Clerics without gods = huh?!

Sir Osis of Liver said:
The problem there is that beieng a cleric of a god is just as optional as being a godless cleric

And you are another person who I have to wonder if you are really reading (or, at least, remembering) my posts. In fact, I think it was you, specifically, that I was replying to when I clarified this point. To wit,

You wrote:
Don't you think it would be better to demphise both and make it more clear that cosmology is the domain of the DM and you should consult with him on character design?

To which I responded:
Yes, that would be great. But the scope of this discussion has focussed on why, specifically, I find this part of the PH to be a problem, But yes, in truth, structuring the whole divine spellcasters should explicitly reference the options that the DM may invoke for cosmology.

Remember?


Sure you are allowed to do that. So, obviously you would be fine if clerics of specific dieties were in a side bar because of all the diety varations from game to game, that way they could probably elimate the greyhawk pantheon from the book.

Well, it wouldn't hurt my feelings the way the idea of putting godless clerics in the sidebar seems to be hurting the feelings of some here. But, as stated, I beleive there is less of a reason for doing so, for reasons already given.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Psion said:
Yes, I do. Would I have spent the last three pages defending against pedantic attacks against that opinion if I did not beleive so? I don't fall for the "here, have a strawman" tactic anymore.
In that case, I have to believe that you have a very unique situation. I've never met a gamer who was so stuck on a concept that when the DM told him it didn't work in the campaign, he couldn't adapt it. Or a DM that wanted the book changed to support him, because he thought it would have made a big difference to his players if an option were presented as "optional" rather than "canonical." And iff your situation is really unique, your case loses a lot right there: it becomes merely your issue and hardly a compelling reason to change the way the text reads.
 

ConcreteBuddha said:
The point I do agree with Psion is that players should not just stick any two domains together and then say they are done with their cleric character. A player who does that is typically min-maxing, and just wants the benefits of the domains without having to answer to an authority.

(The player who takes Strength and War without any thought to the underlying philosophy or source of divine power that fuels their spellcasting is a cheesehead.) *grin*

Except that, rule-wise, we have NUMEROUS examples of clerics of Gods with Strength and War together (gruumsh, Garagos, Tempus, The uthgardt Tribes, Anhur, and even Clangeddin Silverbeard, a Lawful Good Deity!) The domains themselves are not overpowered together - it just looks that way. :) Remember my point about level dependent abilities.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
In that case, I have to believe that you have a very unique situation. I've never met a gamer who was so stuck on a concept that when the DM told him it didn't work in the campaign, he couldn't adapt it.

Like I have said, I could have forced the issue, but did not think it is appropriate as I generally like players to play characters they want, and generally prefer characters that are as close to their vision as feasible within the mileu.

That said, I daresay if you have never met a player who was reluctant to abandon a concept that didn't fit well, you are the one who is unique.
 

My preference is similar to Psions in that I'd say it should be much more apparent that the cosmology is DM dependent, and that god less clerics would be the better choice for the sidbar since goded dieties are the norm in basically all D&D precendent.

What I'd really like is a very generic apparent to anyone its up to the DM style cosmology with maybe 4 compleatly fleshed out examples including relyious obsevences, ranks in the heiarchy etc. And have 3ish gods(don't realy need names) but a god of war, a god of healing, and a god of death for example. Then do one philosophy and again it should be compleatly fleshed out, inclsuign religious bservations, and the heirarchy of the church. I think it should be made clear(because this is the only way it heck I'd let it in my games) that choosing a philosophy in no way gets you out of all the cleric baggage. If you want to play a spellcaster who doesn't have to deal with reigious crap, and higher ranked church memebers, and rigidly following a belief system play a wizard.
 

Psion said:
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.

No, it is trivial. Your own example showed just how easy it is to deal with. Even a character with contradicting domains (Death and Life, Law and Chaos, Destruction and Healing) can be handwaved/explained away (a Nature god would fit all those examples).

This same argument can be made for any character who doesn't come from the part of the world that the DM has developed. 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.
 

The 20th century and 21st centuries have been the only times there have been true godless clerics. You can see them competing with Justices of the Peace to see who can perform the cheapest marriage ceremonies and funerals. If people want to use magic that doesn't involve gods, they can become arcane spellcasters and manipulate magical forces scientifically or because of a natural affinity.

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.

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.

In some worlds, I base clerics' powers on a link with an objectively real divine entity that acts through the cleric. In some, I base clerics on the idea that religious observances and rituals draw magical power out of worshippers and place it in the hands of clerics; Runequest was an excellent hybrid of these two ideas. The point is that power flows through the cleric not from the cleric, thus the different magical mechanic.

These two approaches allow for just about any sort of religious official, regardless of the philosophy. A godless cleric is a bad way to go not because of the doctrinal problems that arise but because of the liturgical problems. I don't care if the cleric is part of an organized religion or disorganized movement worshipping a single god, a set of gods or the god of a monotheistic pantheon -- what makes a cleric a cleric is his involvement in a ritualized enterprise that involves a collective -- even if he's out on the frontier surrounded by heathens, he is still connected to that collective enterprise.

My view is that a magic system that is based on the inherent power in an individual rather than one which either manipulates natural physics (Wizards) or draws power from forces external to the person (Clerics, Rangers, Paladins and Druids) is already well-covered by the Sorceror and Bard classes. If people want to go further with that idea and create different and new classes of this ilk that are based on a person's moral uprightness attunement with the universe (Wisdom) rather than raw presence (Charisma), such a character would probably more closely resemble the monk than the cleric.

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.
 


fusangite said:
The 20th century and 21st centuries have been the only times there have been true godless clerics. You can see them competing with Justices of the Peace to see who can perform the cheapest marriage ceremonies and funerals. If people want to use magic that doesn't involve gods, they can become arcane spellcasters and manipulate magical forces scientifically or because of a natural affinity.

I suggest Therevada Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, as counter examples -- even so going so far as to present the fact that buddhist temples had armed holy warriors trained and housed within the temple complex as well as schools of training that link/unify military and religious understanding (something actualy *more* common in these religions than in the west, as the "cleric" archetype has little true historical precedent in western religion). Perhaps you would counter that the monk is a better fit for such religious adherents, but that is only due to real Earth cultural differences. In a fantasy world, there is no need to force monks and a godless religion to go hand in hand.
 

Remove ads

Top