Poll : Do you allow godless clerics?

[Spatula]

*snicker* that about says it all, doesn't it? You are so hung up on the idea that the cleric class is possibly inspired by the catholic church (no idea if it was orriginally or not) that you can't look at the options actually presented by the class as currently written, and I have a narrow view.

The cleric class did orignally have a strong medieval Catholic church flavor to it. Although the game moved away from that when 2E was introduced, a good 14 years ago.

I, personally, never liked the one-size-fits-all 1E cleric. The 2E cleric class was a big improvement, conceptually, since it allowed for the possibility that different religions had different types of clerics, with different spells, different abilities, and different restrictions. It also "officially" established the idea of worshipping a philosophy. But really, that idea had been around since 1E, with the introduction of the druid and ranger classes.

 

[fusangite]

Xeriar,

Buddhism is a relgion as well as a philosophy. I should clarify: the fact that a religion is also a philosophy does not disqualify it from having priests. I see that my language on this was unclear.

Taoism and Confucianism are philosophies grafted onto Chinese folk religion. Buddhism is a religion syncretically hybridized with Chinese folk religion.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If I understand correctly, people are saying that godless clerics can't exist because the class is modeled after the catholic church?

Surely, surely! someone can come up with a better argument than that. I am all for clerics without a diety and I could come up with a better argument than that. Many things exist in D&D that don't exist in real life and not all D&D constructs must have roots in the real world. To deny godless clerics in core D&D is to remove a flavor that can be used. To remove it in a particular campaign setting may add flavor, but to say it isn't an idea with possible merit is overlooking any advantages that it might hold in another campaign setting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

People need to frickin' make sure what they're defining is how it's defined!

The Cleric class in the SRD, indeed, every class in the SRD, is defined by POWERS ALONE....

You know what that means? It means that everything else...everything not mentioned....it's PURE FLAVOR.

Heck, even go so far as to check the cleric definition in the PHB! They constantly reference 'godless' clerics who meditate for spells and exist outside of the church hierarchy.

Who cares what the class was based on? That doesn't make reinterpretations or redefinitions ANY less valid, just because Gygax didn't consider Ghandi walking on water when designing it.

Yes, you are more than free to rule that the flavor in your campaign is different from the one presented in the PHB. That's fine. But there's no real excuse for not accepting the default definiton as one perfectly valid interpretation, eh?

I have another question of those favouring godless clerics: what are examples in history/myth that you are basing this role on? What philosophies have priests? I would argue that movements/institutions that are not theistic do not produce priests; they may produce scholars; they may produce philosophers; they may produce mages but are there examples of them producing priests?

Do I need a history/myth example, when the PHB tells me I can? Can't all philosophies draw upon mystic powers in their holy ones? I should be asking you: what makes you think they can't? There's no functional difference if I take the cleric, call him a Philosopher-Scholar, and make him an animist than if I use him as you're suggesting. The only thing that changes is the flavor, and while you can prefer one flavor to another, I can't see any reason for claiming that yours is somehow superior.

I think not only are you misled in thinking that clerics have to worship a god, you're also mislead in thinking that any tradition that doesn't can't tap divine magic.

I guess there's not much I can say beyond RTFM. You can disagree all you want, and you can play with the flavor as much as you want, but there's no reason to assume that it HAS to be your way. Especially when, by the rules, it isn't. WHY does there need to be a god? Better than how can clerics draw divine energy from faith, WHY CAN'T THEY?

Oh, and for the record, I have a philosopher class in my Planescape campaign. So now, even FACTIONS can grant spells! And I still have the cleric class. And they both exist in theistic and non-theistic faiths, in philosophies, in sects, in people who just have a certain thought, in medical doctors from the small villages, and in the Athar.

The Philosopher class should be seeing publication, sooner or later, I'm happy to announce.

 

[hong]

No. It came from a papal edict (not much observed) that priests were forbidden from "drawing blood". Some members of the catholic clergy got around this by using maces, and staves which supposedly didn't run afoul of this prohibition.

Why are we talking about a class feature that got dumped 3 years ago?

The point is that is what the cleric class was originally based on, and as such, does a weak to awful job at emulating members of the priesthood of various other traditions.

1. Any class that gives people the ability to make skeletons and zombies blow up, and call down a column of fire from the heavens, is usually going to do a weak to awful job of emulating anything from the real world. 2. There are more divine spellcasters than just clerics. 3. I hope you're not implying that all those clerics of Cyric, Bane, Hextor, Nerull and whatnot are good emulations of the Christian priesthood.

 

[hong]

Taoism and Confucianism are philosophies grafted onto Chinese folk religion.

There are Taoist priests, and in legend and folktales they could also do all sorts of wacky magic. If that isn't good enough to make them divine spellcasters in D&D, I don't know what is.

 

[trancejeremy]

Quite frankly, I've never understood why anyone (a character) would want to worship a D&D style god. This came to mind as I was reading a Forgotten Realms novel the other day (the first novel in the Rogues series - it featured a fight between Tiamat & some other god).

In most cases, they are more or less just powerful people. If you read a lot of the old Greek stuff, you get the impression that most of them didn't have much use for those sort of gods, either.

I can see worshipping an omnipotent god, or something like the mother godness (ie, the embodiment of nature), but worshipping something like the god of wine or god of hairbrushes just seems silly.

Most of the D&D god worship seems to be simply bribes. If you worship the god of x, you'll get power of some sort. That's always rubbed me the wrong way. A quote by a semi-famous Islamic writer has always struck a chord with me:

"I will not serve God like a laborer, in expectation of my wages."

I cannot see most people worshipping a D&D style god in that manner.

Anyway, my point was, in my campaigns, all clerics are godless. They might think they're worshipping a god, but ultimately the power is coming from within themselves, not an external source.

 

[Zappo]

Did you bother reading my post?
The priests of the Athar were considered exceptional/remarkable in planescape, and even those priests had a plane-located source.

I did read the post, I just don't fully agree with it. In 2E you could have clerics of good or evil, and these are the generic clerics working in the Athar in Planescape. The Great Unknown isn't even defined as something capable of granting spells until Factol's Manifesto. In that supplement, the introduction to the Athar states that Factol Terrance keeps his ability to be granted spells by the Great Unknown a secret, and presents this capacity as something special even among the faction members.

In any case, the main point isn't whether generic clerics are in PS or not. Clerical spellcasting in Planescape usually came from worshipping deities, pantheons or alignments, but there were other powers granted by belief in other things. Extending this concept to admit clerics of ideals is in theme with the setting, that's the point.

I understand that you don't like godless clerics, and I think that's perfectly fine. It is a matter that depends entirely on the setting, and it is a disgrace that there are players who assume that they can just pick Travel and Magic (so that they can have teleport and use more magical items) even after being told that in this campaign clerics must follow a god.
I don't think, though, that godless clerics make no sense. Even without having to bring eastern religions in the discussion, this is fantasy we're talking about. The idea of a goblin shaman worshipping The Elements and having supernatural powers related to his worship (mechanically speaking, clerical spells) is cool, and that's the only justification needed.

 

[Psion]

In 2E you could have clerics of good or evil, and these are the generic clerics working in the Athar in Planescape.

Do you care to tell me where in 2e/planescape other than the Athar it says you can have "generic clerics of good and evil."

Knowing the plane the deity resided on was a central aspect of the planescape setting.

 

[hong]

Do you care to tell me where in 2e/planescape other than the Athar it says you can have "generic clerics of good and evil."

"In the simplest version of the AD&D game, clerics serve religions that can be generally described as 'good' or 'evil'. Nothing more needs to be said about it; the game will play perfectly well at this level." -- AD&D 2E PHB, p.34 (1st printing)

Knowing the plane the deity resided on was a central aspect of the planescape setting.

I think Zappo is talking about 2E generally here, not just Planescape.