Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 02-08-07, 10:52 PM	This thread was inspired by this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=786405). First of all, this thread is not intended to be a place for arguing about what is right and what isn't in terms of what features a cleric can have. I intend it as a survey of opinion. I can't stop anyone from turning this thread into an argument, but I just thought I'd put my intent out there. I can see four possible paths for clerics. (if you can think of others, tell me). 1. The deity-worshipper. The "standard" D&D cleric. Worships Pelor, the Mockery, Gond or whoever. 2. The non-theocentric religious cleric. Follows some religion not oriented toward a deity, such as the Silver Flame or the Blood of Vol from Eberron, or possibly some fantasy religion loosely based on Buddhism or Taoism or whatnot. 3. The abstract ideal cleric. Doesn't follow what is traditionally known as a religion, but has some passionately held ideal. A cleric devoted to benevolence and helping others might have Healing and Protection as domains, and an alignment restricted to "within one step of Neutral Good." 4. The non-devotion-dependent cleric. Doesn't depend on any particular beliefs, religious or otherwise, for powers. Basically, this type of cleric casts spells for the same reason that a rogue gets sneak attack and a wizard casts spells: she just does. May actually revere a deity (or not), just as a fighter might revere a deity, but the cleric doesn't depend on her religion or principles for magical power any more than a fighter depends on his religion or principles for bonus feats. Might still have an alignment restriction (e.g., "must be within one step of LG"), which, if they violate (e.g., going all the way to true neutral in the middle of the day), they would lose their powers until they can realign their magic with their alignment (basically a process about as onerous as switching gods for a "standard" cleric). Which of the above would you allow, and which would you prohibit? Personally, I think that for most "generic" D&D games, I'd allow 1 and 2, but not 3 or 4. (Partly, this is because I like the archivist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3) class a lot and think people who want to be deity-less divine casters should try them out, because they're fun.) For Eberron, I'd allow 1, 2, and sometimes 3, depending on the player's case.
Drodain 02-08-07, 11:01 PM	I'd allow 1 and 2. I don't see how 4 can fit the flavor at all. I have let 3 by in my games but I don't think I would all the time.
IbanezNinja 02-08-07, 11:15 PM	I'd allow the first 3 as they are what's allowed by raw.
Vaelan 02-08-07, 11:29 PM	I allow godless Clerics, as they create interesting opportunities to be something other than "that religious guy", but the description of the class says that their powers are gained through, to use your term, devotion, so #4 simply cannot be justified when using the rules as common ground. First of all, this thread is not intended to be a place for arguing about what is right and what isn't in terms of what features a cleric can have. And yet you felt the need to inject bias into the very ponts that you wish to offer for discussion.
JulesCARV 02-08-07, 11:36 PM	And yet you felt the need to inject bias into the very ponts that you wish to offer for discussion. Where did I do that? If you can point to where I'm biased, I might actually go back and edit my original post a bit to preserve my original intent regarding this thread. (I honestly didn't notice myself being biased, so I'm not asking this rhetorically.)
Salla 02-09-07, 02:02 AM	Uno, Dos, Tres. :) (The inability to play #3 is one of the reasons I never set foot in the Forgotten Realms.)
danielinthewolvesden 02-09-07, 02:05 AM	1 or 2, and also a Cleric who worships an entire pantheon, depending on world.
Dionon 02-09-07, 04:49 AM	As a DM I allow 1, 2 and 3 in my campaigns. That fourth one seems.... really strange.
Tony Vargas 02-09-07, 07:37 PM	Which of the above would you allow, and which would you prohibit?Well, 4 is obviously right out. The rest really depend on the campaign. In the past, under 2E, I had placed religions in my campaign world (suitable for a Priest, the CPH substitute for the Cleric) that included worship of individual deities, worship of sub-deific beings (demon princes, demigods, mortal emperors), worship of pantheons, veneration of /all/ deities, monothiesm, non-deist philosophies (even an anti-deist philosophy that espoused oposition to all deities), forces, abstract concepts, ancestor worship, animism, and even athiesm. However, each religion granted it's priests different spell lists, granted powers, and combat abilities - and some, such as atheism or the worship of mortals as living gods, granted spell abilities that capped rather early, since they were, in effect, wrong... More recently, I ran a campaign where all religions were secretive mystery cults - most worshipped a single deity, a few were actually spiritual philosophies - each had specific domains and a favored weapon associated with it, just like PH deities do. I provided for no non-denominational option. In any case, though, even if I were to again run a campaign with 'philosophies' and other non-deistic religions, they'd still be /religions/, with specific domains available, a body of lore, a symbolic 'favored weapon' of some sort, and the like - just like deities. I mean, if you don't want some sort of faith at the core of a character, that character is not a Cleric, and faith - at least the kind that grants you divine spellcasting - is not a buffet line.
Bonegnasher1 02-14-07, 02:34 PM	I would encourage them to worship Tharizdun and randomly make villagers go insane! :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :looloo: No but seriously, I would encourage them to be creative with this, and do them a huge favor by really integrating their faith in the world around them. One of my friends played a cleric that didn't believe in any diety, he used chi. I don't fully understand his mechanics but it worked for him. Personally, I would allow all of it, as long as they came up for a really good explanation if they picked #4.
Greg K 02-14-07, 02:40 PM	I'd allow #1 and #2. However, which I'd allow at any given time depends on the campaign setting. In my current setting, only #1 is allowed.
Chimaera2000 02-14-07, 04:07 PM	#1 is obviously fine. #2 and #3 are both intriguing from a flavor perspective, but open themselves up to optimizing (less so for #2, more so for #3). Choosing from an entire pantheon (according to the Eberron Campaign Setting) lets you choose from any of the domains offered by any deity in that pantheon. Likewise, playing one who worships an ideal allows you to select virtually any two domains, barring DM fiat. Basically, each step up requires fewer and fewer restrictions; this opens up RP opportunities, but also allows more opportunities for finding mechanical advantages. #4 is somewhat odd, but can make sense for some character concepts; basically performing magic through intuition rather than training. I tend to lump them into "followers of an ideal" though.
Krusk 02-14-07, 05:27 PM	In games i run, i allow option 1 for anyone. If someone comes up with a very good backstory reason they can take option 2, but need to talk to me first. I also let people choose a pantheon or some form of multiple gods. Something like a trifecta of gods devoted to life death and rebirth for example.
Themightybiggun 02-14-07, 05:40 PM	I allow 1...and 1. I play Dragonlance, so there's always the gods. However mystics are divine casters who believe in themselves with a passion and their belief in themselves manifests in divine magic.
Squirrelloid 02-14-07, 05:54 PM	(Warning: None of the following is necessarily based on a rules-interpretation of the game. This is personal preference, in the spirit of the OP's prompt) I prefer clerics with more historical bases than the standard D+D cleric. Eg, you're the cleric of a monotheistic deity, the cleric of a pantheon (possibly especially devoted to one, but you serve the whole pantheon), or a cleric of an ideal (Taoism is a perfect example of such a real world religion). Note that monotheism vs polytheism refers to the number of gods you worship, not necessarily the number of gods there are. In D+D you clearly have to believe all the deities exist, because you can actually *go there* and visit them. Monotheistic deities want all your worship energy for themselves, polytheistic ones don't mind sharing because they can't otherwise compete with the big boys. Now, a priest of a monotheistic religion might belong to a particular sect - for an historical instance, the Catholic Church has many associated monastic orders. This affiliation will determine domains. Since new orders arise because of particular philosophical and theological beliefs (theological being reserved specifically for matters of doctrinal interpretation), this is effectively equivalent to priests of ideals. Effectively, no sufficiently widespread real world religion is sufficiently unified to make all their priests be cookie-cutter in their world views. Islam, a topical example, has those interested in integration into western culture, those interested in maintaining their culture peacefully, and those interested in overthrowing western society (which should not be interpreted as defining all possibly muslims). Each facet has clerics that support those positions. Clearly these clerics are more tightly bound to particular idealogy, chosen by themselves as appropo to their interpretation of their scriptures and their personal desires. Clerics of ideals strike me as being a lot more real-world than D+D's model of clerics of deities.
DaidojiTaidoru 02-14-07, 06:04 PM	I play Ravenloft and Planescape mostly so secretly the answer for me is actually always 4. Don't tell my players though. They still think they need dieties to access divine spells. Their first meeting with an Athar paladin will be ever so fun....:evillaugh I am admitedly tempted to look up the mystic class to replace clerics with no deities at all, since Charisma based casting fits better. But that would require getting the rest of the Dragonlance rules, and I dislike the idea of shelling out money for the rest of that book....
highbulp 02-14-07, 06:14 PM	By default, I'd allow #1, #2, and #3, as that's what the book suggests. However, I often design worlds with a specific heirarchy of deities, or some other kind of well-defined theology. In those games I tend to restrict people to #1 (I designed this set of gods, so you need to abide by them). Though I am thinking my next campaign to making the game somewhere between #3 and #4--there are no "churches" or world-wide organization of clerics, so clerics just wander around with divine power from whatever source they wish (just like a sorcerer can claim power from whatever source they wish). Also, as I don't see domain options as necessarily a balancing factor for the almighty cleric (or at least not one I'm willing to analyze in order to maintain), I tend to let people choose whatever domains they want, as long as it fits (generally) the theme of their god (so no Good domain for Evil gods). Thus mechanically I allow pretty much anything--put that where you will.
Olskool 02-14-07, 06:23 PM	Only deities. No exceptions.
Willie the Duck 02-15-07, 01:19 AM	When plpaying adventures out of Dungeon magazine or similar situations, we do #4. We like to think we're being honest: if the adventure doesn't care what gods exist, and the DM doesn't care what god exist, why should we forece the player that wants to play a cleric? When we play in our campaign world, however, we have two types of clerics: the animist/ancestor worship types, and the monotheist types. The monotheists all worship the same 'Gawd,' but do so in different ways depending on what order they belong to.
DarkRhystar 02-15-07, 01:27 AM	Depends on the maturity and skill level of the players. If a really good player of mine comes to me with a strange idea (like #4), I'll put my trust in the player, allow it, and see what happens. Allowing some really strange things has lead to a lot of good times. Sometimes the only thing that separates a good DM from a bad DM is an open mind. :)
Arcane Guyver 02-15-07, 01:32 AM	IMC, clerics are devoted to deities, pantheons, or other established religious beliefs (such as the Undying Court or Il-Yannah). Ethos clerics (guys who don't worship anything in particular) are actually ardents.
JulesCARV 02-15-07, 01:36 AM	(My guess is that a #4 cleric (the one whose powers are independent of any particular devotion) would probably have to be renamed, and called something like a "Planar Medium" or something.)
Willie the Duck 02-17-07, 01:35 AM	Or just "divine magic weilders," "white mages," etc. My groups didn't start having distinct dieties back in OD&D, or even 1st edition until we started using the prepackaged campaign settings like Greyhawk and Blackmoor. Back then, clerics were just clerics, and they performed religious ceremonies and cast divine spells. To who? Y'know, whoever's out there.
Nausicaa 02-17-07, 02:52 AM	Only deities. No exceptions. Yes, exactly.
Jethren 02-17-07, 05:09 PM	I personaly can't immagine allowing #4. Asside from that, I feel free to play pretty fast and loose with religion in my campaigns. The core value of a religion is faith/belief, and in a fantasy world, that can be a pretty broad range of things. It baisicly comes down to what the player can reasonably justify for me. I would even allow a Cleric to cast her spells as Arcane, if she could make a good case for why she venerated the forces of Arcana. Actually, I recall a player I had who worshiped Heronius and Hextor at the same time, justifying it as a belief in "The Brothers".