Poll : Do you allow godless clerics?

[Zappo]

I'm OK with godless clerics. I consider them to either worship multiple deities, or to worship an ideal. The concept of getting power from an ideal, rather than a deity, is very present in Planescape.

 

[Bagpuss]

OK, just to make it clear that godless clerics are not a houserule, or even an 'option' the relevant comments from the SRD:

Aura (Ex): A cleric of a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful deity has a particularly powerful aura corresponding to the deity’s alignment (see the detect evil spell for details). Clerics who don’t worship a specific deity but choose the Chaotic, Evil, Good, or Lawful domain have a similarly powerful aura of the corresponding alignment.
and
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.

Kahuna burger

None of what you have quoted makes mention of "godless clerics", it just mentions clerics that don't worship a specific or particular deity. By that I think it is implying clerics that worship a particular group of gods, say the Good part of a pantheon of gods.

I'm fine with that.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

It depends.

In the FR game I run, since there are so many gods and they are so active, I prefer, nay, demand, that every cleric, and every character, has a patron god.

In Greyhawk (ie vanilla D&D setting), I prefer to play a general cleric, or, if you will, I invent my own god that fills the concept that I'm trying to attain.

AR

 

[Mercule]

An example of philosophy: Freedom.
Alignment: CG
Domains: Travel, Chaos, Good, Knowledge.

Mechanically, no issues. Flavorwise, wouldn't even be considered IMC. Even the Greyhawk branch (which I use for beer-and-pretzels games).

When the cleric casts Commune, who does he speak with? What entity is actually granting his spells? Etc.

As cool as the spheres were in 2E, the introduction of "philosophy" clerics (which was also mentioned in 3E DDG) was a horrible addition. It doesn't even border on reasonable, IMNSHO, except in very odd cosmologies (eg. Dark Sun, Ravenloft).

Sure, you could have a non-theistic monastic (or whatever), but the only way they could gain spells is to become Wizards (et al). Ancestor worship, I can vaguely buy into as granting spells, but the progression would be roughly what a Ranger/Paladin is capable of -- if Grazz't can't grant spells, I'm sure not going to allow a bunch of dead people do it. Drawing from the anima, I'd probably allow, but stat them as a Druid (which, IMO, borders on arcane).

Clerics of a philosophy, though? Not a prayer (pun intended).

 

[Li Shenron]

Hi Burger!

Sorry if reply without reading the rest of the thread but I am quite in the middle or ehm... well my office... so I have to post QUICKLY!

I think totally-godless Clerics don't make any sense: a divine spellcaster is always described as someone who gains all his spells and unnatural abilities granted by some divine being. Every D&D books I have read follows this idea, and a Cleric completely untied to any divine source of power simply cannot make sense.

Otherwise, I think the rules as such are not meant to be used to have an atheist Cleric but instead to have a Cleric who is tied to a whole pantheon or part of it instead of being dedicated to a single deity.

In this way, it makes perfect sense to me to have a Dwarf Cleric who worships all the Dwarven pantheon, maybe with the exception of the evil dwarven deities, or a FR good Cleric who worship a set of good deities. An again you can follow this idea to have clerics of nature deities, of deities of magic, of deities of death and so on.

The only risk of this lies in players who only want to exploit the possibility of choosing for example one great domain from each of two different deities, wihch otherwise would not be granted both at the same time by an existing deities. But I can live even with that.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If they are supposed to act in a TN manner, wouldn't they have opposing goals/methods to some of the gods within the pantheon? For example, Bahamut, Moradin, or Tiamat? How would these gods act towards the cleric acting in their name, but sometimes against their interest? It could make for some interesting RP opportunities if the DM followed up on it. Also, where does the power from an alignment come from? And for followers of an alignment, can they use Commune, Miracle, etc since such spells call upon the power of a deity? Or Planar Ally spells since they are unaligned with any of the major powers of the cosmos?

First, in my campaign, the Pantheon is not composed of all of the gods, just a subset -- generally the most powerful. There are always 27 members, though the members can change from time to time.

Second, worshippers of the Pantheon must follow the median path for the gods in the Pantheon. Right now, good and evil roughly balance, and there are slightly more nonlawful gods (CG, NG, CN, N, CE, NE) than lawful (LG, LN, LE).

The alignments are their own forces, much like the Powers, but newer. (Powers predated the alignments by thousands of years.) Clerics who worship a Power or alignment do not have communes answered by their patron, as they cannot (alignments) or will not (Powers) respond. Instead, these are 'pity' communes, usually answered by some philosophically allied deity, but sometimes unanswered.

 

[hong]

When the cleric casts Commune, who does he speak with?

"A cleric of no particular deity contacts a philosophically allied deity" -- PHB p.211

But even if you don't want that, then you can always say that the spell allows the cleric to comprehend, for the most fleeting of moments, that indefinable unity of all things that have been, are, and will be; and this contact with the unity of all things allows the cleric to gain enlightenment into the matters of which he desires knowledge.

I came up with that in half a minute, after one of my players actually asked that very question in my game.

Geez people, what ever happened to creativity and like, you know, making things up? Isn't that what telling stories is all about?

What entity is actually granting his spells? Etc.

See above. Answering this question is left as an exercise for the reader. Or possibly the character.

 

[Henry]

Usually for campaign-specific reasons, I don't like godless clerics. Mechanically, I see nothing wrong (especially because you can betray yourself as easily as any god), but for most existing campaign worlds (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Maztica, Scarred Lands, etc.) it doesn't "feel" right to have a patronless Cleric. Some function just fine (Dark Sun, Diamond Throne, to an extent Midnight), but I don't think I'd allow an FR Cleric without a deity, for instance.

 

[Deadguy]

Bravo Hong! Nicely said, Sir!

Personally I have no problem with godless Clerics (indeed my entire setting, the Shattered World is predicated on there being no Gods). People's difficulties with the notion seem broadly to be that they cannot imagine a way for the genuinely 'godless' to touch the powers of the divinity. Perhaps this arises from the fundamental position of D&D that it doesn't define how 'Divine' power arises. From this absence different DMs have built up methodologies which they apply to their settings, and perhaps unconsciously carry with them. If your model of what divine magic is doesn't include the possibility of mortals accessing it without the intervention of a Higher Being, then he idea of a godless Cleric will inevitably seem weird!

But the model you use is the model you choose. And the open-ended basic game makes few assumptions about such power and thus fits in godless Clerics with no problem. Now individual campaigns will do what they do to fulfil their designed premises (conside my own campaign choosing no gods). But that doesn't preclude easily creating a campaign premise to explain the existence of the godless Clerics that are derived from the core rules. Or to put it another way "you chose to so limit yourself; you didn't have to."

 

[SkidAce]

I can work with the "godless" cleric of a philosophy in my camapign.

Becasue the major premise of my entire multiverse is the if the power of "Will", or if enough people believe it "tends" to become true. I say tends because it takes lot's of people and lot's of time.

This enables me to have deitys who want more worshippers for more power (thus sponsering clerics). A deity can exist without worshippers, but needs them to advance unless they are one of the five origional gods of creation.

It gives me ancestor spirits of great heroes of the past. People over time put faith in the ancestor and the concept gained power in that area.

And it makes "godless" clerics of a philosophy very easy...tap into the power of the primal concept of "light" and gain power from it...much like a deity does from having a domain of light...on a much smaller scale.

Much more detailed but that's the concept......also explains why cultists (fiend worshippers) gain power and why they fiends want to get more cultists.
(long explanation of why fiends have it harder to cross over to divine rank, not appplicable here)

 

[Deadguy]

duplicate post

 

[hong]

Usually for campaign-specific reasons, I don't like godless clerics. Mechanically, I see nothing wrong (especially because you can betray yourself as easily as any god), but for most existing campaign worlds (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Maztica, Scarred Lands, etc.) it doesn't "feel" right to have a patronless Cleric. Some function just fine (Dark Sun, Diamond Throne, to an extent Midnight), but I don't think I'd allow an FR Cleric without a deity, for instance.

Well, in the case of FR, the worldbook specifically says everyone has to have a patron. Or at least, those few without a patron tend to end up in never-never land when they die; so it's quite reasonable to say that FR clerics must choose a god.

 

[Dimwhit]

I like the idea of having Clerics with no God. Or, perhaps, having a Cleric who worships the Gods as a whole. The latter I think could also be a good reason for a Cleric to be able to pick up any two domains (probably the main reason to go Godless). If a Cleric worships the pantheon as a whole, I see it as the same, mechanically, as not having a God, and it works really well for roleplaying.

 

[Mercule]

Geez people, what ever happened to creativity and like, you know, making things up? Isn't that what telling stories is all about?

Geez, whatever happenned to answers that were interesting and maybe compelling? I could shoot something out of my hindend, too. Doesn't mean I'd think it was anything but a turd.

The fact of the matter is that I think godless clerics are garbage, especially clerics of a philosophy. Regardless of what sort of an answer anyone dreams up, it comes down to "garbage in, garbage out" IMO.

Depending on the setting, I could see clerics of a "Force of Nature", like the elemental planes or some such. In a setting like this, though, you pretty much have to redefine what "divine" magic is, though. A forces cleric is really just a different sort of arcane caster -- instead of tapping into the "weave" or what have you, they are tapping into another plane. It definitely isn't the same as tapping into a deity -- not even close.

 

[Umbran]

personally, i just have a hard time wrapping my head around someone getting powers from something as nebulous as a "philosophy."

Think Aristotelian, man! To you, in your modern mindset, a "philosophy" is a nebulous thing with no real substance. An idea, nothing more than a construct inside the mind. But that'snot the only possible scenario.

Imagine that, in some sense, the philosophy has a real existance, outside the mind of the thinker. It is not sentient, has no humanoid body or face. It is more a force of nature. And one who's will lies close enough to the force can draw power from it...

Or, another way to think of it - wizards focus magical energies through the components of a spell. Psionics do so through mental discipline. Clerics do so by a different form of discipline - a nigh fanatical devotion to certain precepts. In all cases,if you "stick to the program", you end up with magic.

 

[hong]

Geez, whatever happenned to answers that were interesting and maybe compelling?

Pearls before swine, I see.

I could shoot something out of my hindend, too. Doesn't mean I'd think it was anything but a turd.

Well, if you're going to keep spewing up turds, who am I to stop you?

The fact of the matter is that I think godless clerics are garbage,

Do you really know anything about what you're calling "garbage"?

especially clerics of a philosophy.

You need to get out more.

Regardless of what sort of an answer anyone dreams up, it comes down to "garbage in, garbage out" IMO.

Far be it from me to stop you polluting your game with garbage assumptions.

Depending on the setting, I could see clerics of a "Force of Nature", like the elemental planes or some such. In a setting like this, though, you pretty much have to redefine what "divine" magic is, though.

You do not have to redefine anything, except perhaps your self-imposed limits on what's possible in religious belief. By the book, a divine caster is a spellcaster who gains spells by performing a certain ritual at a certain time of day, and who doesn't have to worry about a spellbook or arcane spell failure. That's it. Everything else is gravy.

A forces cleric is really just a different sort of arcane caster -- instead of tapping into the "weave" or what have you, they are tapping into another plane. It definitely isn't the same as tapping into a deity -- not even close.

Deities are irrelevant.

 

[Wombat]

Geez people, what ever happened to creativity and like, you know, making things up? Isn't that what telling stories is all about?

The question was "Do you allow godless clerics in your campaign?"

In my campaign I do not and will not, for stated philosophical reasons.

If you do and will, that is also fine.

It is not "lack of creativity", but house rules, personal taste, etc.

 

[hong]

The question was "Do you allow godless clerics in your campaign?"

No, the question was "How does commune work without a god in charge?"


Hong "NEXT!" Ooi

 

[the Jester]

One thing that's barely been touched on that's very relevant to the discussion is whether the deities are independent from their followers or spawned by thier belief. Does the religion change over time? If so, it's prolly created by the collective belief of the followers. If this is true- if belief empowers the gods- then there's no inherent reason a sufficient amount of belief couldn't also empower a philophy to "grant" spells.

On the other hand, if the gods predate their worshipers, they probably are superbeings that throw tremendous amounts of magical energy around, granting it to their followers, and then there's a good chance that philosophies won't be able to "grant" spells.

Of course, there's no real reason why you couldn't have both superpowerful gods from the beginning of time and empowered philosophies in your game.

Um, also I'd just like to point out that not all real-world religions have gods either. That doesn't mean they don't have priests.

 

[Mercule]

One thing that's barely been touched on that's very relevant to the discussion is whether the deities are independent from their followers or spawned by thier belief. Does the religion change over time? If so, it's prolly created by the collective belief of the followers. If this is true- if belief empowers the gods- then there's no inherent reason a sufficient amount of belief couldn't also empower a philophy to "grant" spells.

Right. Some people go in for this thing. If so, then we really aren't having the same discussion. I dislike the concept of gods flowing from people, and have in every one of the incarnations in which I have seen it.

I won't knock people for liking the idea, but since it leaves me cold, I really can't have meaningful positive input.

Um, also I'd just like to point out that not all real-world religions have gods either. That doesn't mean they don't have priests.

Quite right. But, since no real world religions grant spells, it isn't an apples to apples comparison. I've got no problem with an organization forming around a philosophy. They could even be called a religion. I just don't think the Cleric class is an appropriate way to represent them. If they have spells, then they would be better off being statted as a Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard.