Monotheism in D&D

[RFisher]

I don’t think “monotheism” has influenced D&D but the dominant culture of European Christianity (which is monotheistic) has in fact had a strong influence on D&D since the beginnings.

I agree. The cultural influence happens to be monotheistic, but the monotheistic part of it is a small part of its influence.

The cleric from both the 1981 Basic set & the oAD&D PHB always seemed more medieval Christian to me than anything else. The polytheism of the D&DG & WoG felt a bit out-of-place to me when I got those.

The classes as they are now did not exist in the original incarnation of D&D, when races like "dwarf" and "elf" and even "halfling" were implemented in game as classes in their own right. Magic-User and Cleric were the only two classes (besides "Elf," which I won't count in future discussion since from the modern perspective it's a race and this would cause confusion) which could cast spells.

I have to nitpick. Race-classes were a later development (c. 1980). Originally, there were three classes (fighting-man, cleric, & magic-user). (2/3rds of which could cast spells.) When Suppliment I came out in 1975 & introduced the thief (& the paladin); dwarves, elves, & halflings could all choose to be either fighting-men or thieves. Elves could also be magic-users.

The paladin-as-prestige-class thing was even later. (1984?) I believe the paladin from Supplement I (1975) was a paladin from 1st level. (But I don't have my copy handy to double-check.)

There was definately an "arcane/divine" split (though not in those terms) between casters from an early date based on how spell were acquired. "Divine" casters prayed & had access to any spell on the lists. "Arcane" casters studied books & had to find their spells.

Although, interestingly, I haven't found anything in the original three little books that makes this clear. In fact, a statement in Men & Magic can be read as meaning that clerics have to have spell books too. Though this may not have been the intention.

 

[Particle_Man]

In the AD&D PHB, the Cleric entry specifically mentioned that they were modelled on the Templar Knights (which had always seemed odd to me, as the Paladin seemed a better fit).

I guess another "monotheism" might be that originally, there were no non-LG equivalents to Paladins. Anti-Paladins, Paladins of other alignments, Blackguards, etc., all came later, but originally, there was the Paladin, and that was it.

Also interesting, in 1st ed AD&D Clerics had to be Good or Evil. Although there were Druids to take up the True Neutral role. LN and CN just had to take a pass on the whole divine thing, I guess.

 

[RFisher]

In the AD&D PHB, the Cleric entry specifically mentioned that they were modelled on the Templar Knights (which had always seemed odd to me, as the Paladin seemed a better fit).

I had the opposite reaction. "Paladin? Doesn't Cleric sufficiently cover that?"

Maybe if they'd put fighters before clerics in the book.

I think the cleric name has always been a poor fit for the class, as mechanically its always been a warrior-monk.

Gary says Paladins--as the name implies--were meant to be more Charlemagne's knights than Templars/Hospitallars.