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

[Delta]

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.)

Disagree -- this is a very recent (if somewhat widespread) notion. The implicit understanding in OD&D, Basic, 1E, 2E, and core 3E was very much the opposite. You really can't find core rules or adventures from 1975-2005 that say anything different.

There's a pretty good tradition of presenting a supplementary "cloistered cleric" non-adventuring NPC class after the core rules come out, but even they have their own spell lists and powers, etc.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

They do in my campaigns. In my game, cleric is a very specific kind of adventuring/fighting holy-man, usually a militant order. Most priests and holy men that serve in temples and churches and hierarchies (or just wander and do their own thing) are not clerics, but normal (0-level) men. However, that doesn't mean they lack credibility or power. I might have a 0-level normal man "priest" in charge of the local temple, and he can probably heal wounds and such. There might even be a 0-level high priest that can raise the dead. He just isn't a "cleric."

(Incidentally, this approach to classes is one reason "no elf clerics -- that's silly" or "race-as-class" doesn't bother me. The classes aren't straightjackets that apply universally to everyone, but archetypes of common PC adventurers.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

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's very specifically and deliberately called out in numerous Eberron books, and was one of the guiding design philosophies of the culture in that setting.

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

I realize you're kidding--hence the winky--but I think it's important to be clear...

I realize that you're not a 4E fan, but on a D&D messageboard, I'd argue that it's not only safe to assume people are speaking of the current edition unless otherwise specified, it's necessary for ease of communication.

If you want us to discuss this issue as specifically applies to 3E, we can do that. (Though as I said, you may indeed be right as core 3E was written, as opposed to Eberron, so I'm not sure there's anything more than personal preference to discuss there.) But a question that doesn't specify an edition can and should be assumed to be about the current edition.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

[3.x Argument]

Until commune becomes available at 9th level, it actually makes more sense for priests to be experts rather than clerics.

Knowledge (religion) would be the relevant skill for determining/arguing about doctrine; experts can have higher Int (vs Wis), can always afford to max out Knowledge (religion), can afford to take Skill Focus (Knowledge: religion), might have a +2/+2 custom feat etc. Moreover, they can max out Diplomacy (for converting unbelievers), afford to take Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Persuasive etc. etc.

When commune enters the equation (maybe divination to a lesser extent), it gets more complicated. Such a character is tapped in directly, and it's kind of hard to refute what they might say.

[/3.x argument]

Most priests and holy men that serve in temples and churches and hierarchies (or just wander and do their own thing) are not clerics, but normal (0-level) men. However, that doesn't mean they lack credibility or power. I might have a 0-level normal man "priest" in charge of the local temple, and he can probably heal wounds and such. There might even be a 0-level high priest that can raise the dead. He just isn't a "cleric."

[Edit]: Every time I read your arguments, Mr. Jurament, I am struck by their elegance and simplicity and I want to play B/X.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Eberron is the first time that I've seen it expressly said that most church officials are experts, and only a rare few are clerics.

In every other edition that I've played, there has been a tacit assumption at least that churches are led by clerics (and in adventures are statted as such).

Cheers

 

[Psion]

I realize that you're not a 4E fan, but on a D&D messageboard, I'd argue that it's not only safe to assume people are speaking of the current edition unless otherwise specified, it's necessary for ease of communication.

If you want us to discuss this issue as specifically applies to 3E, we can do that. (Though as I said, you may indeed be right as core 3E was written, as opposed to Eberron, so I'm not sure there's anything more than personal preference to discuss there.) But a question that doesn't specify an edition can and should be assumed to be about the current edition.

I'd hope that by being inclusive in my response and recognizing trends that exist, we could be all inclusive without having to resort to any claims of "assumed basis of discussion".

That being said, I don't agree with you at all that discussion is "4e unless spelled out otherwise". If you wish your discussion to be about 4e, then it's probably best to say so. They've provided tags for just this purpose.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Eberron is the first time that I've seen it expressly said that most church officials are experts, and only a rare few are clerics.

It may indeed have been (officially) new to Eberron. Like I said to Psion, I may have been letting my Eberron and 4E work/reading--as well my own personal preferences --cloud my memory. I thought the notion of only a rare few priests actually being clerics had been in the books long before, but it may just have been that we were doing it that way so long that I forgot it wasn't written that way before a certain point.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd hope that by being inclusive in my response and recognizing trends that exist, we could be all inclusive without having to resort to any claims of "assumed basis of discussion".

That being said, I don't agree with you at all that discussion is "4e unless spelled out otherwise". If you wish your discussion to be about 4e, then it's probably best to say so. They've provided tags for just this purpose.

My point wasn't that discussion of any other edition is somehow "inferior." But in a discussion about any topic where multiple versions exist, if someone doesn't say otherwise, it's a reasonable assumption to make that they're speaking of the current version.

Right now, there's only one edition of D&D currently being published. If someone asks me a question "about D&D" and doesn't specify an edition, I tend to assume they're speaking of the current one. That's not a value judgment in any way; just a common starting ground.

If someone asks "Are priests and clerics the same thing in D&D?" the default answer is "no," because as the game is currently being written, they are not. If they specify the question to prior editions--or if that fact changes in future editions--obviously the answer no longer applies.

It would be the same as if someone asked "Is Dave Arneson a D&D writer?" Well, no, he's not. He was, and I am in no way disparaging his contribution to the game's history--it wouldn't exist without him, and I'm grateful--but that doesn't change the fact that at the present time in the game's current incarnation, he is not a D&D writer.

 

[Psion]

Right now, there's only one edition of D&D currently being published.

There's more than one currently being played. If the latest batch of polls is any indication, there's about as many people playing 4e as 3e here irrespective of publishing status.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

[Edit]: Every time I read your arguments, Mr. Jurament, I am struck by their elegance and simplicity and I want to play B/X.

Wow, thank you for the compliment; I appreciate it.