Does anyone miss the generic cleric?

[woodelf]

Despite having no problem with the current cleric, I kind of enjoy the old generalist clerics. I always assume that, even in a polytheistic society, many of the lesser deities would not have many shrines dedicated exclusively to them. As such, it would made sense to have generalist clerics that would be able to mediate the affairs of the mundane with the divine, without being servants of a specific diety. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what happens in most South American's tribes, as well as with the Afro-Brazilian religions. I known that some Greek and Roman goods had specialist priest, but I wonder if there weren't also generalist clerics. As I understand, normal people would ask divine favors to several dieties, depending of the specific need. Polytheism, as implemented by D&D sounds a little bit weird, as it implies that most of the people is devote to a single diety.

My understanding is that in most polytheistic societies, you might have a few priests devoted to a specific god, but the vast majority of people, including most religious officials, would be generalists, worshipping all the gods, as appropriate for the issue at hand. (IOW, rather than going to the "priest of Death" when you need to put a soul to rest, you go to "the priest", who contacts the "God of Death".)

I think the one-deity thing stems more from the concept of patron deities, where someone is favored by a particular god. Like many of the heroes of Greek myth. Though i think of that as more of an animist belief structure, where each person has sort of a guardian spirit. Also, from sword-n-sorcery fantasy where you often had cultures clashing, each of which was monotheistic (or at least had a supreme deity), so you have characters who exclusively (or primarily) call on one deity, regardless of the situation, but there are multiple deities being called upon.

In short, i don't think the each-person-worships-one-deity-exclusively thing that seems to be assumed by D&D has any historical basis.

 

[Numion]

made active choices for how they thought the religion of their characters worked. they spelled it out for those seeking their aid. whether it meant conversion to the religion or the price of the healing.

had one cleric use leeches and scarring (caused damage) before he cast cures. ouch. the cure could kill just as much as help.

used the choice of weapons. much like the introduction of "favored weapon"

some clerics avoided particular spells altogether. while others "invented" their own. magic-users weren't the only class to research spells.

So you had really extensive houserules. In effect, you had modified the generic oD&D cleric into various specialty priests. Hmm .. I wonder why you didn't have generic clerics ..

Does the irony escape you that you weren't actually playing D&D when you made those modifications, as per one Gary Gygaxs rant in Dragon magaxine?

 

[Jakathi]

something to remember

good done in the name of evil is still good
evil done in the name of good is still very evil and you can be damned for that evil. Names do not matter. names never matter. God doesn't care about names. God only judges hearts and souls. Not names.

 

[Numion]

good done in the name of evil is still good
evil done in the name of good is still very evil and you can be damned for that evil. Names do not matter. names never matter. God doesn't care about names. God only judges hearts and souls. Not names.

Wrong thread, perhaps?

 

[WizarDru]

Wrong thread, perhaps?

No, I think Jakathi's attempting to become non-sequitor king, or something.

woodelf, I think it really depends on the culture. Certainly, many polytheistic societies function just as you describe, such as ancient Greece and Rome. But didn't those societies also have specific temples and specific servants, such as an Athenian High Priest or the Oracle at Delphi? I would expect there's room for both.

Mind you, trying to make D&D internally consistent is a quixotic task. All I have to do is take one quick look at St. Cuthbert for that.

 

[Jakathi]

lol

*grins impudently
no. i was just commenting on some posts where there were some players who were uncomfortable with religion in D&D. Simply put, a lot of the games center around good vs. evil. or vice versa. In the end it is true. People will unite against a common foe. Ie: people of different faiths will team up to fight the local hell-god bent on world-destruction and reshaping in his/her/its nasty image.

ooo and making things consistent is an oxymoron.
That's the beauty of it. There will always be different points of view on religion, even within the same one. ^_^

For that matter, everyone has a different point of view on everything else.^)^

and that isn't nessisarily a bad thing.

being consistent would be terribly dull.

 

[Staffan]

Back in 1998 or so I had an idea for 2e, where clerics started out as just that: generic clerics, worshipping the entire pantheon. After a while, say 5th or 7th level, they would gain the option of continuing to be generalists or dedicate themselves to a single deity. Sort of the prestige class concept, I guess.

I never got around to implementing it in game mechanics, though.

 

[The Spectrum Rider]

***
i have found many if not most of the new edition players would rather have it in the books. and for them to show to the DM. (ie...no imagination).
***

You're not playing the wrong edition. You're playing with the wrong DM and/or players.

I've never seen two clerics alike in the 3.0/3.5 games I run or play in. The players choose their skills, feats, and weapons based on their understanding of their character's deity and religion. The DM throws in additional flavor bits - either house rules ("clerics of Bast can, if they wish, have a +2 on Move Silently but a -2 on Swim"), carefully designed magic items, or any of the other things a creative DM can make.

Sorry you're not having the same experience.

The Spectrum Rider

 

[diaglo]

Does the irony escape you that you weren't actually playing D&D when you made those modifications, as per one Gary Gygaxs rant in Dragon magaxine?

Gary wasn't playing D&D in my eyes when he introduced 1ed.


I say that on a pretty regular basis too. if you pay attention to my posts.

 

[diaglo]

So all this time, you've been arguing how your house-rules and free-form play were better than 3e? Yikes.

sorta. i've been arguing having no rules is better than this edition. and that is how OD&D was made. you created your own campaign. and adapted the rules to fit. the few rules that were needed were already included. the rest was fluff.

99.99999999999999999999999999% of the newer editions is fluff imho. unnecessary.

my point has always been the way people view the rules.

KISS.