The party's cleric *won't* heal your character?!

[Hjorimir]

Dear Reverend Won't Heal:

When first you joined our party we took your reluctance in healing us to be a minor quirk that would not truly prevent you from keeping us alive in our joint endeavor. However it has become quite clear that either your own personal faults or those of your religion are a severe obstacle: You say that it is not your job to heal us because we don't worship your deity, and that we should all rely on our own abilities.

Remember that fiendish ogre that was hitting you? Choppy the Fighter killed it before it bashed your head to pulp. You healed yourself...but didn't heal the man who saved your life.

Remember that door that was locked? Sneaky MacThief picked the lock and risked his life by attempting to disarm the trap attached to it. Despite the fact that he was struck by a glyph of warding you did not heal him. Yet you freely passed through this door, taking benefits of Sneaky's efforts and risk without any effort or risk on your own part.

And then there was that wall of fire spell, remember that? We were fighting the sorcerer and his bugbear minions, and the sorcerer surrounded you with blazing wall that was cooking you. Despite the fact that the wizard was half dead from bugbear arrows, he cast a dispel magic to free you from the blazing ring. What did you do then? You healed yourself, while the wizard was shot by another volley of arrows and fell bleeding to death on the ground.

So, after a brief discussion with my companions, we have decided it is time we parted ways with you. You evidently worship a deity of selfishness and we feel it is foolish to waste our efforts and abilities helping you while you are of no benefit to us.

Goodbye and farewell, and if you are ever in the need of a strong arm in combat, a sneaky scout, or arcane assistance, feel free to fornicate yourself in your selfish ear.

Signed,
Your Ex-Party

Dear Ex-Party,

Actually, it was you who came to me seeking the blessings of the all-mighty. You convinced the Magistratum of the Church that your cause was a Good and noble cause. Alas, in our brief time together you have tortured and murdered surrendered prisoners, uttered blasphemy after blasphemy, plundered tomb after tomb, practiced thievery in three different towns, and swindled countless shopkeepers.

Often did I council you and yours to seek a higher calling. Alas, you would not have it. While you seek to find cause in the temporal world of mercantile affairs where actions beget actions amongst mortals I am Called to the Eternal. Where will your souls hang in the grand scheme when the time of Judgement is upon thee? How do you hope to justify your sins, which you proclaimed to be in the cause of good, to the very gods who oppose such actions?

I feel compelled, however, to thank you for those times that you did act to save my life, but deeds do not simply erase sins. For that you must repent and take responsibility for your actions. I will pray for all of your souls that you may find absolution and clarity of purpose in the coming days…as I will pray for my own.

-The Guy Who Will Live in Paradise Forever

 

[MarkB]

Dear Reverend Won't Heal:

When first you joined our party we took your reluctance in healing us to be a minor quirk that would not truly prevent you from keeping us alive in our joint endeavor. However it has become quite clear that either your own personal faults or those of your religion are a severe obstacle: You say that it is not your job to heal us because we don't worship your deity, and that we should all rely on our own abilities.

Remember that fiendish ogre that was hitting you? Choppy the Fighter killed it before it bashed your head to pulp. You healed yourself...but didn't heal the man who saved your life.

But I saved his life not two minutes later when I cast divine power and went toe-to-toe with the ogre's larger, angrier brother while the party ranger was healing up the fighter with wands.

Remember that door that was locked? Sneaky MacThief picked the lock and risked his life by attempting to disarm the trap attached to it. Despite the fact that he was struck by a glyph of warding you did not heal him. Yet you freely passed through this door, taking benefits of Sneaky's efforts and risk without any effort or risk on your own part.

And yet, if it hadn't been for the cat's grace and fox's cunning spells I buffed Mac with, he'd never have got that door unlocked or even found the glyph in time to attempt to disable it - and the pit trap he did find and disable just afterwards would've done him in for sure.

And then there was that wall of fire spell, remember that? We were fighting the sorcerer and his bugbear minions, and the sorcerer surrounded you with blazing wall that was cooking you. Despite the fact that the wizard was half dead from bugbear arrows, he cast a dispel magic to free you from the blazing ring. What did you do then? You healed yourself, while the wizard was shot by another volley of arrows and fell bleeding to death on the ground.

And he'd have gone ahead and bled to death if I hadn't played turnabout on the bugbears and dropped a blade barrier on them, then cooked the sorcerer with a flame strike.

Silly examples aside, and even neglecting the fact that your example cleric is a self-healer rather than a no-healer, there are plenty of ways a cleric can make a positive contribution to a party aside from casting healing spells, and plenty of ways a party can get around healing without a cleric. If a player wants to create a cleric who explores some of those alternatives, and the party has other options available for healing, what's the problem?

 

[Hjorimir]

I guess, in the end, it all comes down to how much your group adhers to characterization, which is different than just role-playing. Relgions require very strong beliefs and clerics are going to take a stand on things that they find offensive to the dogma of their church.

That said, as a DM I tell any player that complains about a lack of healing to run a cleric or some other class that can heal if they want healing on demand. I don't allow one player to tell another player how to play their character at my table.

 

[Numion]

That said, as a DM I tell any player that complains about a lack of healing to run a cleric or some other class that can heal if they want healing on demand. I don't allow one player to tell another player how to play their character at my table.

Having said what I said, I still think every PC should usually contribute *something* to the group. Why would a group keep a total wimp around? It's bad from in-game POV - the other characters wouldn't usually tolerate a useless character. Then it's up to metagaming to let him/her tag along, because he/she's a PC.

Besides, nobody likes an XP sink

 

[lukelightning]

I don't allow one player to tell another player how to play their character at my table.

That is fine to a point, but I've seen so many situations in which a single PC is problematic (thieving rogue, crazy paladin, evil character, bizarro half-illithid drow that causes mass panic in every town), and the only reason this character is in the party is the fact that nobody feels they are allowed to do anything about it.

If you insist that your cleric won't heal anyone for roleplaying reasons, then the party is perfectly free to say "goodbye, we'll get someone else" for exactly the same roleplaying reasons.

As for the idea that the cleric shouldn't heal because his buffing other people, I would think that if your god is opposed to healing non-believers then buffing infidels is out of the question.

And the "clerics shouldn't heal because they are more useful fighting" I am not opposed to clerics focusing on combat in combat. But once combat is done, they should do their part in helping people survive.

Similarly, a wizard that refuses to dispel an effect on a party member is a problem. A wizard that refuses to use spells in combat is a problem (not blasting is ok, as there are many, often better ways, to use magic in combat). A rogue who gets in trouble with the law with repercussions for the whole group os a problem. Any character that refuses to support the party is a problem.

 

[Hjorimir]

Sure, but what I said doesn't make the cleric a total wimp. We are pretty heavy role-players and the characters (not the players) will work those kinds of things out naturally within the context of the campaign.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Dear Ex-Party,

Actually, it was you who came to me seeking the blessings of the all-mighty. You convinced the Magistratum of the Church that your cause was a Good and noble cause. Alas, in our brief time together you have tortured and murdered surrendered prisoners, uttered blasphemy after blasphemy, plundered tomb after tomb, practiced thievery in three different towns, and swindled countless shopkeepers.

Right. Because all non-healing clerics adventure with jerks. This is a strawman.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A Cleric doesn't have to be a healer. But I think it is quite reasonable (and in the realms of good Roleplaying (TM), too), that a party tries to find people that suit to each other.

If there is a character (be it a non-healing cleric, a non-blasting Wizard, a non-buffing Bard or a non-fighting Fighter) that doesn't take a viable role in the party, it seems reasonable that the party tries to find a replacement. They might find it hard (since their fellow adventurer might also be a friend), but dying is arguably harder.

That said, I think if the non-<supposed role>-ing actually leads to severe weaknesses in the party in a consequently mastered game ( will simply "correct itself" after the first character deaths or near Total-Party-Kills. On the other hand, if the DM is generous and shy killing off characters, is there a real problem for the party? (Unless they lose fun because they don't feel challenged anymore - but than the party might have other problems, since the DM will not become less generous because the party is more effecitve, will he?)

 

[Desdichado]

I think it's arrogant for a cleric to not heal his buddies, but expect his buddies to get him out of a jam when it happens to him. I mean, really, it's not the fighter's fault someone got a crit on him with an axe.

The difference between this and the post your responding to, is that in this case it's a case of a character being arrogant, which is a perfectly valid choice for a player to make, while in the previous example it was a case of the players being arrogant and demanding that someone else's character cater to their whims.

Which is why it's no surprise that in most groups I've ever gamed with, no one is excited to ever play a cleric.

 

[Henry]

Right. Because all non-healing clerics adventure with jerks. This is a strawman.

And the original "Dear Mr. No-heal" letter wasn't one?

Frankly, all faux "Dear John" letters are "straw men" - it's why I don't bother with 'em. Better to skip 'em and head straight to the problem point.

And Luke's real problem-point is a valid one; while I can accept a cleric who doesn't heal, I CAN'T accept a player who won't support the group as a whole, or who works contrary to the direction of the group, no matter if roleplaying reasons or no. I'd rather fight the opposition (the villains and evil NPCs) rather that BE the opposition. But just because a Cleric doesn't fill the "healing" role, this isn't a concern, for me.