# Poll : Do you allow godless clerics?



## Kahuna Burger

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._

That said, I've gotten the impression that a lot of people don't like godless clerics, or consider them a "real" option. So tell me about your veiws on godless clerics from either player or DM perspective.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Harlock

Neat poll, KB.  I chose the "I don't like godless clerics for flavor/homebrew gameworld reasons" option because I run a Scarred Lands game.  In the Scarred Lands the gods are very active and even have their heralds and avatars at work across the lands.  Now, if a player came up with a good reason to allow a godless cleric, I'd consider it.


----------



## Creamsteak

I'm "OK" with them in that I love it when a player chooses this for roleplaying reasons and not for specific domains.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid

It has never come up for me as, but I would most likely allow it


----------



## Teflon Billy

I wouldn't allow it for Flavor reasons.

A "Godless Cleric" is a bookeeper (at best)

I'm not even sure I understand the idea of a Priest who foloows no Gods.

Congrats on your nuptials BTW KB


----------



## Steverooo

I allow them, for RL reasons.  Some people (Baptists, Catholics, etc.) don't want to worship a false god, even in a game.  So I'm okay with "an unaligned Cleric of Good".  Also, your pantheon may not have anything to a PC's tastes, so they may prefer to serve an ideal (like "Good") instead.  If a Druid or Ranger can draw "divine" power from unintelligent nature, I don't see why a Cleric can't draw the same from an unintelligent ideal...


----------



## Creamsteak

One iconic example of a "Godless" cleric would be a cleric of an elemental plane of existence. They draw their power from, for instance, the elemental air plane. Thier first domain is pretty obvious in this case (Air), and the second is probably related to some vestige within that plane (such as chaotic, representative of the cleric's alignment and the types of air elements he uses), or something related to air (travel perhaps).


----------



## Tsyr

The only "godless" clerics in my game are ones that nobody know what god they worship, but they do in fact worship a god.

Godless cleric's dont exist, and I would never allow one.


----------



## Mark Chance

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> A "Godless Cleric" is a bookeeper (at best)




How many boos does a godless cleric keep?


----------



## Dark Jezter

I'm running a Forgotten Realms campaign, and it's stated quite clearly in the FRCS that godless clerics aren't allowed.  In fact, ANY divine spellcaster (even rangers and paladins) must have a patron deity to cast spells.

I don't care for the concept of godless clerics; it dosen't make sense to me that a cleric would be able to cast divine spells without a god granting them.


----------



## Saeviomagy

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I'm running a Forgotten Realms campaign, and it's stated quite clearly in the FRCS that godless clerics aren't allowed.  In fact, ANY divine spellcaster (even rangers and paladins) must have a patron deity to cast spells.
> 
> I don't care for the concept of godless clerics; it dosen't make sense to me that a cleric would be able to cast divine spells without a god granting them.




Just think of them in the same way as wizards - wizards don't have to get their spells 'granted'. The power comes from their use of formulae and their own will.

In the same way a godless cleric's power comes from rituals and his devotion to an ideal.


----------



## Teflon Billy

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> How many boos does a godless cleric keep?




usually 1/ class level


----------



## Gellion

I love godless Clerics.  And anybody who does not agree with me should be drug out into the street and beaten with toxic kittens.J/K.


----------



## Teflon Billy

Steverooo said:
			
		

> ...If a Druid or Ranger can draw "divine" power from unintelligent nature, I don't see why a Cleric can't draw the same from an unintelligent ideal...




That's actually a petty good point from a Canonical D&D standpoint.

Doesn't change my "homebrew reasons" answer...but your point is well taken.


----------



## Umbran

I've never had to use the option, and I'd prefer if they were directly worked into the world metaphysics than allowed simply because the rulebook says thay should be.  But I think it's pretty analogous to druids and rangers, as others have noted.  One can draw power from faith in an ideal, or from a force of the universe, and not have that ideal or force be a sentient being in a polytheistic pantheon.


----------



## Wormwood

I'll allow a godless cleric if the players in question occasionally requested domains such as 'Good', 'Healing' or 'Law'...

Unfortunately, all godless clerics *I've* seen proposed tend to skew heavily toward 'Elf', 'Time', and 'Celerity'

Odd that.


----------



## SnowDog

I run a variant Book of the Righteous cosmology.  This book is an awesome resource for religion in D20, but I digress .

The Great Church, in that Cosmology, worships all the good-aligned gods.  Thus, any "godless" Cleric in my campaign would probably worship all the gods, and probably be associated with the Great Church.

So, they wouldn't be godless ... but would they be churchless?  That might be a more interesting question.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Tsyr said:
			
		

> The only "godless" clerics in my game are ones that nobody know what god they worship, but they do in fact worship a god.
> 
> Godless cleric's dont exist, and I would never allow one.




Uh, I hope you meant the "in my game" bit to apply to your second paragraph as well... otheriwse that was a very very weird comment...   

Kahuna burger


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'll allow a godless cleric if the players in question occasionally requested domains such as 'Good', 'Healing' or 'Law'...
> 
> Unfortunately, all godless clerics *I've* seen proposed tend to skew heavily toward 'Elf', 'Time', and 'Celerity'
> 
> Odd that.




I'm sorry about your players.    my godless (in fact atheistic) cleric has the knowlege and protection domains... I don't know a lot of the 2nd party domains, but I doubt there were any that fit my character concept better...

Kahuna Burger


----------



## shadow

I like the idea of "godless" clerics from a game standpoint.  It allows the DM to customize a campaign.  Believe it or not, not every DM runs a campaign that assumes a polytheistic pantheon made up of token deities.  I've seen campaigns that run the gamut from animistic (every natural thing has a spirit) to complete lack of gods (such as Dark Sun where "clerics" draw power from the elements.)

Although my campaign is not "godless" I assume that clerics serve some vague quasi-Catholic good church or some evil religion, and never go into many details about religion.  I've gamed with people who were uncomfortable about "worshiping" false gods (although "casting spells" was okay).  I've also gamed with some creepy people who got so into their cleric class that they were actually wanting to act out the rituals that their cleric was doing.  Hence, the "godless" cleric option allows me to take religion out of the game when it causes people to get uncomfortable.


----------



## Psion

I went with the "no for campaign reasons" thing. Generally speaking, I think a cleric by definition has power that springs from divinity; a godless cleric does paperwork. 

That said, I could see if you have a campaign that has some sort of altenate explanation of where the power springs from, that's cool. The idea that the clerics power comes from faith itself never sat well with me, because a character whose powers do not come from divinity is by my definition an arcane spellcaster. 

For flavor reasons, I find goddless casters of divine magic horrible, again unless you have a satisfying alternate explanation. Muttering about how your own faith sustains you seems rather bland compared to gathering power from spirits, the almighty, or whatnot.



			
				Steverooo said:
			
		

> If a Druid or Ranger can draw "divine" power from unintelligent nature, I don't see why a Cleric can't draw the same from an unintelligent ideal...




True, but even then, historically (pre-3e) there have been deities behind those powers, and even if dispassionate ones. Even in 3e, I veiw rangers and druids as deriving power from a powerful force associated with nature, not from "faith itself".


----------



## Olive

I require my clerics AND paladins to have gods. That being said I don't require rangers to, and druids worship 'nature'. Ranger magic I see as coming from a  closeness to nature rather than worshipping it per se.


----------



## Bloodsparrow

I  prefer "Ecumenical" to "Godless", though the Ur Priesthood from the Book of Vile Darkness were intriguing.  (I suppose you could say that they were ecumenical as well... But evil...)

An Ur Priest at least worships (in a way) power... And their power comes directly from the divine, even if they resent the entities from which they get their illicit spells.

To be a cleric (and get spells to cast) you have to have some sort of cause.  (Like Piffany from Nodwick.  The ultimate old school cleric.  No god per sae... she's just really really really good... Really.) 

A cleric who reveres nothing, believes in nothing, and represents nothing is nothing but a second class fighter with a club.


----------



## HellHound

One of the things that REALLY appealed to me about 3e over prior editions is the godless cleric.


----------



## Mouseferatu

If I were running a setting that didn't use gods of some sort (like Dark Sun), I'd certainly allow a godless cleric. And if someone came to me with a _fantastic_ idea for a godless cleric in a campaign with gods (or a single god), I'd at least consider it. For the most part, however, I will not allow godless clerics (or paladins) in a campaign setting that uses gods. It just makes no sense to me. (Then again, I usually define the specific source of druidic and ranger magic, too. It may not be a god, but it's just as set.)


----------



## NCSUCodeMonkey

I guess the answer really is, "It's all in how it's done by the player." I've seen a "godless" cleric done very well in a Planescape I ran once. I mean, he had a patron diety, but the trick was he thought he was a god . Oh the wonderful, hilarious bouts of roleplaying we had with that.  It's too bad the campaign fizzled due to lack of free time. I always wanted to see him lose his powers because he ticked _himself_ off.

Oh well, maybe it's too weird for everyone else, but I thought it was great.

NCSUCodeMonkey


----------



## Moe Ronalds

I allow godless clerics, rationalizing that they recieve their spells from gods that choose to sponsor them, seeing that their actions serve the generic greater good. Much like where I believe paladins recieve their divine power (those that are godless, in any case), or clerics that worship demon lords.


----------



## Gothmog

I chose "don't like godless clerics for flavor reasons".  All clerics, paladins, druids, and rangers MUST have a god in the games I run.  Godless divine casters just feel completely wrong IMO.  Not only is it awkward to explain in a metagame fashion, but in most ancient-medieval level societies, God(s) were personified forces of existence with definite personalities.  A divine character that worships a concept doesn't jive well with a western view of existence, which IS what D&D is based on.  Plus, IME, most people who want to play godless clerics want to play a character who isn't beholden to a church or heirarchy, but still want the incredible powers of a cleric.  No thanks.


----------



## hong

Gothmog said:
			
		

> I chose "don't like godless clerics for flavor reasons".  All clerics, paladins, druids, and rangers MUST have a god in the games I run.  Godless divine casters just feel completely wrong IMO.  Not only is it awkward to explain in a metagame fashion,




It's perfectly simple to explain in a metagame fashion. "I cast this spell, which has V, S, DF components, and you regain ... 5 hit points!"

If you mean it's awkward to explain _in-game_, you just need to brush up on your metaphysics.



> but in most ancient-medieval level societies, God(s) were personified forces of existence with definite personalities.




What, exactly, is the personality of the Holy Ghost?


----------



## d4

I don't like the idea of godless clerics for flavor reasons, as many other people have already described. to me, by definition a divine spellcaster has to have some kind of specific divine source of his or her powers. i'm also one of those crazy DMs that makes rangers and druids select a patron deity as well. 

if you want to play someone who gets magical powers based on faith in himself, play a sorcerer.


----------



## Endur

In both Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, godless clerics do not have spellcasting ability.

However, in the core rules Godless clerics do have spellcasting ability.

That contradiction makes sense.  

Why? 

Because in a core rules game, the GM might not want to worry about Gods or think about churches.  So allowing generic gods can be a time-saver.

Likewise, many real-world religions were not focused on a single god.  For instance, the Norse had a pantheon, Odin, Thor, etc., a cleric might worship Odin's entire family and not a single member.

Finally, there are people who like to play clerics based on Christianity or other modern day religions, but don't want to be too explicit as to that is what they are doing.  By worshipping an abstract, they can actually be following a modern day relgion.


----------



## MarauderX

Great quotes.  I try to remember them next time I want to play a cleric, as it seems to fit better than trying to bring religious interpretations from RL into the game.


----------



## the Jester

Reading this thread, I get the impression that most of you allow godless clerics (when you allow them at all) to choose their own domains.  Am I getting this right or am I inferring too much?  

In my campaign, I have a list of philosophies with enough spiritual energy invested in them to sponsor clerics, and they give very specific domains (just like deities).  For example, for clerics of the philosophy of Chaos, the domains are Chaos and Trickery.  Philosophies give two domains; most deities give their clerics from two to five domains (based on their status- demigods grant two, lesser three, etc).


----------



## CRGreathouse

I allow godless clerics for flavor reasons, though no one has chosen one yet.

Clerics (all divine casters, actually) must choose a source for their divine energy: alignments, gods, the Pantheon, or the Powers.  (Adepts, druids, and rangers can also choose nature.)

The main mechanical reason that no one has played a godless cleric is that the other sources for power are much stricter -- the Powers, for example, don't restore lost powers with an _atonement_ except in cases of domination or the like.  Any intentional violation of their precepts results in immediate, permanant loss of spellcasting.

If anyone's interested, I could copy/paste in the descriptions from my rules document.


----------



## Wombat

I am a "no godless clerics for flavour reasons" kinda person

My basic feeling is similar to others -- divine magic has a divine source; as such, clerics (and paladins [actually a variant on the _Green Ronin_ Holy Warriors] and druids) are expected uphold, support, and expand the worship of one or more particular deities.  (Rangers in my games have a different spell list and are considered not really to have spells but rather "special abilities" -- flavour change, primarily)  Now I do allow clerics (etc.) who worship a _pantheon_ as opposed to a single divine being, but even then it must be as part of a recognized body.  

Indistinct worship of generalized concepts of Good, Evil, etc., don't work in my world, mainly because we have abolished alignment.


----------



## Gez

I've cleft divine magic in twain!

Theurgy, aka divine magic, is channeling power granted by a greater being, who is usually a deity, but may be something else. Like an archfiend, or a dragon that has gone beyond beyond the Great Wyrm age, etc. Theurgists have a power over the souls.

Tellury, aka nature magic, is accumulating power from the creation itself. Like the Force, magic is present in all things, and when you learn to be in harmony with all things, then you can practice telluric magic. Lei lines are especially important for tellurists.

For completion, here's my definitions of the two other magics:

Esoteria, or arcane magic, revolves around using inner power. Whether you wield innate energy or gradually develop arcane capacities is not relevant. What is is that, through learned secrets or inborn instinct, you are more and more mastering the language of creation itself, and turning yourself into a lei node.

Psionics, or spirit magic, is the least understood of all, but it involves attuning one's mind to the collective unconscious, also considered the spirit of the land, and influencing it so that it produces effects for you. They are thus the only "magic-users" that do not cast spells, since they are merely making _something else_ cast the spell for them.



So, I have no godless clerics. Clerics, paladins, sacred guardians (sohei) and blackguards are all required to follow a deity. When casting a spell, they receive guidance from their deity, so that they may "botch the job" and do clumsy movements. That's why they don't suffer from spell failure.

Druids, rangers, adepts and shamans are not required to follow a deity, but they may if so they wishes; the practice is common. Atheistic tellurists suffer from spell failure, albeit at a reduced risk than arcanists (Nature spirits help a bit).


----------



## Gez

That said, I could allow (in another world) philosopher-clerics, as outlined in Deities & Demigods: They don't worship a cleric, but they have to pick a philosophy instead. They don't risk losing their power from comitting sin, but on the other hand, if they change their opinion or grow disenchanted with their former ideals...

And the thing is, each philosophy has a limited set of domain. Who would rather be like alignments, elements, knowledge, secret, justice, freedom and power than like elf, time, or divination. (Not that divination is overpowered, but I don't see that as a philosophy.)

Lastly, clerics can worship a whole pantheon. If they do, they can chose their domain from the four most frequently found in the gods of the pantheon. Like, Law, Good, War, Dwarf for the Mordinsamman (the dwarf pantheon).


----------



## Tallok

I didn't vote, as I would rather explain, but I probably wouldn't allow it in my current campaign, as it's rather based around the priesthood, however, something like an elemental cleric isn't too far from what would be allowed, but a cleric of good wouldn't work, otherwise they wouldn't have any spells in my campaign world, but others, like any from a plane would work. For example, I have a corrupt priest that draws power from demonic/devilish sources, and it hasn't had to come up yet whether it's a god or a plane
btw, thanks for the heads up, I didn't quite know that godless clerics were possible


----------



## Oni

I wish I could check both one and two.  Seriously they're bland and lacking the constraints that a diety places on the already overpowered cleric class.  

I'm set in my opinion of the cleric so no point in arguing with me, I just disagree with you if you disagree with me.


----------



## Gothmog

hong said:
			
		

> It's perfectly simple to explain in a metagame fashion. "I cast this spell, which has V, S, DF components, and you regain ... 5 hit points!"
> 
> If you mean it's awkward to explain _in-game_, you just need to brush up on your metaphysics.
> 
> What, exactly, is the personality of the Holy Ghost?




Ok, maybe metagame wasn't quite the right term (I meant explanation of why the world is the way it is), but I think you know what I mean.  Nebulous forces of existence such as good, nature, storms, etc are more of a hallmark of eastern religions or spirit worship such as the Native Americans had.  It just doesn't fit well in a quasi-medieval cosmology without substantial remodeling, and that would also entail completely redoing the societal and moral implications behind the cultural structure.  Virtually all European religions had personified deities, with their own worshippers and holy men, and even in those cases where an entire pantheon was worshipped, the gods were still the object of veneration, not nebulous concepts.  Nebulous concepts don't have divine right behind them like leaders backed by a church- and therefore much of the quasi-medieval cultural structure goes out the window.  Even with multiple gods in a setting, divine right and religious orders can possess extensive political and moral power in a culture, which would be completely lacking or feel extremely artificial without deities.  I have done extensive research and put a lot of thought into the metaphysical concerns of my world since it doesn't follow the D&D cosmology by the books (which require gods for their published settings), and godless clerics are just a lame powergamer's copout IMO.

As far as the Holy Ghost goes, I really have no idea of the personality.  It strikes me as more the essence of God, whereas God is a protector, father figure, and divine retribution; while Jesus embodies goodness, compassion, forgiveness, and redepmption.  PLEASE DON'T START A RELIGIOUS DEBATE OVER THIS PEOPLE, ITS JUST MY HYPOTHETICAL TAKE ON THE DIVINE ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MYTHOLOGY.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Oni said:
			
		

> I wish I could check both one and two.  Seriously they're bland and lacking the constraints that a diety places on the already overpowered cleric class.




but I've never actually seen a DM place any diety constraints on a cleric... it comes up with paladins, but not clerics, IME. And as a DM I'd be very likely to place very heavy constraints on a cleric who was philosophically based. Come to think of it, I don't understand the bland comment either... Which is more bland "I worship pelor, cause, uh, he's my god and they taught me about his ideals at the, um temple" or "I found that through my devotion to the needs of protecting and healing the weak, I have actually gained magical powers. Each morning, I meditate to rededicate myself to those ideals and become a vessel to perpetuate them". 

To be fair "uh, I'm a cleric whose into elves and time... because elves live a long time... and I get cool powers by saying I like them..." probably comes in last.   

yeah, I don't want to change your mind, I'm just trying to get at why people don't like philosopher clerics or whatever you want to call them...

Kahuna burger


----------



## Nifft

I would NEVER allow godless Clerics.

IMC, there are different views on the ultimate nature of divinity, and they're represented by different Divine spell casting classes:

- Clerics worship distinct gods, who are part of a pantheon.
- Mystics are monotheistic, worshiping the One Light.
- Shamans revere spirits of powerful ancestors and places.
- Druids draw power from the Green that flows through all living things.
- Cultists are just like Clerics, but they serve Arch-Devils or Demon Princes.

Each class has its own incompatible philosophy and world-view. All have real magic powers. The true nature of Divinity is up for discussion.

 -- N


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Gothmog said:
			
		

> and godless clerics are just a lame powergamer's copout IMO.




wow, all that mostly intellegent (though very focused on the societal feel you want for your campaign) commentary, shot to hell...


----------



## MeepoTheMighty

My campaign world has a whole bunch of gods running around.  The major ones are all defined, of course, but I always give players free reign to detail a minor religion or obscure demigod or whatever.  By the same token, I wouldn't really have a problem having them design their own philosophy, pantheon-worship, spirit-worship, or whatever else.  Are there munchkinny ways to abuse the system like that?  Probably.  Luckily, I'm the best munchkin in the group.


----------



## Gothmog

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> wow, all that mostly intellegent (though very focused on the societal feel you want for your campaign) commentary, shot to hell...




Well, IME, the godless clerics have always taken either Magic, War, and/or Destruction as their domains- the three domains powergamers often drool over.  Calling a powergamer a powergamer doesn't invalidate an arguement.  I had a few bad experiences playing with some godless clerics after 3E came out...never again.  Their powergaming and the lack of restraint on their actions from being godless ruined the game for everyone else.  I'm sure not all godless cleric characters are that way (including you Kahuna Burger), but you have to admit that it does often appeal to the powergamer to be able to pick and choose powers with no chance of retribution or deity restraints on their character.


----------



## Mercule

Cleric = sevitor of a god.  A godless cleric is an oxymoron.  About the only reason I can see to use it is if you're playing a beer-and-pretzels game and don't want to worry about religion or cosmology.

One thing that 2E added in that I truly loathe is the idea of a cleric of a "philosophy".  Ick.  About the only exception that I can think of is something like Dark Sun that completely changes the nature of the divine -- and there "godded" clerics are nonsensical.

I also require Paladins to serve a god.

Oddly enough, Druids explicitly do not gain power from deities in my games.  They gain it from the very divine weave of things.  A priest of Obad-Hai or Elohnna would be a cleric, not a druid; pretty much by definition.  Of course, I'm not entirely sure that I don't see Druids as just an odd sort of arcane caster.

Likewise, I've never liked Rangers with divine spells.  When 2E came out, I thought they made the wrong call in ditching the arcane spells and upping the divine spells.  It should have been the other way around.  Or give them no spells at all.


----------



## CRGreathouse

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Well, IME, the godless clerics have always taken either Magic, War, and/or Destruction as their domains- the three domains powergamers often drool over.  Calling a powergamer a powergamer doesn't invalidate an arguement.  I had a few bad experiences playing with some godless clerics after 3E came out...never again.  Their powergaming and the lack of restraint on their actions from being godless ruined the game for everyone else.  I'm sure not all godless cleric characters are that way (including you Kahuna Burger), but you have to admit that it does often appeal to the powergamer to be able to pick and choose powers with no chance of retribution or deity restraints on their character.




What do you (anyone, really) think of my system for godless clerics' restrictions?

Alignments (Adp, Blk, Clr, Pal) 
The spells come from one of the four alignments: Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law. Alignments do not grant powers except to those who follow their alignment. (Lawful good, neutral good, and chaotic good characters only may draw power from Good.) Characters who act in opposition to the chosen alignment lose their powers immediately. An atonement spell will restore the powers if the act was unintentional. 
Gods (Adp, Blk, Clr, Pal) 
The spells come from a single chosen deity. Deities grant and deny spells on their whims, but generally withhold power only for major violations and willingly accept those who atone back if they show sincerity. Deities only grant power to those within one step of their alignment (and sometimes less, e.g. St. Cuthbert and Wee Jas). 
Nature (Adp, Drd, Rgr) 
The spells come from the essence of living things and the power of the land itself. If the character acts in opposition to nature (wanton killing, destruction of land, etc.), he or she loses spellcasting and other granted powers until he or she atones. Repeated or flagrant violations may cause permanent loss. 
Pantheon (Adp, Clr) 
The spells come from the Pantheon as a whole. Powers are lost if the character acts in a manner inconsistent with the 2E TN alignment, but are regained upon a sincere atonement. The pantheon never grants alignment domains. The current members of the pantheon is as follows: Heironeous, Moradin, Yondalla, Bahamut, Pelor, Ehlonna, Corellon Larethian, Kord, Sif, Deptat, St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas, Nike, Boccob, Genos, Matrar, Obad-Hai, Ethi, Olidammara, Ebon, Kain, Kurtulmak, Tiamat, Crebar, Hades, Ares, Halgrin. Worshipers of the Pantheon are called Pantheonists, patheonists, or catholics. 
Powers (Adp, Blk, Clr, Pal) 
The spells come from one of the bodiless, semi-sentient Powers of the universe: Air, Earth, Fire, Negative, Positive, or Water. The Powers have no special agenda for the world except their own supremacy. Powers withdraw their favor if the character calls on or supports an opposed Power. An atonement spell will restore the powers if the use or support was unintentional. Those who draw power from Positive may not be evil; those who draw power from Negative may not be good. Powers do not grant access to spells or domains with descriptors opposite their own (Air vs. Earth, Fire vs. Water, Negative vs. Good, Positive vs. Evil). Positive allows clerics to spontaneously cast cure spells and turn/destroy undead, while Negative allows clerics to spontaneously cast inflict spells and rebuke/command undead. Powers never grant alignment domains.


----------



## Spatula

Gothmog said:
			
		

> A divine character that worships a concept doesn't jive well with a western view of existence, which IS what D&D is based on.



So I take it that Monks are banned as well in your games.


----------



## Gothmog

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> What do you (anyone, really) think of my system for godless clerics' restrictions?
> 
> Alignments (Adp, Blk, Clr, Pal)
> The spells come from one of the four alignments: Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law. Alignments do not grant powers except to those who follow their alignment. (Lawful good, neutral good, and chaotic good characters only may draw power from Good.) Characters who act in opposition to the chosen alignment lose their powers immediately. An atonement spell will restore the powers if the act was unintentional.
> Gods (Adp, Blk, Clr, Pal)
> The spells come from a single chosen deity. Deities grant and deny spells on their whims, but generally withhold power only for major violations and willingly accept those who atone back if they show sincerity. Deities only grant power to those within one step of their alignment (and sometimes less, e.g. St. Cuthbert and Wee Jas).
> Nature (Adp, Drd, Rgr)
> The spells come from the essence of living things and the power of the land itself. If the character acts in opposition to nature (wanton killing, destruction of land, etc.), he or she loses spellcasting and other granted powers until he or she atones. Repeated or flagrant violations may cause permanent loss.
> Pantheon (Adp, Clr)
> The spells come from the Pantheon as a whole. Powers are lost if the character acts in a manner inconsistent with the 2E TN alignment, but are regained upon a sincere atonement. The pantheon never grants alignment domains. The current members of the pantheon is as follows: Heironeous, Moradin, Yondalla, Bahamut, Pelor, Ehlonna, Corellon Larethian, Kord, Sif, Deptat, St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas, Nike, Boccob, Genos, Matrar, Obad-Hai, Ethi, Olidammara, Ebon, Kain, Kurtulmak, Tiamat, Crebar, Hades, Ares, Halgrin. Worshipers of the Pantheon are called Pantheonists, patheonists, or catholics.
> Powers (Adp, Blk, Clr, Pal)
> The spells come from one of the bodiless, semi-sentient Powers of the universe: Air, Earth, Fire, Negative, Positive, or Water. The Powers have no special agenda for the world except their own supremacy. Powers withdraw their favor if the character calls on or supports an opposed Power. An atonement spell will restore the powers if the use or support was unintentional. Those who draw power from Positive may not be evil; those who draw power from Negative may not be good. Powers do not grant access to spells or domains with descriptors opposite their own (Air vs. Earth, Fire vs. Water, Negative vs. Good, Positive vs. Evil). Positive allows clerics to spontaneously cast cure spells and turn/destroy undead, while Negative allows clerics to spontaneously cast inflict spells and rebuke/command undead. Powers never grant alignment domains.




Looks pretty good to me.  If more people gave godless clerics these restrictions, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it.  I do have one question about your pantheon worshippers though.  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?


----------



## Gothmog

Spatula said:
			
		

> So I take it that Monks are banned as well in your games.




Yep, no monks, at least in the part of the campaign world I have detailed so far.  They just don't have the right feel to me in a D&D game.


----------



## fusangite

My games tend to have a medieval or bronze age feel; I basically require everyone to have a god, cleric or not. I understand that some people like the idea of playing modern people in pre-modern worlds, in which case godless clerics would be quite reasonable (we elected one to our city council here in Vancouver a year ago) but it's just not my thing.

And no. I don't let monks into my games either.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Gothmog said:
			
		

> but you have to admit that it does often appeal to the powergamer to be able to pick and choose powers with no chance of retribution or deity restraints on their character.




I guess I'd have to admit that it COULD... but since none of the egrarious powergamers I've dealt with have chosen to play godless clerics, I can't comment at all on the "does often." And some have chosen to play clerics or alt.clerics, which they powergamed quite nicely within the theoretical diety constraints.   

I play for concept first and power second, unless I am trapped among unrepentant powergamers (and then I eventually leave). I like the idea of godless clerics because it has a great flavor for a certain kind of character, organization or world. I also choose my gaming options for flavor, fun and customizability... These days I deal with any fears of "that could be abused by powergamers" by just not playing with them.   

And as I tried to mention earlier (damn computer) I as a DM would place MUCH greater RP constraints on a player who chose to be dedicated to certain ideals than some guy with a diety... If I had a player taking war and destruction as domains, he is either gonna play it to the hilt (and probably be a liability in the many social encounters) or find his spells failing... Basing your entire life around ideals is far more restricting than worshipping a god who grants you powers based on two of his several spheres of influence... at least the way I would play it.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Kahuna Burger

fusangite said:
			
		

> My games tend to have a medieval or bronze age feel; I basically require everyone to have a god, cleric or not. I understand that some people like the idea of playing modern people in pre-modern worlds, in which case godless clerics would be quite reasonable (we elected one to our city council here in Vancouver a year ago) but it's just not my thing.




er, without making this too political or real life religious, I think you may be working from a incorrect veiw of premodern thought.... Also, the existance of magic itself makes your idea that people have to think the way you assume real people at that technology level fairly suspect, even if you could be sure about the universal beliefs of people in those times... So I'm gonna take your "modern people in pre-modern worlds" comment with a serious grain of salt as describing any here's game.

Kahuna Burger


----------



## hong

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Ok, maybe metagame wasn't quite the right term (I meant explanation of why the world is the way it is), but I think you know what I mean.  Nebulous forces of existence such as good, nature, storms, etc are more of a hallmark of eastern religions or spirit worship such as the Native Americans had.  It just doesn't fit well in a quasi-medieval cosmology without substantial remodeling, and that would also entail completely redoing the societal and moral implications behind the cultural structure.




Pish tosh. "May the Force be with you" is not 1000 miles removed from the occidental experience.



> Virtually all European religions had personified deities, with their own worshippers and holy men, and even in those cases where an entire pantheon was worshipped, the gods were still the object of veneration, not nebulous concepts.  Nebulous concepts don't have divine right behind them like leaders backed by a church- and therefore much of the quasi-medieval cultural structure goes out the window.




So, was it the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost who granted the Pope domain over the Catholic Church?



> Even with multiple gods in a setting, divine right and religious orders can possess extensive political and moral power in a culture, which would be completely lacking or feel extremely artificial without deities.




It's clear that you have an extremely circumscribed worldview. Not that there's anything wrong with that.



> I have done extensive research and put a lot of thought into the metaphysical concerns of my world since it doesn't follow the D&D cosmology by the books (which require gods for their published settings), and godless clerics are just a lame powergamer's copout IMO.




Given that you seem to think Destruction and War are what these eponymous "powergamers" drool over, I think you really have no idea what you're burbling about. Again.



> As far as the Holy Ghost goes, I really have no idea of the personality.  It strikes me as more the essence of God, whereas God is a protector, father figure, and divine retribution; while Jesus embodies goodness, compassion, forgiveness, and redepmption.  PLEASE DON'T START A RELIGIOUS DEBATE OVER THIS PEOPLE, ITS JUST MY HYPOTHETICAL TAKE ON THE DIVINE ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MYTHOLOGY.



And how many clerics of the Holy Ghost are there?


----------



## The Spectrum Rider

No godless clerics IMC, for flavor reasons; it just wouldn't fit in with the feel. That's me and my world, though; I see no reason to try to convince DM's running other worlds that this answer is somehow universally "right."

Druids and rangers can draw their powers from "nature," but nature is often personaified in the form of the Green Mother (also called the Grain Mother or the Rain Mother). She's both a concept and a person (that is, a sentient personality). For that matter, even my goddess of cats (Bast) seems to be an anthropomorphic manifestation of the general concept of cats. This is not true of all my gods, however; most were either created directly by the creator deity, or are the descendents of those gods.

We also have elemental gods, like Terr, the elemental god of earth (as opposed to, say, Anlatt, the god of the forge, who has Earth among his domains). Sometimes he seems like a person, sometimes simply like the metaphysical heart of the Elemental Plane of Earth. It depends on your point of view....

The Spectrum Rider


----------



## d4

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> ...I'm just trying to get at why people don't like philosopher clerics or whatever you want to call them...



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

in my world-building, i like to have _concrete_ sources for magical power -- especially divine magic. so the idea of someone gaining magical abilities because they really, really, fervently believe in an abstract idea doesn't quite work for me.

like i mentioned before, someone who uses magic because of their own faith in themselves is, IMO, a sorcerer, not some variety of cleric. (even in that case, in my world-building i'll talk about where sorcerers and other arcane spellcasters draw their power from as well.)


----------



## Dark Jezter

d4 said:
			
		

> personally, i just have a hard time wrapping my head around someone getting powers from something as nebulous as a "philosophy."
> 
> in my world-building, i like to have _concrete_ sources for magical power -- especially divine magic. so the idea of someone gaining magical abilities because they really, really, fervently believe in an abstract idea doesn't quite work for me.
> 
> like i mentioned before, someone who uses magic because of their own faith in themselves is, IMO, a sorcerer, not some variety of cleric. (even in that case, in my world-building i'll talk about where sorcerers and other arcane spellcasters draw their power from as well.)




Same here.  I find it silly that a divine spellcaster could recieve spellcasting power from a "philosophy".  With the exception of the Warcraft RPG (in which priests and paladins can gain power from their own faith and conviction), I don't think I'll ever allow players to play as a godless divine spellcaster.  Here's what I would decide even in a non-FR campaign:

*Bards, Wizards, and Sorcerers:*  Gain their power from the universe itself, whether they cast from innate ability or careful study.  Arcane magic does not require a patron deity.

*Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers:*  Gain their spellcasting powers and supernatural abilites from their patron deity.  Druids gain their powers from nature deities.  A character must have a patron deity if they want to take levels in Cleric, Druid, or Paladin.  Rangers aren't required to have patron deities, although not having a patron deity will make them unable to cast ranger spells.


----------



## fusangite

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> er, without making this too political or real life religious, I think you may be working from a incorrect veiw of premodern thought.... Also, the existance of magic itself makes your idea that people have to think the way you assume real people at that technology level fairly suspect, even if you could be sure about the universal beliefs of people in those times... So I'm gonna take your "modern people in pre-modern worlds" comment with a serious grain of salt as describing any here's game.




I'm not categorizing all pre-modern civilizations in this way. Clearly, in classical civilization and in ancient India, atheism was an accessible concept endorsed by a small minority within the intellectual elite of society. But those civilizations aren't like the ones in which I enjoy playing. For most of European history (and European-style places are where I set my games), the existence of god(s) was a self-evident truth to such a large portion of the population that even if there existed atheists, we can detect no atheist discourse.

Even if I somehow believed that there was atheist discourse in these periods, it still wouldn't make me permit people to play clerics of philosophies. Stoics, Epicureans, Aristotelians, Platonists, Cynics, Lokhayata Hindus, etc. do not appear to have had any kind of equivalent of the cleric class so I really don't see a pre-modern cleric role. So, I'm still quite uninterested in the concept of atheistic clerics because of my desire to generate worlds with a pre-modern feel.

I also endorse Dark Jezter and D4's formulations of the problems with justifying divine magical power within D&D physics if it is not channeled power.


----------



## Dirigible

Does the structure of the answers seem a bit biased to anyone else?

In most campaigns, I don't allow Godless clerics. Divine magic comes straight from the deity in question, not from some battery of Positivity or Negativity behind the Gods (on the other hand, I've never GM'd Planescape, in which case all of the foregoing _wouldn't_ apply).

However, at least one campaign I've GM'd only allowed Godless clerics, who followed self-derived philosophies, couldn't chennel energy but got massive bonuses to Will.


----------



## Gez

The thing is, godless clerics allow for unrepentant min-maxing only if you let them pick any alignment/domain1/domain2 combination. 

There's nothing wrong with mystic philosophers (not anymore than with wizards), if you are careful about what you allow.

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

Here it is, you have a philosophy. It's just like a god, except the ethos is much more loose and there are person behind you.

But you still have check and balances. You can't use this philosophy to get Travel and War, for example. And don't whine about freedom fighters!

An interesting thing is that real-world alchemists (from Renaissance and (very) late Middle-Age), if they were teleported in a D&D world and were granted the wonder that is "but it works now" on their magic; they would have an arcane outlook, but would actually be much closer to philosopher 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

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> 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

Gez said:
			
		

> 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

Gothmog said:
			
		

> 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 _commune_s 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

Mercule said:
			
		

> 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

Henry said:
			
		

> 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

hong said:
			
		

> 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

d4 said:
			
		

> 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

Mercule said:
			
		

> 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

hong said:
			
		

> 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

Wombat said:
			
		

> 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

the Jester said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## adwyn

For nearly twenty years I have used a church of deicidalist "godless" clerics who have usurped the divine magic as a focal point of my campaign. In the beginning (i.e. 1st ed) I was ridiculed by a few players, but most took well to the concept. I later felt validated when the 2E Priest's Handbook included their more abstract clerics. I have also found it is the aspect of the campaign most remembered by past players, so up with the godless clerics.


----------



## the Jester

Mercule said:
			
		

> 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.




Or perhaps an adept.  My point was simply that there are _clergy_ (i.e. clerics, though the definition in the real world doesn't include spells and all that, of course) of religions without deities.  Personally, I don't think the cleric class reflects well any priest type other than the medeival western-European type.  I'm pretty fond of alternate core religious ideas (like OA shugenja, shamans and sohei, etc.) for flavor purposes, though it depends on the culture your character is from of course.


----------



## Kodam

*Subtle Gods*

Hi!

Nobody in my Planescape Campaign plays a Cleric at all but if s.o. asked I'd allow it. But I'd have the Player describe to what the Character is dedicated "good", "preservation", "change" or whatever. Then there wouldn't be so many options for domains left. 
The lower level spells or domain powers come from the intense faith of the cleric only, no god has to be involved at all. When the character rises to fifth level (when he first gets 3. level spells) he'll have attracted the interest of some god by his former actions. For example by attacking the temple of one god, its one of this gods divine foes, by studying its a god of knowledge and so on. This divine being will then unbeknowst to the "godless" cleric "sponsor" him with spells for he still furthers that gods goals.

Kodam


----------



## tzor

Sometimes we make assumptions that are not in the rules.  There seems to be an assumption that a "godless" cleric is a cleric who doesn't believe in gods or who doesn't follow any gods.  But if you look at the SRD quotes the exact wording is "If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity."

This would allow a cleric who is devoted to a range of deities, including an entire pantheon, or a cleric who receives his powers from one or more deities without being specifically devoted to that deity.

There are some situations where a peronsal relationship with a deity is the norm within a pantheon and some scenarios require this.  Temple clerics are good examples, even within a pantheon the cleric of specific temples is dedicated to the deity of the temple.  But some temples are also for a general pantheon, others might be for a cross pantheon arrangement based on one or more factors.

I like to run highly modified Lankhmar campaigns.  Here I take the question and flip it around.  Not only do I allow "godless" clerics (although I have had none come up in my campaign) I also allow "clericless" gods.  Why would the god of lawful good thieves (yes he's a bit odd in the divine head) want to have clerics for assistants.  Instead his servants are thieves.


----------



## DiamondB

I have no problem at all with godless clerics.  In fact they are a significant aspect of my homebrew world.  In my campaign world, the ElF, Dwarf and Gnome clerics are all godless.  The elves have 3 major religious philosophies, Life, Elemental Power and Arcane Power, with a couple of "prestige" philosophies as well.  My dwarven religious philosophy is based around brotherhoods/sisterhoods, gaining power for concepts (i.e. the concept of War) as opposed to dieties.  Gnomes are just a little wierd and are still in development, but secret societies (i.e. Masons) are more accurate for their religions.

Anyone interested in more info can click the link in my signature.


----------



## fusangite

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> 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.




Hey -- I have no problem with pantheon-based clerics. They are probably closer to the flavour of my campaigns than single god clerics. 



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> 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.




Thanks for bringing this up. No. Aristotelianism gives you an understanding of how physics/magic works so you can manipulate it. Aristotelian magic is exactly what I imagine when I think about arcane (especially wizard-based) magic.


----------



## Psion

Incidentally, the Platonic angle is the only way I could stomach the idea of "direct faith" in the second world setting. The philosophical ideal is not just an idea, it's a _form_ that has tangible existence somewhere that forms the basis of reality. I can relate to it on that level (and since Peterson speaks of creatures like forms in the Forge, it fits in with the setting.)

But even that is more to go on than "faith alone" and has a credible difference from arcane magic.

Edit: Plato not Aristotle. Been too many years since Philosophy 101.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

I require clerics to have a patron diety.   Most of the people in the Flanaess don't only worship one diety they will pray to the diety in the pathenon they believe in that has power over thier fate at that time.   If you are a Suel and you are praying to avoid a deadly plague you may pray to Wee Jas, if you are praying for the power to lift a log off your son you may say a quick prayer to Kord, etc.  However to get divine power channeled to you, ie spellcasting power, one must devote oneself to a diety mind, body, and soul.


----------



## Xeriar

I run a campaign where godless clerics are the only option available.


----------



## d4

the Jester said:
			
		

> 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.



i think this is my main beef with godless clerics. in the worlds i homebrew, the gods always predate the mortal races and are independent of them. gods do not receive any power from mortals' belief and belief can not create divine power -- the relationship is strictly from the deity to the mortal, not the other way around.

that's only one way of looking at the situation, but it's the only one i'm comfortable with as a world-builder. so no godless clerics in my campaigns.



> _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._



a religion without a god would have a clergy consisting of Experts focused on knowledge and social skills, not clerics.


----------



## Xeriar

d4 said:
			
		

> a religion without a god would have a clergy consisting of Experts focused on knowledge and social skills, not clerics.




That seems like a rather insulting way of looking at Buddhism and Taoism.


----------



## d4

Xeriar said:
			
		

> That seems like a rather insulting way of looking at Buddhism and Taoism.



what, that they are experts with a broad range of knowledge and interpersonal skills, learned through years of study and devotion to their philosophy, as opposed to have KEWL POWERZ granted by some divine figurehead? i fail to see how that is insulting to those of a more philosophical bent.


----------



## Gellion

If i Dmed a game, i would allow godless Cleics.  I would not even care what two domains they pciked.  Although, only Humans would be able to be godless Clerics.  

Then again, there would be Chaotic Good Ur-Priests in my game...


----------



## fusangite

I must say that I have trouble with the idea of an Aristotelian cleric. Aristotelianism was physics; it was science. Understanding Aristotelianism didn't make you an adherent of a worldview, it provided you with an analytical framework. Magic derived from Aristotelianism is arcane magic: you come to understand your world's physics so you can exploit it. Aristotelianism doesn't demand allegiance; it explains the world; that's why it could be grafted onto Christianity so easily to create high medieval thought.


----------



## Wraith Form

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I wouldn't allow it for Flavor reasons.
> 
> A "Godless Cleric" is a bookeeper (at best)
> 
> I'm not even sure I understand the idea of a Priest who foloows no Gods.



I'm mostly with TB on this one, although Dark Sun's "clerics" "worshipped" (drew power from) the elements, which I kinda liked.

What is a cleric, anyway?  S/he's a catalyst for what we would perceive as a *miracle*.  In a D&D game, the source of that miraculous event could be any number of different....persons/places/things.  In AD&D 2nd Ed Priest Handbook they used to have the Philosophy of Man.  I enjoyed having monks take that when I was a player.

I feel that any source of power that a mortal draws from to "fuel" spells, ASIDE from magic (which is latent energy) could be considered "god-ish".  [old physics crap:  magic = potential energy, psionics/deific influences = kinetic energy   ]

Aww, heck...magic, psionics, holy powers, miracles, supernatural occurances--they all fall into the same boat somewhere on a metagame level.  I'd require _something_ to fuel a spell/spell-like ability, simply because it makes the game more fun!


----------



## I'm A Banana

Not allowing godless clerics can be a campaign descision, and I've got no beef with it. If Gods -> Matter -> Creatures, and that's why they worship them, and godless clerics are like "WTF?!", okay. That's no more a drastic campaign decision than outlawing Paladins, or allowing Shugenja. It's just part of how you define your world (though I still think it's misguided, but meh). A philosophy can easily be reprsented by a deity...you pledge yourself to Goodness and Protection, and there's a god for it. You pledge yourself to Evil and Destruction, and there's a god for it. You pledge yourself for Enlightenment and Self-Awareness, there's a god for it. I can live with that.

I have a LOT of trouble accepting that the very concept of a godless cleric is stupid, munchy, and nonsensical. It isn't. There doesn't have to be some dude in the clouds allowing the clerics to cast spells. To assume there must be is not only narrowminded, but also a house rule.

WHY DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A DEITY?!

I can understand if that's not your personal preference, or if you don't allow it in your campaign. However, I can see no reason to think that there has to be one, or it's arcane, and there's no reason to think that things are somehow redefined because of that...how is a philosophy more nebulous than "some guy in the sun"? Or even more nebulous than Arcane magic, which doesn't even HAVE a source according to the SRD...the only 'source' for arcane magic is mentioned in that every bard spell has a verbal component...how is that more nebulous than adherence to a philosophy?

According to the SRD:


> Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. The divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.




See divine forces? It's wonderfully open-ended...philosophies could be divine forces...Nature is called a divine force...the Moon could be a divine force...hell, by the rules, Paladins are *nessecarily* godless (instead gaining power from Law and Good), and don't need to appease any deity.

How does that mean we have to re-define divine magic?

Arcane magic, meanwhile, doesn't even specify a source, hinting that you could even cast arcane magic from a deity or divine force...imagine that....a Sorcerer could be a 'clergy member' in any world, and *actually* gain *real* spells from the deities.

It's also weird that those who have trouble with godless clerics have no trouble with pantheon-worshipping clerics, which is in effect ALMOST like allowing a cleric to choose any two domains ANYWAY....why do you have to have a pantheon?

There's no real balance issues (otherwise it wouldn't've made it through the intense playtesting of the Core Rules, and there'd be more advice in picking domains for new dieties than 'whatever fits'). There's absolutely no definition issues. Thus there is only the issue of personal preference...which is all well and good as far as it goes, but then you have to allow others to have equally as valid, if differing, personal preferences, no?


----------



## Xeriar

d4 said:
			
		

> what, that they are experts with a broad range of knowledge and interpersonal skills, learned through years of study and devotion to their philosophy, as opposed to have KEWL POWERZ granted by some divine figurehead? i fail to see how that is insulting to those of a more philosophical bent.




You are dismissing their faith as mere knowledge of the mortal realm.

Just because Buddhism, Taoism, Confucionism and others (including some forms of early Christianity) have no 'god' does not mean that they aren't spiritual - it's just that the existance or nonexistance of such a god is secondary to the point.

You might lump Confucianism in with Druids (make a class called honorary or something?)

The thing about Taoism and Buddhism is that they aren't about knowledge and interpersonal skills.  I don't know why anyone would think that unless they haven't studied these religions.


----------



## Xeriar

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> What is a cleric, anyway?  S/he's a catalyst for what we would perceive as a *miracle*.  In a D&D game, the source of that miraculous event could be any number of different....persons/places/things.  In AD&D 2nd Ed Priest Handbook they used to have the Philosophy of Man.  I enjoyed having monks take that when I was a player.




Siddhartha Guatema walked on water too (according to legend) - amongst a large number of other miracles - but he never espoused faith in a god.

In fact, when asked whether or not there was a god, he refused to answer, because in knowing the answer you would focus overmuch on it and risk losing touch with your path along Nirvana.



> I feel that any source of power that a mortal draws from to "fuel" spells, ASIDE from magic (which is latent energy) could be considered "god-ish".  [old physics crap:  magic = potential energy, psionics/deific influences = kinetic energy   ]




If you can accept magic and psionics, why not a faith in an understanding deeper than normal observation may know?



> Aww, heck...magic, psionics, holy powers, miracles, supernatural occurances--they all fall into the same boat somewhere on a metagame level.  I'd require _something_ to fuel a spell/spell-like ability, simply because it makes the game more fun!




We're talking about our own respective little universes here.

Taking your statement though, who says something isn't fueling it?  The draw of Nirvana or the power of The Way, or whatever.

Like I mentioned, I had a campaign world where there were no gods (re, they all got smaxxorred) - and thus they needed 'replacement'.  The way of it was - the Planet was, indirectly fuelling all magic - but to the 48 clerics of the world, it was because they had an understanding of how the world worked and, through force of will, they could manipulate it.


----------



## Wraith Form

Xeriar said:
			
		

> Siddhartha Guatema walked on water too (according to legend) - amongst a large number of other miracles - but he never espoused faith in a god.
> 
> In fact, when asked whether or not there was a god, he refused to answer, because in knowing the answer you would focus overmuch on it and risk losing touch with your path along Nirvana.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can accept magic and psionics, why not a faith in an understanding deeper than normal observation may know?
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about our own respective little universes here.
> 
> Taking your statement though, who says something isn't fueling it?  The draw of Nirvana or the power of The Way, or whatever.
> 
> Like I mentioned, I had a campaign world where there were no gods (re, they all got smaxxorred) - and thus they needed 'replacement'.  The way of it was - the Planet was, indirectly fuelling all magic - but to the 48 clerics of the world, it was because they had an understanding of how the world worked and, through force of will, they could manipulate it.



_(in best Keanu voice)_:  *Whoa*.

You're all, like, Matrixing out on me, dude.   

My personal spiritual belief is, like, way different from what I'd accept in a D&D setting....err, or something.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig

See, my D&D campaigns tend to lean heavily on Planescape ideas (in fact, my current game is Planescape), so things like Philosopher-Clerics and other varieties of godless Cleric make sense to me-- as do Clerics who are dyed-in-the-wool representations of their chosen deity and woe be it unto them who would say otherwise. Right now, our only divine caster is a Druid, but we're about to pick up a Ranger and a proto-Blackguard. Amoung the available sources in the game is Oriental Adventures, which has a couple non-deific Divine-casting classes, and I have no problem with someone using those.

(Hell, I'd be happy to see a Sorceror/Shugenja/Mystic Theurge... we're more than a little low on the mojoslingers.)


----------



## diaglo

before we added Supplement IV to our campaign all of the clerics were godless. they followed a religion based on alignment.


----------



## jasamcarl

fusangite said:
			
		

> I must say that I have trouble with the idea of an Aristotelian cleric. Aristotelianism was physics; it was science. Understanding Aristotelianism didn't make you an adherent of a worldview, it provided you with an analytical framework. Magic derived from Aristotelianism is arcane magic: you come to understand your world's physics so you can exploit it. Aristotelianism doesn't demand allegiance; it explains the world; that's why it could be grafted onto Christianity so easily to create high medieval thought.




You're right. I think people are thinking in a more platonic framework, though for Plato, there would have been one axis of truth, not four. You have the purity of Plato and qualitative differences of Aristotle. God this sounds pompous. I will stay out.


----------



## Psion

Kormyr the Rat said:
			
		

> See, my D&D campaigns tend to lean heavily on Planescape ideas (in fact, my current game is Planescape), so things like Philosopher-Clerics and other varieties of godless Cleric make sense to me-- as do Clerics who are dyed-in-the-wool representations of their chosen deity and woe be it unto them who would say otherwise.




Just how is that Planescape?

In Planescape, there were priests with deities, pantheon priests, and the Athar. The Athar were considered somewhat remarkable in that they seemed to have no named divinity. Most of planescape was based around the concept of the character's deity existing tangibly somewhere -- take a look at the rules for clerical level loss when moving away from a deity's home plane.

And even the Athar's power source was known to reside on a specific plane.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig

Psion said:
			
		

> Just how is that Planescape?



 It ties in very neatly with the constant Planescape theme that beliefs had power all their own.


----------



## Bloodsparrow

hong said:
			
		

> So, was it the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost who granted the Pope domain over the Catholic Church?




It was the Father, but the Son was the method of delivery... If by "the Son" you mean Jeasus. (Mathew 16:17-18)

Moving on... 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> it provided you with an analytical framework. Magic derived from Aristotelianism is arcane magic: you come to understand your world's physics so you can exploit it. Aristotelianism doesn't demand allegiance; it explains the world; that's why it could be grafted onto Christianity so easily to create high medieval thought.




But there's no reason you couldn't modify that framework, or create a new framework based on those methods, to apply to the devine.

((I think you could.  As in the discussion between Donny and the Science Teacher in the movie Donny Darko.  They seemed to be getting somewhere but, just as it gets interesting...  ))


----------



## Storm Raven

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> but I've never actually seen a DM place any diety constraints on a cleric... it comes up with paladins, but not clerics, IME.




I'm currently running into this as an unexpected point of contention between myself and a player in the game I am DMing. I pointed out to him that his character was behaving in a manner not really suitable to his deity's outlook, and he has gotten upset with me for "telling him how to run his character."

I have been trying to explain to him that I am not telling him how to run his character, just the probable consequences for running his character in the manner he is running it. His response has been that "my choice of deity is nothing more than which domains I select from, and means nothing more". On the other hand, I view the deities as having particular agendas, which they bestow their followers with powers to promote and advance. Thus, we are at loggerheads.

It is annoying when your assumptions about "campaign religion" are completely ignored by the players.


----------



## Umbran

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It is annoying when your assumptions about "campaign religion" are completely ignored by the players.




Yes, but I _always_ discuss my assumptions with the player before the character comes into play.  I'll bet that you didn't do so.  Communication is key, especially in the religion and alignment departments.


----------



## Storm Raven

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *You are dismissing their faith as mere knowledge of the mortal realm.*





No, he's describing their faith as not being conducive to having members with _kewl powerz_ granted by a figurehead deity.



> *Just because Buddhism, Taoism, Confucionism and others (including some forms of early Christianity) have no 'god' does not mean that they aren't spiritual - it's just that the existance or nonexistance of such a god is secondary to the point.*




Do you have to have a cadre of individuals with _kewl powerz_ to have a spiritual bent? Divine spell casters don't have a corner on the concept of spiritual study and enlightenment, they just have a particular method of expressing it.



> *The thing about Taoism and Buddhism is that they aren't about knowledge and interpersonal skills.  I don't know why anyone would think that unless they haven't studied these religions.*





In D&D terms, their focus would be on things like Knowledge: Philosophy, Knowledge: Religion, and Knowledge: Nature, so in D&D terms, he's pretty much right.


----------



## Storm Raven

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes, but I _always_ discuss my assumptions with the player before the character comes into play.  I'll bet that you didn't do so.  Communication is key, especially in the religion and alignment departments.




Actually, I thought I did. For example, in each write up concerning a deity, I outlined the things that were important to that deity, and what sorts of characteristics priests of that divine power would be expected to emulate and promote. I'm getting the impression that the player in question didn't read the material on deities I gave out before the campaign started.


----------



## Xeriar

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> _(in best Keanu voice)_:  *Whoa*.
> 
> You're all, like, Matrixing out on me, dude.
> 
> My personal spiritual belief is, like, way different from what I'd accept in a D&D setting....err, or something.




There is, naturally, a small difference between your personal spiritual path and one six to seven hundred million people aspire to.


----------



## Psion

I am so on the same page, Storm Raven. The Greyhawk deities and the godless cleric clause have caused me countless headaches every time a player makes a divine spellcaster. I do explain the fact that _these_ are the religions, but "what's in the book" seems to have primacy in the players' mind, despite rule zero.


----------



## Xeriar

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, he's describing their faith as not being conducive to having members with _kewl powerz_ granted by a figurehead deity.




There is a problem with that view, however.



> Do you have to have a cadre of individuals with _kewl powerz_ to have a spiritual bent? Divine spell casters don't have a corner on the concept of spiritual study and enlightenment, they just have a particular method of expressing it.




Taoist and Buddhist practicioners frequently end up with _kewl powerz_ in legend.  If D&D is supposed to emulate legend, then calling them merely scholars is WestoCentric.



> In D&D terms, their focus would be on things like Knowledge: Philosophy, Knowledge: Religion, and Knowledge: Nature, so in D&D terms, he's pretty much right.




If you can tell me how any skill, partial skill, group of skills represents Taoism, then I might consider conceding the point that they should be experts in those skills or at least have them.

From my understanding of Taoism, the idea that they would all (or even a majority) take even one of those knowledge skills makes no sense at all.


----------



## diaglo

Psion said:
			
		

> I am so on the same page, Storm Raven. The Greyhawk deities and the godless cleric clause have caused me countless headaches every time a player makes a divine spellcaster. I do explain the fact that _these_ are the religions, but "what's in the book" seems to have primacy in the players' mind, despite rule zero.




well it could be your choice of editions....


----------



## Xeriar

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I have been trying to explain to him that I am not telling him how to run his character, just the probable consequences for running his character in the manner he is running it. His response has been that "my choice of deity is nothing more than which domains I select from, and means nothing more". On the other hand, I view the deities as having particular agendas, which they bestow their followers with powers to promote and advance. Thus, we are at loggerheads.




By the way, I'm by no means advocating that these philosophies can allow someone to pick two random domains and ignore the philosophy, either.  A boddhistava has still followed the eightfold path (a long way), and though the religion does not have the concept of sin as such, you can lose your way, and stumble backwards on the path.


----------



## Psion

> well it could be your choice of editions....




Yes, you're right. For both of the players I mention, they had only played prior editions, and were used to the rulebooks being "the law from on high" as spoken by Gary instead of a toolkit. 

Edit/Clarification: No, I don't really beleive my players are worth deriding because of the editions they prefer/are experienced with/choose to play. This is merely a "right back atcha" for diaglo.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, he's describing their faith as not being conducive to having members with _kewl powerz_ granted by a figurehead deity.




Because they are instead conductive to having the class abilities assigned to the spiritually active spellcasters. Using stupid terms to implicitly insult anyone who thinks a cleric can represent non deity centered religious or spiritual traditions is just making you look immature...



> Do you have to have a cadre of individuals with _kewl powerz_ to have a spiritual bent? Divine spell casters don't have a corner on the concept of spiritual study and enlightenment, they just have a particular method of expressing it.
> 
> In D&D terms, their focus would be on things like Knowledge: Philosophy, Knowledge: Religion, and Knowledge: Nature, so in D&D terms, he's pretty much right.




I'd say you're missing the point, but its looks more likely that you're ducking it.

The cleric class represents divine casters... casters who derive their powers through some form of spirituality. The actual descriptions of divine power indicate that sentient dieties are only one source of it. There are numerous real world examples of diety free spirituality. Saying that they could only be represented by a magic free npc class is saying in almost so many words that "they aren't real religions". Its insulting and serves no purpose.

With the exception of faith healers and other frauds, there aren't a lot of real world traditions that claim to give access to planned, controllable bursts of supernatural energy. Therefore, NO religion should have "in D&D terms" spellcasting power. So I guess clerics don't exist...    In fact, cleric is a class. Its used to represent a) a certain style of magic and b) a certain kind of character. I and others have easily fit characters unconcerned with gods, or even rejecting of gods into both the mechanics and flavor of the class with no problem. 

Now, a lot of people run campaigns that they feel those characters wouldn't fit into, fine. But I'm frankly amazed at the level of insults, false information on real world spirituality, deliberate bending of others' words and dogmatic insistance that those who don't have your 'limits' are doing it wrong... To the point that I'd encorage any mods around to just close this thread as having served its purpose (its true that a lot of folks don't like godless clerics and its a flavor issue) and having no where good to go from here.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Zappo

Psion said:
			
		

> Just how is that Planescape?



Planescape had generic priests. If I recall correctly, it even specified that a follower of the Athar could not receive healing _by a priest that follows a deity_, but that at faction headquarters they could find friendly generic clerics. I think that they were mostly assumed to be worshipping an alignment, rather than a generic ideal. However, expanding the concept to let a cleric worship an ideal is very in theme with Planescape.

 A cleric with a deity, however, has the advantage of an established church to rely upon.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Psion said:
			
		

> Yes, you're right. For both of the players I mention, they had only played prior editions, and were used to the rulebooks being "the law from on high" as spoken by Gary instead of a toolkit.




Which you have replaced with "the law from on high" as spoken by you, regardless of the enjoyment of the group as a whole?    When you say :



> I do explain the fact that these are the religions,



It seems like your players can't contribute to your world except by filling the roles that you've laid out and approved. Maybe that works for you, but I've always had success allowing the players some latitude in expanding the game world through their character creation, and that includes religious and societal choices. 

Just to clarify your policy here, if someone wanted to play a non cleric class with an alternate religion (say a small one centered in their home village) would you reject that even as a background choice with no impact on the stats?

Kahuna burger


----------



## Psion

Zappo said:
			
		

> Planescape had generic priests. If I recall correctly, it even specified that a follower of the Athar could not receive healing _by a priest that follows a deity_, but that at faction headquarters they could find friendly generic clerics.




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.


----------



## Psion

> Which you have replaced with "the law from on high" as spoken by you, regardless of the enjoyment of the group as a whole?




Before I begin stating how I disagree with you, let me emphasize that my statement was phased specifically as a retort in mock-diaglo mindset. In actually, I wasn't/wouldn't deriding the players. They are good players overall, and the whole issue could have been avoided if the PHB better emphasized the DMs role in establishing the prevailing cosmology. The game should serve the players, not the players the game.

That said: I am sorry to have to differ with you, but it is the GMs duty and responsibility to provide the enviroment for the players. When the books facilitate in this endeavor, this is good. When they are intrusive in this endeavor, it is bad.



> It seems like your players can't contribute to your world except by filling the roles that you've laid out and approved.




They sure can contribute -- if they are willing to create a divinity that works with the existing cosmology; I don't allow players to insist I use a deity from another setting (and I have had them try). I allow players to make suggestions. In fact, my closest accomodation to this godless cleric thing is that I allow the player to define a minor power/demigod that fits a role closer to that the player desires if none of the presented ones will do. In my game, the pantheon of deities that exists is extensive like some animist faiths, with thousands of powerful spirits worthy of being called demigods and capable of granting spells. 

But I as the GM reserve the final say on what it appropriate, and I am not going to write something into the game that is inconsistanct with the cosmology as it is defined. Large aspects of the campaign are based around the idea of the pantheons, the divine compact that exists between them, and their relationship with the world as it exists.



> Just to clarify your policy here, if someone wanted to play a non cleric class with an alternate religion (say a small one centered in their home village) would you reject that even as a background choice with no impact on the stats?




What do you mean "non cleric class". Non divine spellcasters can beleive anything they want; it is not going to have a bona fide impact on the game beyond their behavior. Divine spellcasters of all stripes, though, need to get their divine power from a divine source; the concept of the faith itself generating the power is simply not part of my cosmology, at least not directly. Faith is power that divinities can use, but IMC, expecting faith alone to power spells is like expecting a full can of gas to cruise down the road like a car. You are missing a necessary intermediate step.


----------



## Storm Raven

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *I'd say you're missing the point, but its looks more likely that you're ducking it.*





Actually, it looks like you are missing the point.



> *The cleric class represents divine casters... casters who derive their powers through some form of spirituality.*




No, the class represents those who have divinely obtained powers. Spirituality doesn't enter into the equation at all. One could easily be a D&D cleric with no spirituality of any sort, so long as one had a divine power from which your powers spring.



> *The actual descriptions of divine power indicate that sentient dieties are only one source of it. There are numerous real world examples of diety free spirituality. Saying that they could only be represented by a magic free npc class is saying in almost so many words that "they aren't real religions". Its insulting and serves no purpose.*




No, it says that they aren't best reflected by the Catholic church inspired deity driven class used by D&D. Your narrow view (all people who are spritiual must be clerics) blinds you to the fact that spirituality is not the exclusive province of clerics. In point of fact, clerics should be the _exception_, not the rule, like all PC classes. In point of fact, most individuals of a psiritual bent should be Experts or something similar, because clerics are rare to begin with. Assuming that certain spiritual devotions are better represented by classes other than the cleric isn't insulting them, it is reflecting the fact that the cleric class doesn't fit all spiritual paths, many would be better reflected by a a cadre of educated experts, or monks of various stripes, or adepts, among other choices.



> *With the exception of faith healers and other frauds, there aren't a lot of real world traditions that claim to give access to planned, controllable bursts of supernatural energy.*




Have you read Exodus recently? Most of the classic clerical spells in D&D are drawn from there.



> *Therefore, NO religion should have "in D&D terms" spellcasting power. So I guess clerics don't exist...    In fact, cleric is a class. Its used to represent a) a certain style of magic and b) a certain kind of character. I and others have easily fit characters unconcerned with gods, or even rejecting of gods into both the mechanics and flavor of the class with no problem.*




You may think it does, but, of course, the designers of the Scarred Lands, Greyhawk, and Forgotten Realms disagree with you. A godless cleric may be technically permitted by the rules of the game, but they don't fit the character class design at all.


----------



## Storm Raven

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *It seems like your players can't contribute to your world except by filling the roles that you've laid out and approved.*





No one is required to play a divine spellcaster. Playing a divine spellcaster comes with associated baggage. If you don't want the associated baggage, play a different type of character.



> *Just to clarify your policy here, if someone wanted to play a non cleric class with an alternate religion (say a small one centered in their home village) would you reject that even as a background choice with no impact on the stats?*





If it was a godless religion? And he wanted to play a cleric of that godless relgion? Yep. Rejected outright. Godless clerics don't exist in the campaign. All divine power has a specific divine source. Ideals and alignments don't provide power on their own.

If it was cast as a religion devoted to a minor deity that had not previously been detailed? Maybe. It depends on the deity and whether it fits into the campaign.


----------



## Kahuna Burger

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, it says that they aren't best reflected by the Catholic church inspired deity driven class used by D&D. Your narrow view...




*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. Plonk and a half, sorry, no more time for this.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Kahuna Burger

> They sure can contribute -- if they are willing to create a divinity that works with the existing cosmology




ah, that clarifies your comments nicely. 

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Umbran

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, I thought I did. For example, in each write up concerning a deity, I outlined the things that were important to that deity, and what sorts of characteristics priests of that divine power would be expected to emulate and promote. I'm getting the impression that the player in question didn't read the material on deities I gave out before the campaign started.




Well, here's the thing - handing a person a writeup does not constitute a "discussion".    Giving them a paper, allowing them to read it, and then asking if they understand, want clarifications, or have any problems with it would be more like a discussion.  

Gamers are people, too.  If people cannot be counted on to RTFM, then don't expect gamers to do so.


----------



## fusangite

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?


----------



## jasamcarl

fusangite said:
			
		

> 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?




The other side of the coin in such a question is what religions have produced clerics of the types we see in DnD, who have such a broad range of real power? The answer is none, which makes the question irrelevant; its symantics. The cleric class is simply a mechanical option, and I see nothing wrong with allowing it to represent the broadly spiritual as oppossed to any formal, dogmatic faith. And I think you will find that there was little historical division between arcane/divine abilities; it's a later pulp coceit. 

Platonism and later forms of neo-platonism and the more parochial mysticism were all about bringing the spiritual into one's sense of real, which is what spells do. It's all fluff anyway, but I don't see how one can quible with an idea which is just as intuitive as gaining power from a burly giant who is both physical and something more.


----------



## Storm Raven

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *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 class, as currently written, is heavily influenced by its quasi-Catholic roots. Maybe you aren't able to see this, but even with all of the options clothing the basic root that are out there now, it still bears the clear marks of its origin. And as such, isn't very suitable for some particular spritual devotions.

Perhaps you were thinking that the class, with vast numebrs of the spells available drawn directly from sources like Exodus, a forbiddance against using edged weapons (now discarded), the ability to heal, and mastery over the undead and demons _wasn't_ designed directly based upon a somewhat warped view of mideaevil Catholicism. If so, you need to do some more research before you start opining on what the class is or is not suitable for.

Your narrow view that "spritiual = cleric" is your fundamental failing on this. Clerics are but one expression the game system has for spiritual characters. The game has a number of others: adept, expert, monk, the various psionic classes, heck, even the wizard and sorcerer easily cover some theological archetypes.


----------



## jasamcarl

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The class, as currently written, is heavily influenced by its quasi-Catholic roots. Maybe you aren't able to see this, but even with all of the options clothing the basic root that are out there now, it still bears the clear marks of its origin. And as such, isn't very suitable for some particular spritual devotions.
> 
> Perhaps you were thinking that the class, with vast numebrs of the spells available drawn directly from sources like Exodus, a forbiddance against using edged weapons (now discarded), the ability to heal, and mastery over the undead and demons _wasn't_ designed directly based upon a somewhat warped view of mideaevil Catholicism. If so, you need to do some more research before you start opining on what the class is or is not suitable for.
> 
> Your narrow view that "spritiual = cleric" is your fundamental failing on this. Clerics are but one expression the game system has for spiritual characters. The game has a number of others: adept, expert, monk, the various psionic classes, heck, even the wizard and sorcerer easily cover some theological archetypes.




Alot of DnD conventions were inspired by a midevil sense of the supernatural, but even in the Middle Ages the method one used to achieve alchemical metals and a number of things varied in the minds of those who partook in these activities. Many times mystics were explicitly not a part of the Church and did not buy into the Dualistic vision of reality that had become church doctrine (i.e. a kingdom of man and a kingdom of god). Many people thought that the world we live in was not at all real or essential and that it could be morphed through faith/wisdom as oppossed to relying on a proffessional priesthood to offer prayers to god and wait for the all mightly to impose his singular will on us all. 

You are thinking with more of a Jerusalum mindset and less with an Athenian.


----------



## Henry

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's not stray TOO far into discussion of mysticism and medieval catholic mindsets. It's getting rather heated, which is fine, but I see it's starting to get a little personal, which ain't too fine and dandy.

Let's avoid any suppositions about one another's religious beliefs, also.

Also, to clarify a point, I do recall Gary Gygax once noting that Cleric influences were characters like Archbishop Turpin from "The Song of Roland."


----------



## Xeriar

fusangite said:
			
		

> 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?




Ever heard of the Dalai Lama?

Or a Buddhist Monk?  Serving in something called a Pagoda?

There are frequent walking on water legends (My favourite though is:
 Monk1: I've done it.  For fifteen years, I have tried and failed, but yesterday I managed to walk on water.
 Monk2: You moron, you've wasted 15 years of your life and the ferry is 5 bucks.)

There are also tales of healing and curing, and the ability to raise the dead (though this would be abbhorant, it would be bringing someone back into the land of suffering).

Taoism is best exemplefied by either the monk class or the Force from Star Wars (seeing as how it was based on Taoism).  Maybe psionics.  There are stories of self-healing but you can't force Taoism on another unless they've already accepted it.

Taoists who would be priests would probably also be Shinto or some other form of Animism-like thing (ie Shugenja in Rokugan).

Buddhism however is in its entirety a much more diverse.  Either you make an entirely new spell list or you give them the cleric class and the choice of some domains (not sure what, actually, since IIRC healing has the raise dead and ressurection powers in it).


----------



## Xeriar

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> The other side of the coin in such a question is what religions have produced clerics of the types we see in DnD, who have such a broad range of real power? The answer is none, which makes the question irrelevant; its symantics. The cleric class is simply a mechanical option, and I see nothing wrong with allowing it to represent the broadly spiritual as oppossed to any formal, dogmatic faith. And I think you will find that there was little historical division between arcane/divine abilities; it's a later pulp coceit.




I believe it's supposed to reflect the 'holy warrior' ideal.

Which made me wonder about Paladins after Skills and Powers in 2e, but that's a digression.

Non-proselytize religions tend to have utterly seperate warrior and 'priestly' castes, as in Hinduism and ancient Persian faith, I believe the Egyptians did as well.

For some the concept of holy warriors is just anethma - ie Jainism.  

Proselytizing religions - even Buddhism, have this 'holy warrior' concept, though.

There was a division between arcane and divine abilities in Christendom - wizards and witches got their power from Satan...  Division enough for some, anyway.


----------



## Xeriar

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Perhaps you were thinking that the class, with vast numebrs of the spells available drawn directly from sources like Exodus, a forbiddance against using edged weapons (now discarded), the ability to heal, and mastery over the undead and demons _wasn't_ designed directly based upon a somewhat warped view of mideaevil Catholicism. If so, you need to do some more research before you start opining on what the class is or is not suitable for.




The no edged weapons was from Egypt, I believe (Amenhotep forbid the use of edged weapons.  Preisthood didn't like him and made sure his son, Tutenkhamen, didn't get so far).  Those flails often death death with very pointy parts.

But there is no hard line rule that says the cleric class must be modeled after 9th century Christianity.  It's supposed to be able to handle other faiths, and by extension, other faith systems (though in my opinion it does so poorly, it's the easist to start with).


----------



## tzor

First of all, it is difficult, if not impossible, to correctly determine or even assume that we can correctly determine the influences that made decisions in the early editions of D&D.

I think we can safely assume that everything influenced D&D and thus the cleric class in various ways, and one of those influences was the preceived view of the medieval mindset which has to by its very nature include the Catholic Church.

People were driving away vampires with crosses long before D&D so the notion of turning undead comes from culture, not per se from medieval sources.  The holy water rules are clearly from glances at the Catholic Church, including the early edition notion that he who had the biggest most expensive font made the most holy water.

Of coruse early editions didn't have things like domains or anything else that would have made a deity other than a label which the cleric would invoke as a part of his preaching.  The notion of clerical spells is derived from the same Vancian source as all the other spell types (cleric, druid, illusionist and wizard in AD&D) and have no relation to any preceived medieval mindset whatsoever.

Indeed one might even look at the whole situation in black and white ... literally.  This is the Leiber model where evil wizards are represented by the black wizards and the good wizards, known as white wizards tend to be in the service of some deity.  Leiber does derive his notion from a somewhat misunderstood notion of white magic and dark magic, a notion that was indeed discussed before the general witch craze banned all practice of preceived magic.  (Herbalism was generally considered "magic" in the medieval mindset.)

Some elements in AD&D were used merely for game balance.  Take the blunt weapon rule.  The rule simply allows fighters to have an advantage over clerics, because swords were better than maces.  Of course in the first edition, maces, morning stars and flails were hopelessly confused and confusing to many players.  I know I was one who thought the "Holy Water Sprinkler" was the mace like thing that priests used to sprinkle holy water on people during Easter.

Of course little of this has a direct impact on the notion of non specific deity worshiping clerics.  With a common faith for the most part being the only thing documented, it's hard to derive anything from the medieval mindset.  (We tend to think of the medieval mindset as a time of a single religion, but many other faiths especially gnostic ones were also common at the time.)  AD&D druids, for example are generally deity less, but they formed a strict heirarchy and had limited advancement.


----------



## WayneLigon

I voted 'Not like for flavor reasons', but it depends on the world I'm running at the time. In most of mine, the mere idea of a cleric not tied to a patron diety isn't possible. Can't do it, no way, no how. I have a couple worlds, though, where that would work; effectively, they are almost tapping the same power source that druids do in the other worlds: they commune with the spirits in and around everything and so draw power from them based on that. In those worlds that do allow 'godless' clerics, the druids serve the archtypical idea of 'the land'. Since it's a creation-based magic (and other blah blah flavor that I won't relate here), it's a Divine source.


----------



## Storm Raven

Xeriar said:
			
		

> *The no edged weapons was from Egypt, I believe (Amenhotep forbid the use of edged weapons.  Preisthood didn't like him and made sure his son, Tutenkhamen, didn't get so far).  Those flails often death death with very pointy parts.*





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.



> *But there is no hard line rule that says the cleric class must be modeled after 9th century Christianity.  It's supposed to be able to handle other faiths, and by extension, other faith systems (though in my opinion it does so poorly, it's the easist to start with).*





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.


----------



## Arnwyn

*Do you allow godless clerics?*

No, I do not, for game world reasons.


----------



## jasamcarl

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> 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.
> 
> [/b]
> 
> 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.




None of which matters. The concept itself has to be intuitive, it doesn't have to perfectly emulate it. It's an explanation. The specific manifistations can be explained as a product of the caster's will or whatnot. So why do you think its a dumb idea again?


----------



## Xeriar

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> 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.




Well, I see there was an original point about members of godless religions not having (ahem) _kewl powerz_ which is what I was originally argueing against, but noone has responded to the last posts I made on that subject.


----------



## Jakathi

*huh*

there are a couple of examples of 'godless' clerics
druids might be considered godless, because they worship nature as a whole.

and i suspect that Jedi Knights are a kind of cleric or monk. Instead of worshipping a diety, they serve the life energy itself.


----------



## Spatula

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *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

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> 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

fusangite said:
			
		

> 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

Psion said:
			
		

> 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

Psion said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Psion

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




_I_ was talking about Planescape, and my assertion is only that under the PS setting, the theory on divine power is very specific.


----------



## Zappo

I said that in 2E you could have clerics of good and evil (thanks Hong for the PHB quote); Planescape was a 2E setting, so by default it inherits 2E's properties unless stated otherwise, and nowhere it explicitly says "no generic clerics". In fact, it even explicitly mentions the existance of generic clerics in the Athar description (without making them appear exceptional, either). In any case, generic clerics fit with the Planescape theme of belief.
 That's all I wanted to say. Psion asked why generic clerics are appropriate to Planescape, I just tried to answer giving my reasons. 

 Me, I agree with Kamikaze Midget - the 3E PHB, without an explicit setting, makes no assumption on the source of the classes' power. That's a setting thing, so how it makes sense is not a concern of the PHB. A discussion of whether godless clerics make sense or not should only be made in relation to a specific setting.

 More food for thought: what if generic clerics received power from the deities matching their belief? For example, a cleric of good could receive power from the collection of your setting's good deities. Or a cleric of fire could receive power from all deities that are involved with fire in some way. The priest doesn't even need to know about this: as long as he furthers the portfolio of these deities, even if partially so, they'll lend him a hand. Would that be a sufficient justification for a "godless" cleric?


----------



## fusangite

hong said:
			
		

> 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.




Hong, the Taoist priests (I acknowledge such a position exists) lead worship of traditional Chinese folk deities. While self-styled Taoist and Confucian "priests" have existed intermittently over the past 2000 years, they are not priests of Confucianism or Taoism; they are priests of Chinese folk deities.


----------



## Storm Raven

hong said:
			
		

> *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.*





The question is: does it emulate the attributed mystical powers derived from real world religions?



> *2. There are more divine spellcasters than just clerics.*




I already pointed that out, but apparently, attributing a spiritual tradition with any other form of priesthood than "cleric" in D&D is "demeaning and insulting".



> *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.*




So, you are asking whether intolerant faiths that sanction things like torture, burning at the stake, and conversion at sword point are reflective of the Catholic church of the middle ages? Do you really want me to answer that?


----------



## Xeriar

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> 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.




They worshipped the gods to placate the forces of nature and humanity that they represented.  The Greeks fell away from this over time, slowly turning to a kind of atheism in a manner which some have paralleled to modern times, but I digress.

The Romans and Hindus performed these rituals to the gods to make them happy.  Yeah, they were powerful people...  Powerful, greedy, selfish and wrathful people.

They weren't exactly evil (even Hades) - they were complex individuals with goals that tended to trod on mortals quite a bit.



> 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.




Dionysius was one of the precursors of the Christian god, actually 

Before the mystery religions, there was no real concept of heaven as we think of it today.



> 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:




This was the way of most Indo-European faiths, really.  You bribe them with flattery and offerings, and you avoid their wrath and if you're lucky, you get a blessing.



> "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.




You're thinking everyone shares your mindset, or that most people do, which I doubt is the case.  Not an insult, just a comment.


----------



## fusangite

Hey -- on a non-debate-oriented note, isn't it neat the way the poll has been sitting at between a 50/50 and 55/45 split almost since the outset. I'm finding the evenness of the split quite unexpected.


----------



## Voadam

I have no problems with godless clerics.

It seems wierd that some people are saying no godless clerics under any circumstances, but godless druids are all right.

Both are major divine spellcasters tapping divine power.

I can see a campaign cosmology where divine power is just a different source of supernatural power with its own quirks and characteristics, just like arcane and psionic magic. Anybody could claim to be worshipping the gods and working for them, but it wouldn't necessarily matter for their powers if they were not. This allows spies in church clerical hierarchies, which is not normally reasonable in D&D games where you are tied directly to gods.

This is sort of the way it works in ravenloft.


----------



## widderslainte

Non-theistic clerics may not fit the religions of a particular campaign world, but not realizing the value of the concept is a bit culutrally short-cited.  Gods are one option of many.


----------



## hong

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The question is: does it emulate the attributed mystical powers derived from real world religions?




Yes. NEXT!



> I already pointed that out, but apparently, attributing a spiritual tradition with any other form of priesthood than "cleric" in D&D is "demeaning and insulting".




KeWL P0W3rZ for everyone, I say.



> So, you are asking whether intolerant faiths that sanction things like torture, burning at the stake, and conversion at sword point are reflective of the Catholic church of the middle ages? Do you really want me to answer that?




That's the first time I've heard anyone suggest that the evil deities in generic D&D worlds like Greyhawk and FR are somehow meant to be explicitly emulating these aspects of the medieval Christian church. Next, you'll be arguing that Sauron was based on the pope or something.


Hong "has NOT mentioned Hitler" Ooi


----------



## hong

fusangite said:
			
		

> Hong, the Taoist priests (I acknowledge such a position exists) lead worship of traditional Chinese folk deities. While self-styled Taoist and Confucian "priests" have existed intermittently over the past 2000 years, they are not priests of Confucianism or Taoism; they are priests of Chinese folk deities.




Putting "words" in "quotes" is, indeed, a time-honoured way to have them mean exactly what you want them to mean.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm

In particular:



> The priesthood views the many gods as manifestations of the one Dao, "which could not be represented as an image or a particular thing." The concept of a personified deity is foreign to them, as is the concept of the creation of the universe. Thus, they do not pray as Christians do; there is no God to hear the prayers or to act upon them. They seek answers to life's problems through inner meditation and outer observation.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Indeed, the 'godless cleric' concept is key to the monotheistic campaign setting I'm developing....which ostensibly draws from Jewish, Catholic, and Muslim folklore and tradition for supernatural beings. That mechanic lets me leave vague the question of which side the One True God actually favors, yet allow full clerics with full spell progression on all sides of the faith. Their magic comes from their belief that their way is right...and whether it actually is or not is up to the individual character to decide.


----------

