Do non-spellcasting, non-adventuring priests exist in D&D?

[Psion]

While I don't recall that particular reference, even if it's the case, it's vastly overwhelmed by the number of references that use "priest" as a generic title, without reference to class or level.

So "vastly" that I can't think of an instance outside of Eberron?

I think you might be overstating your case here just a little. I've read a few D&D books.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So "vastly" that I can't think of an instance outside of Eberron?

I think you might be overstating your case here just a little. I've read a few D&D books.

It's possible that, between my more recent experiences with 4E and Eberron, that I might indeed be misremembering/overstating my case when it comes to other 3E settings. If so, mea culpa.

But I can say with certainty that this holds true in both Eberron, in 4E FR, and in the 4E default setting.

 

[malraux]

This is similar to how in game someone can be highly trained 'fighter' and yet mechanically be represented by the ranger class. The class names really refer to the collection of abilities. In game, such names are really titles relating to the job. Trying to equate the two is bad.

 

[Psion]

It's possible that, between my more recent experiences with 4E and Eberron, that I might indeed be misremembering/overstating my case when it comes to other 3E settings. If so, mea culpa.

But I can say with certainty that this holds true in both Eberron, in 4E FR, and in the 4E default setting.

Well, just as you don't care to discuss 2e, I don't care to discuss 4e.

For that matter, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on Eberron, though I did observe they like statting out high level non-adventuring class characters in the game; I'm more familiar with Sharn and the core book than anything later.

It would be entirely unsurprising to me if there was a philosophical shift this direction in 4e products, given their "adventurers are special; NPCs are monsters" philosophy.

That said, I'm not against making most clergy non-spellcasters in principle. The way Sepulchrave* and Keith Done presented clergy as menial experts and clerics as "instruments of the gods" is very cool. I just didn't see much of that reflected in the pages of 3e works. Every "priest" I saw in the pages of official 3e adventures or books had cleric or adept levels.

* - I especially thought it was cool the way Sep utilized a loophole in the Contemplative requirement to let experts enter the Contemplate PrC, and built his church concept around it. Munckinning for concept!

 

[underthumb]

You are correct. Not only do non-spellcasting priests exist, they make up the overwhelming majority of priests in D&D's default and major settings. (This is explicit in 4E and in 3E Eberron, but it's at least implicit in other settings as well.)

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who at least had this impression. I felt like I was going crazy for a moment.

A separate point is that it doesn't seem very logical that gods would grant typical priests spell-casting powers, especially if they're primarily bureaucrats and local organizers. (It would also mean that worlds like Toril would be swimming with divine spellcasters, as anyone recognized as a non-lay member of a church would automatically be able to cast.)

 

[S'mon]

I can't think of any setting where it's specifically stated that all priests are Clerics or other Divine casters, but in many city sourcebooks and such all the detailed/statted priests are Clerics, implying you must be one to be important. An exception is the old White Dwarf city Irillian, where the Brothers of Law (Brothors aef Lagu) are priests, but Fighter class.

 

[Remathilis]

* - I especially thought it was cool the way Sep utilized a loophole in the Contemplative requirement to let experts enter the Contemplate PrC, and built his church concept around it. Munckinning for concept!

Link?

 

[Psion]

Link?

Can't find it.

A search for posts by user Sepulchrave II mentioning "contemplative" turns up several references, including one referring to a "previous thread", but that's all I can turn up with a quick search. You might poke around more if you have search feature; I've got to run.

Basically, the original contemplative (not sure about the 3.5 version) only had a skill and maybe feat requirement, so lacking spellcasting wasn't an issue.

 

[Betote]

I don't recall if it was stated anywhere, but I've always assumed that the vast majority of priests came from the Expert or Aristocrat classes, with just a few "real" clerics as the heads of the various temples. I've done it that way in Eberron, Greyhawk and Golarion.

In fact, in D&D a cleric has a lot more to do with a crusader than with a priest, IMO.

 

[S'mon]

My own opinion is that in most D&D settings, a typical village 'priest' NPC is a 'wise man' or 'wise woman' type and should have some spellcasting power - Cleric class isn't very suitable for most due to its combat emphasis, but Adept-1 might work, or give an Expert or unclassed NPC some 0th level casting ability. That's how priests are seen IRL IMO, so I'd go with that.