Clerics without gods = huh?!

[Henry]

Henry: that sounds like a fascinating take on the divine/arcane schism in magic. Me, I'm all for conflicts other that your standard good and evil to rear their head in a campaign.

Thanks. Believe it or not, my home campaign setting got its very nascent start when I was a child, playing with dolls - excuse me, "action figures" - at age 10 or 11 years! Most of my players would be severely interested to know that the two main wizard NPC's in my campaign world look suspiciously like the action figures for Princess Ardala and Draco from the Buck Rogers TV series.

 

[Nightfall]

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

True but most druids, non-denev worshippers, just believe more in NATURE itself than gods. Which is why they aren't clerics.

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

Well that's true in Ghelspad. Have to see what the Termana HC has to say about that.

 

[Dave G]

Some of you guys seriously need to read Elizabeth Moon...

The question is - can you have power without worship?
If a Good god takes a liking to someone (happens all the time for the pettiest of reasons in mythology) and grants power(s) to that someone could they not be a priest without a cause? But if that person does something to alienate her mystery patron, the attention (and thusly the powers) start to fade...

It's not that hard to rationalize, if they don't choose a god, but use internal beliefs, there's nothing to say that a God isn't fueling the characters anyway... Heck that sounds like an enormously fun thing to figure out through role-playing

 

[Psion]

It's not that hard to rationalize,

When it comes to fantasy, nothing is that hard to rationalize. Heck, I have even rationalized the alignment shifts in Orcs and Drow between editions.

But there comes a time when it is best for a game/setting/campaign to stop trying to pound square pegs in round holes, step back, and consider what fits best or flows best with the campaign.

 

[widderslainte]

Metaphysics aside, there's nothing wrong with a cleric's religion focusing on something other than a god, as long as it isn't just a cop-out to avoid roleplaying. Look at some of the eastern religions. If you can find a copy of Aria Roleplaying, there's a great chapter on designing the origins of magic and "divine" power.

 

[Psion]

True but most druids, non-denev worshippers, just believe more in NATURE itself than gods.

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

 

[Grundle]

Great discussion.

However hackneyed it may be, I'm working on a campaign world where the "Gods" have been locked out of the multiverse by a long forgotten cataclysm. They are no longer able to act on the material plane or effect the multiverse in any way. They have been (all but) forgotten and are no longer worshipped. However, the divine power of the absent "Gods" is still present in the multiverse and can be accessed through belief in the Ideals represented by the forgotten gods.

Thus I'll be permitting deity-less clerics in my world. In fact all Clerics will be godless. The Clerics in my world strive to be the very embodiment of the Ideals (domains) they represent, but they do not "worship" anything.

Obviously, logic must rule when giving my concent to a players choice of domains for their character - can't have a Cleric with Good, and Evil domains, or a Good-aligned character selecting a domain unabiguously associated with Evil - like Hatred or something. I might be convinced to permit something like Fire and Water, but it would take a very good character concept.

That said, I am interested in war-stories from DM's who've tried deity-less Clerics. Are min-maxed domains a real potential problem or just much ado about nothing?

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

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.

http://www.uua.org/

Mercule----
Personally, I'd look at a player who asked to play a cleric of a "philosophy" about the same as I'd look at someone who asked to play a paladin who tortured small children. That is to say, "Dude, you're kinda missing the point."

http://www.uua.org/

I think there is a big difference between drawing power from faith and drawing power from spirituality. The former requires a static worldview whereas the latter is not so limited.

(In ZAMM/Lila, it would be the Static/Dynamic Quality split, or NF + either J or P in Myers/Briggs/Keirsey, which is equivalent to Law/Chaos in DnD.)

To assume that the clerics in the entireity of the DnD multiverse and everyone's campaign worlds must be absolutists that require permanent faith (a.k.a. Lawful) is kinda missing the point.
.
.
.
.
And if people in your campaigns are min/maxing the domains, that's because you have bad players, not a bad rules system.

 

[Henry]

I really can't see abusing the domains as written in core rules, though. Looking over them, they are really balanced with one another, and the ones with good spells have sorry granted powers, and vice versa. Even if you did allow clerics to choose any two, I relaly don't see two domains that are just plain abusive together. I certainly don't see such balancing going on in the core rules - Obad-Hai has SIX domains, for gods' sakes! (pun intended.)

 

[Psion]

http://www.uua.org/

I show you a logical fallacy, you throw me a religion. Uh, okay. That in no way addresses my point. I'm not talking about the principle behind the religious system, I am addressing the circular reasoning of "the PHB has godless clerics, therefore it is okay for the PHB to have godless clerics."

To assume that the clerics in the entireity of the DnD multiverse and everyone's campaign worlds must be absolutists that require permanent faith (a.k.a. Lawful) is kinda missing the point.

I don't think I ever made such a claim, thankyouverymuch.