Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tobyk316 04-28-05, 03:03 PM	I would like to pose an interesting conundrum to the folks here on the boards. I am a DM of an adventure where one of my players is playing a cleric, but with no devotion to a deity. Is that even possible? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of such a cleric? Can you even be considered a cleric without a deity to devote your prayers and such to? Your spells come from somewhere, right? You 'prepare' your spells by praying to a specific deity, right? Please help me.
Anthus_Longblade 04-28-05, 03:22 PM	I believe this situation is addresed in the cleric's entry in the PHB. No special rules. 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. ^That's all there is in the SRD.
pres_man 04-28-05, 03:30 PM	Is it possible, sure if the DM allows it. In the case where a cleric is not dedicated a specific deity (but still might show respect to several), then they are dedicated to a specific philosophy. This philosphy is embodied by the domains the cleric chooses. The cleric should have some kind of explanation as to what domains they are using and what they deal with for some greater philosphy. As for where the spells come from, where do druid spells come from? Nature? What does that mean? Is nature intelligent? No, druids draw the energy from sources outside the matieral plane. They do it just as deityless clerics do, by strength of faith. Sometimes there are beings with like minded beliefs that assist these worshippers, but sometimes they just draw the energy straight from the "source" (fire from the plane of fire, positive energy from the positive energy plane, etc.). Deities just make this easier and allow the cleric to have a powerful ally to call upon. Disadvantages - may not have an organization that you can seek guidance for help from. May lack respect from non-believers, "Oh so you worship Banjo the puppet, right!?! Ha ha ha!" When calling upon allies from other planes, it might be harder to find ones that completely share your beliefs. Advantages - don't have to be limited to the given domain combinations. Can create new ideas of philosophies and beliefs. Basically more versatility. One thing to be careful of is how do you handle the war domain? Do you allow the PC to pick any weapon they want or are the limited to simple weapons, or do they have to use the weapons on the spiritual weapon list? Something as a DM you have to think about.
tobyk316 04-28-05, 03:31 PM	Thanks for the Info, Let me ask this, why play a cleric with a god than?
Vharuck 04-28-05, 03:39 PM	Never underestimate the power of an organized church. That should be obvious in today's world, where many terrorist groups use the false identity of an organized religion. Notice I said false, and actually have a deep respect for Islam. Also, roleplaying. It's the same reason somebody would use a certain weapon over another or pick a certain spell over another. Not everything in this game is maximizing your power, but a good deal of it should be maximizing your character. One day I might want to play a cleric with the Magic and Death domains who feels that magic-users who kill other magic-users are counter-productive to magic and so he goes around getting rid of them, and the next day I may want to play a devout cleric of Pelor who gives blessings and oferrings upon his lord every morning.
pres_man 04-28-05, 03:42 PM	Thanks for the Info, Let me ask this, why play a cleric with a god than? Name recongnition for one thing. When you walk in and say, "I'm a cleric of Kord!" Most people are going to know what to expect from you. That allows them to deal with you in a more open fashion. On the other hand if you said, "I'm a cleric of fire and water." People might be skeptical of you. What does that mean? Also when you need mortal assistance for information, gear, places to rest, who do you turn to? If you worship a deity you go to a temple/shrine/church of that deity and request assistance. Being a true believer should get you some mundane support at least. "I lost my armor and mace to a nest of rusters." "Oh son, I am deeply sorry to hear that. We don't have much here, but here is some old scale mail and a morningstar for you to use till you get back on to your feet. When you need it no longer please donate it to the nearest temple of (insert deity here) if possible." Edit: For an idea of a deityless clerical order see my sig above.
Lincoln Hills 04-28-05, 03:54 PM	Many DMs (and I'm one of them) do not allow the "godless cleric". Not for reasons of game balance, but for in-game consistency. Somebody who doesn't worship a god is, by definition, not a priest or cleric. He might still draw upon some other source or force for divine power (as druids do), but that sounds more like a whole different class: the essence of a cleric is service to (and favors from) a deity. (If you're in a hurry to separate the notion of divine magic from the worship of gods, I advise a glance at Arcana Evolved, which has a variant magic system that is not divided into arcana and divine spells. "Priest" under that system becomes a vocation, a job - not a class in the sense we use the term.)
Board_Rider 04-28-05, 03:59 PM	Let me ask this, why play a cleric with a god than? Well, there are the good reasons noted above but realistically you don't need to. It really depends on your DM and the game he runs. I have played under a DM before who plays to the fact that the type of diety you chose was directly linked to how people viewed you. However I had a player who, for religous reasons, wanted a Cleric but didn't want a diety. He eventually went for the Law and Fate domains...and was a scholar kinda PC. To me that was kinda cool so churches of good, neutrality and evil all welcomed him because he was different. Thats how I played it. So, again, it just depends on the DM.
feartheinvinceblehamster 04-28-05, 04:06 PM	i played a wild elf cleric with war and luck as his domains, no diety
Big Tom 04-28-05, 08:40 PM	I'm one of the (apperently) few who much perfers the god-less cleric. I feel that someone who simply lives for a cause, and dedicates themselves to it is more cleric-y than someone who joins an organization devoted to a god. Granted, they will have less power over the common folk, who don't consider them to be a clerioc unless they have a god, and the other organixed religions in the area will most likely have an issue with you, but I think that its more fluffy. Think Mua'dib in Children of Dune, who is devoted to bringing down the church built on his (mutated) teackings. He was an organization- and god-less cleric (from how I saw it) and that seemed to be right. As for the source of power for god-less clerics, I tend to consider it power granted be existence itself, not comming from any god in particular, but the primal essence of what is.
Lord Ian Stark 04-28-05, 08:53 PM	Put it this way. The Gods are in control of divine magic. Whether you worship the god of ::insert your domains here:: or not he can restrict your use of them. IMO a Cleric or Paladin without a God is quite stupid. Be another class that has spellcasting powers. I hate how a Paladin thinks he is rightous and gains his abilities from the thought of Law or whatever. BS, a God has to give that power of the calling to him. By the RAW, if a Paladin doesn't have a God, than he can tell all the gods to kiss his "hairy yellow butt" (Homer Simpson) and still use all his "divine" powers just fine. :rolleyes:
High Octane 04-28-05, 09:25 PM	I dont allow clerics without deities myself. Its kind of a contradiction.
Tusz 04-28-05, 09:44 PM	It all depends on how your campaign world works, basically. In some campaigns, the gods are the source of divine magic. In others (such as mine), they merely serve as a rallying figure and sort of a focus for divine energy. My campaign world has a cyclical pantheon (gods aren't permanent, but merely last for a very very very long time), so there are times when no gods are around and the godless cleric becomes very important.
Burgundy Lotus 04-28-05, 10:05 PM	One of my players played a cleric with no god. When they set up a base of operations he gave large donations to the cloest church (mystra), which he also had a domain for (magic). I ruled that this was the only church that would raise him, without a very heavy price tag (either monetary or quest) no other churches of mystra, just that one and as a non worshipper it would be done only with Miracle so the price was still quite steep.
Al-Ashrad 04-28-05, 10:23 PM	IMO a Cleric or Paladin without a God is quite stupid. I'm sure Buddhists and Taoists are loving this view. hehe Back to the subject at hand though, my campaign is in the Forgotten Realms, and I think that if you do not have a patron deity, you can't get Raised or Resurrected and you're stuck being a cursed spirit after death. I don't mind a player in my game playing a Cleric without a deity, but I make sure they are well-aware of the consequences. -Al-Ashrad
ChimericPhase 04-28-05, 10:46 PM	IMO a Cleric or Paladin without a God is quite stupid. Really? That's a shame. I've seen some very beautiful uses of a godless cleric (never seen a paladin, but I'd give it a look before I said no). One player I knew had a cleric who was godless because she came from poor village that had no church, only a simple herbalist who began teaching her healing skills. From her complete devotion to helping others, she learned she could channel divine power and became a cleric who simply strived to help the helpless. Another example was in my own game, my player made a cleric who was LN and believed all churches were in some way disfunctional. Evil and good alike recieved his contempt. He followed no god because doing so might mean he would be subject to one of these 'corrupt' organizations. He faced alot of conflict for taking that stance, but he (and his player) never flinched from it! In the case of a godless cleric, or even paladin, no matter what type of campaign you run, I'd encourage the player to give a sound reason why their character does not worship a god - any reason except because they were too lazy to pick one or because its less limiting than having a god. Besides, IMHO, it's more limiting, as per some excellent examples given above.
tobyk316 04-29-05, 10:38 AM	Thanks for all the replys, I found a class in dragon lance that is called a mystic that basically a cleric without a god. The main deference between the classes is that the mystic only gets one domain gets the ability to cast more divine spells per day and doesn’t get the turn undead ability. So in my campaign, if you want to play a cleric without a god than you must play a mystic.
Lord Ian Stark 04-29-05, 11:06 AM	I found a class in dragon lance that is called a mystic that basically a cleric without a god. Well I don't know if you read the books, but the Mystic was givin a small amount of Divine power (Magic) through Takhesis who is a Major God in that game world. Takhesis took the entire world away from the other Gods so she could play with them all by herself. So no offense but that just strenghtens my argument that Gods give and have the ability to take away Divine magic when they see fit. I don't care if you don't believe in a God. If you think you can shun them all and still cast Divine spells I think your wrong. IMO Divine magic comes from the Gods in the D&D game. How could it not?
Vharuck 04-29-05, 11:12 AM	Because they come from a divine power. Not necessarily an anthropomorphic power, not even a sentient power, but a divine power.
High Octane 04-29-05, 11:16 AM	I'm sure Buddhists and Taoists are loving this view. hehe -Al-Ashrad They dont HAVE clerics.... at least not that Im aware of. Not having a deity restriction opens clerics up for max-minning even more than usual, which is bad because they are already a very powerful class! "My domains are DEATH and DESTRUCTION!" "Whats your alignment?" "Neutral good, why?"
Anthus_Longblade 04-29-05, 11:27 AM	"My domains are DEATH and DESTRUCTION!" "Whats your alignment?" "Neutral good, why?" You call that min-maxing? A NG cleric choosing the Death domain is crippling himself, because many of it's spells have the [evil] descriptor.
Nurgan_the_drunked 04-29-05, 11:36 AM	They dont HAVE clerics.... at least not that Im aware of. Not having a deity restriction opens clerics up for max-minning even more than usual, which is bad because they are already a very powerful class! "My domains are DEATH and DESTRUCTION!" "Whats your alignment?" "Neutral good, why?" In which case a sensible DM should say "what precepts do you follow that cycle around death, and destruction but maintain a work towards the force of good" and look cynical as they flounder for an explanation. There's definitely a flavour issue, and depending on your cosmology, a metaphysics issue, but I don't really think it's a balance issue.
John Bezo 04-29-05, 01:07 PM	I find it easy to let a cleric, paladin, or druid to profess that they have no god/goddess... and still have divine spells and powers. Even if they say they "pray" to a general idea, the forces or good/evil/law/chaos/nature what ever... behind all of that, beyond the PCs perceptions there is a god/goddess/planar being, that is granting those spells. At present I have a homebrew world that has a very specific nature god and a specific fertility god. And a druid PC that believes he doesn't pray to either... and I let it slide. In fact I have backed up his idea in game. But in the end all his granted powers come from those 2 deities. Since they are so close in domains and are sister goddesses, they don't mind using this druid to further their goals on the prime plane, with out the druid knowing. If the druid works well, and furthers their goals with out knowing its them, then he is even more likely to follow his hart and keep doing what he is doing by choice then by rule... So the goddesses really like the idea... This has sparked some interesting debates in game between this druid and the other elf druid in the party, who openly worships the main nature deity. J.
jaspercrey 04-29-05, 01:41 PM	Typically, a diety is associated with several domains that complement eachother in terms of logic, balance and playability . . . My only concern about "godless" clerics is that the player is now free to pick and choose which domains he/she wants based on how to best benefit the character . . . and not based on the notion of faith, morals and ethics . . . The existing pantheon limits what domains you have access to based on the deity you worship. I believe they are balanced and make sense (except for the Dwarf god Moradin - how the heck can a dwarf priest not have War as a Domain?). taking away these limits may encourage a player to "optimize" . . .
Al-Ashrad 04-29-05, 01:45 PM	They (Buddhists and Taoists) dont HAVE clerics.... at least not that Im aware of. Umm... they do... they're called monks. They lead religious services, maintain temples, teach the general populace the precepts of the faith, pray for the welfare of the general populace, etc. That sounds LIKE a Cleric to me. Geez... please tell me you didn't think all Buddhist and Taoist monks only studied martial arts and did not much else. -Al-Ashrad
Thoronmir 04-29-05, 01:49 PM	There's definitely a flavour issue, and depending on your cosmology, a metaphysics issue, but I don't really think it's a balance issue.Exactly. Whether a Cleric prays to a specific deity does not affect balance. It's all a matter of flavor ... which means there is no "right" answer as to whether Clerics (or Paladins) "must" serve a god.
Al-Ashrad 04-29-05, 01:52 PM	My only concern about "godless" clerics is that the player is now free to pick and choose which domains he/she wants based on how to best benefit the character . . . and not based on the notion of faith, morals and ethics . . . How is this different from the player rifling through the list of gods and choosing which god has the two domains he wants for his Cleric? (Making my game set in the Forgotten Realms, this is an issue, since there are a LOT of gods) This argument, while good intentioned, is fairly spurrious, when everyone who plays a Cleric will choose the best two domains for their character concept, regardless of any "faith issues". -Al-Ashrad
Steelpunk 04-29-05, 02:06 PM	From a pure word definition standpoint, "divine" does not strictly mean "derived from a deity". "Cleric" also isn't strictly defined as "priest in service to a deity". Clerics are people who devote themselves to, espouse and teach a spiritual path - sometimes inspired by a deity, sometimes not. Even those who do not follow a deity (or who follow multiple deities) are considered "divine", since they seek to emulate the concepts of a spiritual perfection which they follow. So, a paladin could be devoted to the perfection of law and goodness and seek to emulate that perfection, same as a cleric could be spiritually devoted to chi energy, personal enlightenment, or some other non-deity focus. I personally would never limit a cleric or paladin to having to follow a specific deity over an ideal. My reasons are a) the player might have personal religious convictions that make them uncomfortable playing a character that follows a fictitious deity, and to limit them based on real-world issues isn't fair, and b) all religions had to start somewhere, and new ones come and go all the time - what's to say the ideal one character follows doesn't bloom into it's own full-blown religion over time if that character goes around spreading the teachings? The second point has actually happened in one of our games. For those who worry about players taking arbitrary domains, as a DM, if you feel it isn't right, is an abuse, an attempt to powergame or whatever, you can just say no. So many DMs forget they have that power. For clerics that choose to follow an ideal, I have the player describe it to me, and I'm the one who determines the three or four domains that they can make their two choices from.
Lord Ian Stark 04-29-05, 03:27 PM	A cleric that does not follow a God is not subject to losing his powers and class features since he doesn't have a Code of Conduct to follow. Page 33 PH 3.5 So firstly that shows that a God does in fact give and take Divine abilities and second makes a faithless Cleric not subject to losing his powers according to the RAW. Now you can house-rule different but that is according to the RAW. Seems stupid doesn't it. That's because the average Cleric follows a God in the first place.
Vharuck 04-29-05, 04:02 PM	Why wouldn't he have a code of conduct to follow? I'd think he'd have a much more inherent code of conduct. That is, his philosophy from which he chooses his domains. If one of his domains is Good, and he does evil acts, it's pretty obvious that his personal philosophy is no longer that of Good so he can no longer draw power from Good. Same for all domains. Uphold them or lose them. Oh, and a NG Destruction and Death cleric has to justify it. It's not purely picking and choosing. And if he can justify it and stick to his philosophy, then it's ok by me.
Lord Ian Stark 04-29-05, 04:10 PM	Why wouldn't he have a code of conduct to follow? Must I quote from RAW for you. All that you have said makes sense but it has to be a house-rule since the RAW is written as such.... Ex-Clerics A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description). So house-rule away, but this is what I'm saying where the importance of having a GOD is and the lack of WOTC actually understanding the repercussions of allowing all these classes like Cleric to have no need for a God. Again this proves that divine power comes from Gods and not the feeling of Good and Evil, etc...
Board_Rider 04-29-05, 04:19 PM	Oh why not...I will interject here. Lord Ian..you can quote the RAW all you wish but at the end of the day WoTC still says that a Cleric does NOT need to have a Patron diety. This makes no sense to YOU. So, now your saying that THEY are the ones (WoTC) that have it wrong? Because of some problem without having a diety? You are wrong buddy. WoTC left the Cleric class to be played in such a way as to be more adaptable for the D&D players. Just because there is no set dogma from a diety to follow doesn't mean that a DM can't institute some form of guidelines for a diety-less Cleric to follow. And then make him/her atone for breaking that code. In the end it comes down to the DM..not a house rule.
Thoronmir 04-29-05, 04:29 PM	Lord Ian, I'll posit an equally valid interpretation of the passage you cited ... Only Clerics who happen to be devoted to a deity risk ever becoming "Ex-Clerics" ... "godless" Clerics never need fear excommunication. The text you quote is not among the requirements for achieving Clerical status ... it speaks to how a Cleric might lose his powers. Since the RAW expressly contemplates that a Cleric might not be devoted to any deity, that text may not apply to such Clerics. Alternatively, the passage you cite was included in the RAW to address the limited situation of Clerics who serve deities who impose Codes of Conduct. Note that the text refers to a CoC "required" by the god. Where are these Codes set forth in the RAW? Who says that any god must "require" that his followers adhere to a CoC. No, the better intepretation is that the "Ex-Clerics" language is of limited scope and only applies to Clerics whose gods happen to impose a CoC. Of course, the interpretation that is more reasonable than either yours or mine is that WOTC simply authored the RAW to reflect the general expectation that most Clerics serve deities, and they added the language regarding "godless" Clerics to make it clear that players have an alternative. Such an interpretation is, perhaps, the most reasonable one that reconciles both passages.
clarkvalentine 04-29-05, 04:33 PM	Well I don't know if you read the books, but the Mystic was givin a small amount of Divine power (Magic) through Takhesis who is a Major God in that game world. No, Takhisis restored sorcery to the world (she masqueraded as Rasitlin, I believe, and gave the secret to the mage Palin Majere). Mysticism is the Power of the Heart, rediscovered by Goldmoon (former cleric of Mishakal). It has nothing to do with Takhisis. Toby's right, mystics are indeed Dragonlance's rough equivalent of godless clerics.
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 04-29-05, 07:03 PM	Examples of possible religions which might have a cleric, but without any god as such: 1. From my own campaign world, clerics (mostly adepts, but some clerics) propegate the orcish religion, based on emulating the deeds of the clans' patrons. In the case of the Black Wolf this is a mythical entity (this clan tends towards druids) and amongst the Burning Death an extraplanar creature, but for most (the Shining Arc, The Seven) this is an anchient hero. In each of these cases a breach of conduct would be a breach of the expected behaviour for a follower of the patron. Within the Shining Arc it would be the drawing of a blade against an innocent, amongst the Black Wolf it would be needless killing of any being. Amongst the Kragaken it would be showing fear, and so-on. 2. Nature. Druids can do it, why not clerics? Teachings of harmony with the natural world which are unconnected with the duidic traditions. 3. "The Force" or some such. In the case of D&D one could even make a religion based around positive energy. 4. Alignment-based. There exists a cleric of Order for the D&D miniatures, and surley there groups out there dedecated to one of the four primaries in their purest form. Clerics of Neutrality would be a git to play with or against, but I'm sure they exist.
tobyk316 04-29-05, 07:07 PM	Yes Druids do cast Divine spells, But they don't get all the other abilities that a cleric would get from their god such as a domain spells and the abilitie to turn or rebuke undead.
Al-Ashrad 04-29-05, 08:21 PM	Must I quote from RAW for you. All that you have said makes sense but it has to be a house-rule since the RAW is written as such.... So house-rule away, but this is what I'm saying where the importance of having a GOD is and the lack of WOTC actually understanding the repercussions of allowing all these classes like Cleric to have no need for a God. Again this proves that divine power comes from Gods and not the feeling of Good and Evil, etc... Umm... must I quote from the RAW for you? It seems that you have been so zealous in your position that you have neglected to ACTUALLY READ the Cleric section. From the 3.5 PHB, p. 30, under the Religion section, second paragraph: "Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. These characters wield magic the way clerics devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any religious institution or any particular place of worship." (emphasis added) There you go... no need for house rules. It's in the RAW. Deal with it. -Al-Ashrad
The man they call Boxhead 04-29-05, 09:02 PM	Just thought I'd chime in quickly. One reason to play a Cleric without a god is if you build your characters the other way around. For example, if I decide to build a character who can fight a little, cast defensive spells and has a couple of neat powers, is there another way I can do it? Probably not as well (Paladin/Wizard or some such could come up, but it gets messier). So I call myself a mystic warrior and use the Cleric class. Simple. As to playing a true Cleric, obviously you could be a cleric devoted to law and good, or nature, or death and destruction, or even magic and trickery. Overall, it doesn't matter all that much. Now, of course, anyone who can grossly violate the conduct required of a cleric of death and destruction is always welcome in my game... ;)
Nom 04-29-05, 09:09 PM	From the 3.5 PHB, p. 30, under the Religion section, second paragraph: "Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a source of divine power. These characters wield magic the way clerics devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any religious institution or any particular place of worship." (emphasis added)Agreed. However, it doesn't change the fundamental principle that a cleric's power is derived from some form of divine source, whether personalised, actualised, institutionalised or simply idealised. A cleric that strays from the precepts and path of that source loses access to that source's power. Note that some settings are looser about this than others. In Eberron, for example, even a corrupt cleric can draw on the power of a deity. In any case, the inability of a cleric to access magics with alignment descriptors opposed to their source is not fundamentally an issue of the cleric's alignment but of the source's - the source just doesn't do that sort of magic. A corrupt CE cleric of an LG deity would still cast spells and channel as a LG cleric - the alignment of the magic is a property of the deity, not the cleric.
Lord Ian Stark 04-29-05, 09:27 PM	Board Rider and Al-Ashrad, I know according to the RAW you can be a Godless Cleric. If you look back whenever I mention things about a Cleric and not having a God, I put IMO. (In My Opinion) I don't need to be shown that a Cleric doesn't need a God. I know that, and that is why I disagree and state reasons for my belief. Now where I did quote the RAW was about the fact that according to said RAW that the only way for a Cleric to "fall" or lose his spells and powers according to the RAW is if he has a God and doesn't follow the CoC of said God. Got it? So therefore a Godless Cleric need not fear losing his powers according to the RAW unless you house-rule, yes I said House-Rule, that if he starts a forrest fire than he will lose the Nature domain spells or what have you. Otherwise according to the rules a godless cleric can't "fall" Also don't bi**h at me about what the heck a CoC for a God is. I didn't write the rules and can care less about what a God's CoC is. Ask WOTC, they wrote it. It makes total sense that a Godless cleric that doesn't adhere to the Domains he chooses will lose that power. However the RAW doesn't reflect that so it becomes a House-Rule. If someone says IMO, guess what? It's my friggen opinion! But if I do quote the RAW about an EX-Cleric don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when it's right in front of you in Black and White. No, Takhisis restored sorcery to the world (she masqueraded as Rasitlin, I believe, and gave the secret to the mage Palin Majere). Mysticism is the Power of the Heart, rediscovered by Goldmoon (former cleric of Mishakal). It has nothing to do with Takhisis. Since it has been a while since I read the War of Souls I will agree with you for the mean time but I am going to check out that final book. I am more than sure it was her leaking that ability to the mortals. I'll get back with you.
Al-Ashrad 04-29-05, 09:35 PM	Agreed. However, it doesn't change the fundamental principle that a cleric's power is derived from some form of divine source, whether personalised, actualised, institutionalised or simply idealised. A cleric that strays from the precepts and path of that source loses access to that source's power. I concur with you here too. What I'm railing against is the idea that "well, the RAW states that a cleric has to have a patron god" when the exact opposite is true. It all comes down to the DM and the player hashing out the cleric's religion together, coming up with precepts, doctrine, etc. Just because a religion doesn't have a deity doesn't mean it will not have rules. Buddhism has a doctrine and a code of conduct too, after all. -Al-Ashrad
Al-Ashrad 04-29-05, 09:41 PM	I don't need to be shown that a Cleric doesn't need a God. I know that, and that is why I disagree and state reasons for my belief. Now where I did quote the RAW was about the fact that according to said RAW that the only way for a Cleric to "fall" or lose his spells and powers according to the RAW is if he has a God and doesn't follow the CoC of said God. Got it? So therefore a Godless Cleric need not fear losing his powers according to the RAW unless you house-rule, yes I said House-Rule, that if he starts a forrest fire than he will lose the Nature domain spells or what have you. Otherwise according to the rules a godless cleric can't "fall" Also don't bi**h at me about what the heck a CoC for a God is. I didn't write the rules and can care less about what a God's CoC is. Ask WOTC, they wrote it. So, I guess you have never heard of Buddhist monks (clerics of a godless religion) going against the precepts of their faith and getting ostracized? So, therefore a cleric of a godless religion can fall. Also, if you have to house-rule the CoC of a deity's religion (since WoTC may or may not have written it), then what is the big deal in having to do one for a godless faith? Geez... show some imagination. -Al-Ashrad
Lord Ian Stark 04-29-05, 09:49 PM	So, I guess you have never heard of Buddhist monks (clerics of a godless religion) going against the precepts of their faith and getting ostracized? So, therefore a cleric of a godless religion can fall. Who are you saying that to? Me or WOTC who wrote the book? I agree and would probrably house-rule what you said. Also, if you have to house-rule the CoC of a deity's religion (since WoTC may or may not have written it), then what is the big deal in having to do one for a godless faith? Geez... show some imagination. I believe the closest thing written that reflects a CoC for a God is the Deities Dogma.
Cathon 04-29-05, 09:56 PM	I'd certainly ask anyone asking to be a cleric without a god or religion to have a reasonable code of conduct. One needs to at least be respectful to the ideals that you worship. One could also be a pantheistic cleric in some campaigns. Not specific to any one god but worshipping all the gods of a pantheon. "Thor give me strength! Odin give me wisdom!"
Al-Ashrad 04-29-05, 10:06 PM	I believe the closest thing written that reflects a CoC for a God is the Deities Dogma. This is a bit problematic for the Forgotten Realms, as many of the deities listed do not get more than their name in a list of gods, with their holy symbols, alignment, domains, and favored weapon. For those, you pretty much have to go by the alignment and the domains to figure out the dogma. This seems to be a lot of "sturm und drang" over nothing. The PHB clearly lets a player play a cleric who doesn't have a diety. I don't see a balance issue here, since the godless cleric is still getting only two domains. After all, no Cleric of Corellon takes the War Domain, right? If the player and the DM work out some of the details of the cleric's faith, then it could make for some interesting aspects to the campaign. After all, what would clerics of deity-based faiths think of this guy? Would some churches be receptive to this godless cleric? What if the campaign world is similar to the Forgotten Realms, where those without a patron deity are doomed to becoming cursed spirits wandering Toril after death? For this situation, I could see necromancers liking this cleric, regardless of the cleric's alignment, for they know they will be able to "work with him" after he perishes. Also, I could see some churches (such as Lathander's) absolutely hating this cleric, even if the cleric is LG, because this godless cleric is willing to let himself become an undead after death. There are tons more options than these paltry few I have listed. Considering the amount of work most DMs put into their game, I don't see the extra hour or so for creating a godless faith's doctrine being so much trouble as had been made out here. -Al-Ashrad
Lord Ian Stark 04-29-05, 10:20 PM	This is a bit problematic for the Forgotten Realms, as many of the deities listed do not get more than their name in a list of gods, The Web Enhancement has all the info on the Gods that get little attention in the book. Al-Ashrad, you are trying to explain to me that you can easily give a faithless cleric a CoC. That's cool and all but has nothing to do with the fact that the RAW says "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god" will lose his powers/spells. If the character says his faith in Positive energy is his "God" then according to the RAW I guess he can lose his powers and abilities if he uses all Evil aligned spells or some crap. Tada. :P
Al-Ashrad 04-29-05, 10:43 PM	That's cool and all but has nothing to do with the fact that the RAW says "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god" will lose his powers/spells. And has been stated in here by these self-same RAW that you are using to show that a cleric must have a god clearly state that a cleric doesn't have to. Also, are you stating that a godless faith doesn't have a set of principles? If so, you should really look into the CoC for Buddhist monks. I don't think that it taxes the mind too much to see that even godless faiths have principles, which have been created by custom, tradition, ritual, etc., and not necessarily created by a deity. -Al-Ashrad
Lord Ian Stark 04-29-05, 11:01 PM	Wee, round and round we go. Ok I am getting off after this next post as this ride is going nowhere fast. :help: And has been stated in here by these self-same RAW that you are using to show that a cleric must have a god clearly state that a cleric doesn't have to. For some reason when I say I understand what the RAW says about a Cleric not needing a deity doesn't mean I have to like it. Just like you don't like the fact that you have to have a God by the RAW in order to have a cleric "fall" and lose spells and powers. And therefore making a Godless cleric immune to becoming fallen. Kinda one sided isn't it, but I guess the creators of the game saw it neccesary. IMO it's because they assume the average Cleric is based off of a God so much that they forgot to put in a line to make it possible for a Godless cleric to also fall. :eek: The horror. ;) Also, are you stating that a godless faith doesn't have a set of principles? :rolleyes: When the hell did I say that? Oh, I know, it's because I quoted the RAW saying that only people with a God are held to the CoC of said God and are capable of becoming "fallen." As I have said a million times before you can tell me all you want how that is bogus, I didn't write the damn book! Just house-rule it and move on. I'm not the one stopping you! But if you play by the rules than this is set in stone. Now shoo..
Chthonic 04-29-05, 11:30 PM	Personally, I think the idea of godless Clerics is pretty poor. I know what the RAW state but that still doesn't change the fact that the entire idea is shot through with flaws and contradictions. It takes a pretty major mangling and distortion of the word divine to eliminate gods or god-like beings from it. You can sort of make it work with some domains if you explain it as tapping into the primal forces of the world. This can explain access to the alignment and elemental related domains but this explanation won't work for all of them. The idea of a primal force of Travel doesn't really work, especially since primal forces in D&D are always balanced out by an opposite force. Anyone for a domain of Staying Put? Comparisons with godless faiths like Buddhism don't really work. Firstly, Buddhism is a structured faith with temples and a religious hierarchy which its' priests can be cut off from if they fail to follow its' precepts. Godless-clerics aren't part of any 'church' and therefore have nothing to be cut off from. Secondly, the Buddha could grant cleric spells in D&D even though he's not a deity. Not all the "gods" in D&D are deities, some are ultra powerful Outsiders, like Orcus/Tenebrous who's actually a Demon Prince. In D&D terms, the Buddha would be a powerful Outsider who can channel his power into those who follow his teachings.
Al-Ashrad 04-29-05, 11:54 PM	Oh, I know, it's because I quoted the RAW saying that only people with a God are held to the CoC of said God and are capable of becoming "fallen." As I have said a million times before you can tell me all you want how that is bogus, I didn't write the damn book! Well, you're the one who is saying that it's "stupid" be a godless Cleric or Paladin. Gee, too bad no one at WoTC bothered to consult you with your vast knowledge and ability to see other perspectives to write the RAW. Comparisons with godless faiths like Buddhism don't really work. Firstly, Buddhism is a structured faith with temples and a religious hierarchy which its' priests can be cut off from if they fail to follow its' precepts. Godless-clerics aren't part of any 'church' and therefore have nothing to be cut off from. Who is to say that? The RAW just states a cleric could follow a cause or a source of divine power. This could be a far-ranging as a faith like Buddhism (which a player in a game I was in did for his Paladin), or something like pulling out a puppet and declaring himself a follower of Banjo the Clown. Secondly, the Buddha could grant cleric spells in D&D even though he's not a deity. Well, this is slightly problematic since no Buddhist prays to Buddha or the Bodhisattvas. -Al-Ashrad
Cantankerous 04-30-05, 12:54 AM	Ok, no big surprises, this like most other things dependant on the DM rests squarely on his/her shoulders. Witha skilled DM the requirement that there MUST be a god/godess that each Cleric serves is non-sequitor. The skilled DM will REPLACE the devotion to a deity with devotion to a cause. The Monte Moron DM will simply leave it all up to the player. Devotion to the cause can be a strenuos or more so, than devotion to any specific deity... and the same defeciets apply. A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description). Now, on the basis that we are also told that: If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. So we see that the Cleric who does not worship a deity, but rather serves a cause, is not let off the hook. The difference here is that the player and DM must TOGETHER, using the two domains chosen as a basis for it, construct a suitable Code. In fact, it should be MORE stringet, not less, as it is always easier to violate ones OWN moral/ethical Code than one imposed by an outside source. AGAIN; the DM is responsible for the adherence to such a Code and that the Code fits to the Domains chosen. Someone earlier gave us an example of a non deity specific wild elven cleric with the domains War and Luck. The Code there WOULD be centered around the idealogies of War and Luck in equal measures and would make for a very interesting mix. First, since Luck is a primary aspect, our Cleric would very LIKELY have to be Chaotic and remain Chaotic. Too, he would have to be very forthright in Battle and remain that way. The War deities are all very martial, but it isn't they that make the domain, it is the domain that makes them. Similiarly our Cleric is being made in the same mold. The Luck domain deities are almost universally Roguish fellows who rely on chance... but like to stear chance in their favor. The combining of the two of these would probably produce something like the Clerical equivalent of a berserker. and it would easily fit that the character might also want a level or two of Barbarian at some point... although Rogue would also be a good choice and would stress very different aspects. Either way, the Cleric is any less restricted than any which might serve a specific deity. Indeed, since he must always keep those parts of his personality primary, he is MORE restricted. Many of the Deities listed in the PHB have FOUR differing major attributes and all have atleast three from which the perspective Cleric chooses two that THEY as individuals stress... but their Deity is broader and some transgressions against one of the ideals that they stress personally can be over looked if it is in line with the other aspects of the Deity. Corellon Larethian is a Chaotic deity and a War deity, but this is ameliorated in him by his likewise stressing both Good and Protection. Even if the individual Cleric of his is devoted to Chaos and War, if he strives to stop a War from occuring (something our example Priest of War and Luck above shouldn't even contemplate), he is let off the hook as those two other attributes (Good and Protection) are well served there by. Isshia