I never "got" the Cleric

[Doug McCrae]

The D&D cleric is a combination of three elements:
1) Medieval legends of warrior priests such as Archbishop Turpin.
2) Crucifix versus vampire from Hammer Horror movies.
3) Ultra-powerful D&D style spellcasting to put the class on the same footing as the magic user. Some of the spells have a Christian vibe.

The class was originally created to oppose a vampiric player character called Sir Fang who was dominating the game.

As the OP says, all three elements get very weird when they are placed in a pantheistic world where Christianity doesn't exist.

 

[Zhaleskra]

This topic is informing me more of why I prefer the D&D-based version of Forbidden Kingdom's take on the Cleric and Paladin:

Clergy (Cleric), base class: You get some nifty benefits, some of which you get to choose, but no world shaking magic (you might have a couple of items that cast a particular spell ONCE per day). No automatic weapon or armor proficiencies.

Chosen (Paladin), prestige class: You have been magically ritually ordained in your religion, you get access to Miracles but they aren't automatic (Prayer check vs. DC 15 + (spell level * 2)) and sometimes the gods say no (natural 1 on Prayer check), you and the GM agree on what constitutes sinning and severity of punishment from falls from grace. Simple (hand grenades, bayonets, rifle-butts) and Ballistic (all firearms that aren't specifically artillery/heavy) weapon proficiencies. <-- It's a Modernish setting.

So, Clergy is a little bit above lay priest, whereas Chosen fills the holy warrior role.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, the cleric is trained specifically by clergies and cults to deal with their enemies. The regular priest and the cleric take different courses.

Regular Priest Program: Casting and the Divine, Church Management, Philosophy, Bookbinding, Calligraphy, (insert Diety's) Teaching, History of the Cosmos, Advanced Medicine

Special Cleric Program: Casting and the Divine, Light Armors, Heavy Armors, Undead Studies, Basic Weaponmastery, (insert Diety's) Teaching, History of the Cosmos, Basic Medicine

 

[wingsandsword]

The PC probably needs to come up with a background that fits within the framework of the game being played. The same criticism could be thrown at any of the other classes. What if the PC background is that he was a humble baker before being caught up in adventuring, and not a Fighter? Does he automatically start out underpowered because of his background or is he suddenly skilled in combat and can wear heavy armor with ease?

Samwise Gamgee was a humble gardener.

The idea of heroes (player characters) coming from humble origins is hardly anything new or revolutionary. Joseph Campbell wrote very famous books about the entire concept.

The idea of playing a novice priest in a local temple, who sees his hometown burned by orcs and joins up with friends to avenge their lost homes is not "within the framework of the game being played?" because the PC cleric was a local priest and not a trained militant Cleric? That sounds like a classic D&D Player Character backstory to me.

I remember the very first D&D product I ever bought, the 1991 Basic D&D "Black Box" set with Zanzer Tem's Dungeon as the module. That 20+ year old introductory module starts out with characters randomly rolling for their backgrounds before the adventure (basically being randomly thrown into the town dungeon for petty offenses), with pre-adventure backgrounds including apprentice baker and scullery maid.

In the ~15 years I have been gaming, players that bother to give their PC's a detailed origin far more often than not give them a humble background than one of extensive training and preparation. IME, only Wizards, Monks and Paladins typically have extensive training.

So, it's a standard of fantasy fiction, and D&D, that PCs often come from humble origins and haven't spent years of their life training for adventuring before the first time they set foot in a dungeon (or other adventuring setting). Of course, most PC classes are front-loaded with abilities that presume they have been.

The only exception I can think of is the Wizard. The whole reason the Wizard class is so limited in weapons and HP is the presumption they have been bookish scholars their entire lives instead of training to fight.

It's a logical paradox of the game. PC's from humble origins but with class abilities at 1st level that presume extensive training.

 

[Ramen]

What I always felt was missing was the robe wearing holy symbol carrying cleric. The one who doesn't need a weapon or armor to fight evil. He has divine favor and the power of his god, which is all he needs.

If I'm a cleric of a war god I should have my armor, shield, and sword. All used to smite those who trespass against my god in his name and glory.

If I'm a cleric of The great Healer God I should be able to wade into the thick of combat without having to worry about being hit because my god protects me and turns the blade of my enemies away as I heal those who walk with me.

If I am a cleric of a god of righteousness I should be able to make evil and selfish creatures be they men or monster recoil in my presence because I bring the unassailable power of light to shine on them.

And if I am a cleric of an evil god all those who stand to face me should beware for I bring them suffering and pain, for my god is both wicked and cruel.

I because very disillusioned with clerics when I was looking at miniatures and the vast majority of the cleric miniatures are the mace wielding armor wearing types because many fantasy RPGs have made this they standard.

 

[Knight Templar]

I replaced the cleric with the bard, the bard is a far better priest than the cleric ever was. Just replace arcane spellcasting with divine spellcasting. What can the bard do that priest should be able to do but clerics can't? Bring in followers, entrance followers, boost followers spirits, advise followers (bardic knowledge/legend lore), etc. If you play 2e just replace thief abilities with turn undead, and if you play 3e just give them turn undead.

For warrior priests, the paladin works far better. The church in my campaign is nothing but bards and paladins, if you want a cleric play a multi-classed fighter/bard.

 

[howandwhy99]

Cleric, "a man in a religious order, a man in holy orders." This is a very broad scope being defined, just as magic-user and fighting-man define many, many other classes within them.

The cleric can be pseudo-Christian or any of the other major religions, but I think it's best keeping these things fantasy. Druids are a subclass of cleric focusing on balancing the forces of nature. Monks are a cleric subclass too focusing on personal spirituality.

As a cleric class, these classes receive the 2nd best casting ability and the 2nd best combat ability in the game. However, they are superior to any other in the realm of alignment and morale rules. The cleric's sphere of exploration isn't quite as large as the other two, but it is still significant. They aim to grow their deity's influence and convert the populace. This is the guts of diplomacy in the game, so they are rock solid at that. There class abilities are all focused on enabling such.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's a logical paradox of the game. PC's from humble origins but with class abilities at 1st level that presume extensive training.

With the exception of the Wizard, whose abilities are explicitly gain ped by study, the low-level abilities of nearly any base class can be attributed to being a "natural" as opposed to being well-trained.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's a logical paradox of the game. PC's from humble origins but with class abilities at 1st level that presume extensive training.

I think this is why apprentice-level PCs are a recurring topic among certain DMs.

 

[MGibster]

The idea of playing a novice priest in a local temple, who sees his hometown burned by orcs and joins up with friends to avenge their lost homes is not "within the framework of the game being played?" because the PC cleric was a local priest and not a trained militant Cleric? That sounds like a classic D&D Player Character backstory to me.

Within the framework of D&D, this novice priest is going to be a 1st level Cleric with the ability to use certain weapons, wear armor and have access to certain spells.

So, it's a standard of fantasy fiction, and D&D, that PCs often come from humble origins and haven't spent years of their life training for adventuring before the first time they set foot in a dungeon (or other adventuring setting). Of course, most PC classes are front-loaded with abilities that presume they have been.

There's nothing about any version of D&D that precludes any PC from having humble origins. Most PC Clerics I've encountered, just take into account that their characters have had training. Also, I don't expect D&D to emulate the many fantasy books I read growing up. Trying to make D&D fit into those molds is just an exercise in frustration.

It's a logical paradox of the game. PC's from humble origins but with class abilities at 1st level that presume extensive training.

I don't see any paradox here. You have have a PC from humble origins who then went on to be trained as a Cleric. Like I said originally, you have to have a character background that fits the framework of the game being played. D&D presumes that everyone has had some training of some sort.