coming from the raw forces of the universe itself, which is what I'm reading from the "bypass the middleman" theory. A variation on this idea is in D&Dg (and something of Monte Cook's, as well) regarding the power coming from a dead god (possibly toward the glory of resurrecting said deity).

As far as paying a price, I say if the PC starts to act inapproriately (define that as you will), these raw forces start to lose the connection as one's attunement to these very forces is being compromised by the PC's own will. Hence, the channeling idea that's so popular. At least with a deity atonement and even understanding the nature of the transgression is easier, the "godless" way allows for some even more interesting roleplaying scenarios, IMO.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If its just you, it's not divine. It has to be a collective, a distillation, of the follower's beleifs. Just your beleifs by themselves don't cut it

So the power of belief is a democracy now? Cool, I want to vote out something!

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...

What about a religion that has a very strictly enforced tenent of "no representation of what we worship"? It's not too out of line (we worship it, it's above and beyond our comprehension, putting it in mortal form would be silly and blasphemous)...and it almost mandates that there be no god...merely a force.

And as for that invalidating a possible Cleric's fall from grace -- it doesn't. You can violate anything you believe in, misuse a power that you've gained through simply belief. If you loose that belief...if you have a crisis of faith....it doesn't matter if it's in a being or a power, it can still weaken your hold to the power that faith gives.

it's not safe to assume that they will be using a concept like "godless priests."

Actually, it is a rather safe assumption since the 3e core books certainly allow divine power not tied to a figurehead...quite the opposite, it's not safe for a book to assume that priests require a god (unless it's something like a campaign setting or supplement that declares that all clerics mut have a god).

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), or how do the people of the planes gain tangible power from belief in concepts that, while not incompatible with gods, often supercedes any individual being.

But it's a taint I like!

 

[Deadguy]

I must confess that when I created my Shattered World campaign setting I completely forgot that clerics didn't have to have a deity per the rules. Instead, and to emphasise that the setting has no gods, I renamed them Theurges and reworked the class to make it more general. They are devoted to certain Philosophies, being driven with a Passion that they can turn into magical effects (I called them raptures rather than spells to emphasise the difference to players).

Wanting to account for the source of their power, I posited that the Sun and the shadowy Darkheart were the sources of Positive and Negative Energy respectively. This flows as a great river back and forth between them. The whole world is immersed in these 'rivers', and this energy is sensitive to the beliefs of those who are within it. If they lack suitable training you end up with Adepts, who focus on their raw emotion. But powerful Philosophies can teach their adherents to manipulate the Flow more subtly, granting both Raptures (spells) and Domain Powers. There's no mediation here, save an understanding of how to manipulate the Flow better.

I mention this example, because it's clear that you can't answer the question of the Cleric of No Deity generically. Every game world will have an explanation which either permits or denies their existence. Whilst that's trite, it is a reminder to DMs that they need to give some thought to this point. Where indeed does Clerical power derive? What are the limits on its access? What effects will this power have on the game world?

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. After all, the CoND has the benefit of choosing any two Domains, to maximise their 'kewl powerz'. Plus, lacking a deity, they can try to argue that they have no clerical hierarchy to answer to, and no deity imposing demands on the PC. I am not, of course, saying that all CoNDs are like this, or even most, but the fact that it can be so exploited means that DMs need to consider this point for their game world. To allow its exploitation is to undermine the players of standard Clerics and to demean the system of faiths in the setting.

 

[Spatula]

Maybe I missed something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks to me like, in there attempt to make the cleric kewl, they lost sight of any focus.

Who's "they"? Because clerics that don't explicitly worship a single god have been around since the beginning of D&D. Worshipping a philosophy has been around at least since 2nd edition.

Requiring clerics to worship a single god instead of, say, a belief, is fine for certain styles of fantasy but not all. Should the basic D&D rules be flexible and allow for different types of religions or not? Cultures in the real world had/have religious beliefs that do not resemble the pagan traditions of Europe or Judeo-Christian beliefs. And while the pagans and Christians are the primary inspiration for most D&D religious systems, D&D is not limited to using those traditions alone for inspiration. Nor should it be.

Besides, look at the description of druids, rangers, or adepts - all divine spell casters, none of them worship gods (unless you're in FR).

 

[hong]

I've really been stumbling over this one lately. The Player's handbook states that a cleric does not need a particular god to sponsor him.

This leads me to believe that the cleric in turn represents a philosophy, creed, or religion based on the two domains he chooses.

Or an aspect of an underlying philosophy, creed or religion.

Or the spheres of influence of the spirits that she venerates.

Or a chosen specialty to reflect the cleric's own path in life.

Or whatever. Make something up.

So where does he get his powers? Who, or what, grants him his spells.

Mutual consent on the part of the players and DM to participate in a shared alternate reality.

Maybe I missed something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks to me like, in there attempt to make the cleric kewl, they lost sight of any focus.

Druids (cleric replacement class) in my Britannia 3E campaign (see sig) don't worship specific gods, because a pantheon of deities doesn't exist in Britannia.

Does this mean I'm kewl?

KEWL!


Hong "or WANGER, if you prefer" Ooi

 

[Alzrius]

And since when has a god had to have been able to cast a certain spell to grant his followers the ability to cast it?

It was included in Faiths & Pantheons for the Forgotten Realms, and I'm pretty sure that rule is in Deities & Demigods also. Basically, any god with 1 divine rank or more can grant spells to clerics (and any other PrC apparently), but in order to grant spells to other divine spellcasters, such as druids, rangers, or paladins, they need a level in that class (not just the ability to grant that spell. Note that this is minimal though (iirc here), a deity with one level of ranger could grant spells to rangers, etc.

 

[hong]

It was included in Faiths & Pantheons for the Forgotten Realms, and I'm pretty sure that rule is also in Deities & Demigods also.

Who gives a damn about Faiths and Pantheons, or Deities and Demigods?


Hong "godlike DM" Ooi

 

[herald]

IMHO, the rule is created to allow players to play clerics who might not be comfortable with all the baggage of being a priest. Many (I'm not saying most) beginning players (especially the younger ones) really don't grasp what being a Cleric is all about.

It could be said that people who are animists doesn't really worship god, but revere spirits instead.

D&D is also a game that tries to encompass a broad scope of fantasy literature. Some the concepts that don't fit in your game might be a great idea in another game.

I myself have considered making a game world where the concepts of alignment were bound up in what were called the 9 philosophies. This would have sprung up from 9 different philosophers from mortals earliest age who would have passed down a sort of commandment like set of mores that all alignments would be measure against.

Of course these philosophers worked against each other to spread their truth over the world. Those individuals were going to be called philosophers and have Cleric like abilities. No gods per say, but would have to be strict adherents to their philosophies, or loose their mystical powers.

As the first age of Mortals past and the rise of the mortal gods came to be, philosophers were founding the courts of every King, and by the sides of almost every Epic Hero who would become the first of the Mortal gods. From that point forward in the worlds history, there would be Clerics and Philosophers.