The entire point is that the Bard is the more appropriate class, and to use Cleric instead is what would be shoehorning. And just because there are OoC expectations, like all priests will be Clerics, does not mean that those expectations are reasonable. Tradition does not hold the weight of law, and forcing tradition on players with the weight of law is simply unreasonable.
I think I explained how I missed the part of your arguement about the appropriateness of the Bard in this case (unfamiliarity with the deity / setting in question). Reasonable or not, as I have pointed out, the world does not always roll over and say "you're right". You could, as DM, run your game that way by making constant changes to fit PC expectations, but in the end it destroys the sense of immersion in a "real" world that, imho, is needed for a good setting / experience. There are limits to how far I'll bend my setting -- I expect players to display some flexibility as well. Different philosophies of the game, again.
When I ask myself what is appropriate for my priestess of Lliira (and not that "appropriate" includes considerations of her station), I see a woman who is clever and charming and graceful, who can sing, and dance, who of course can tend to wounds, which bard spells can do, and bestow blessings, which Bardic Music can represent very well. I don't see her in heavy armor, and wearing armor at all is iffy. Turning doesn't really advance the concept at all, as Lliira doesn't really care about the undead. The Cleric skill list doesn't really fit, the kinds of stats a Cleric requires don't cater to the need for decent intelligence to get those 2+ skill points to mean much. If she's a Bard, her casting won't be as advanced as a Cleric of the same level, but there is no in-game concept of level anyways, and the Bard list has a better representation for the kind of charm and mind effects (and music effects) that logically follows from a god of dance and joy, and what's more, I don't want my priestess of Lliira to have the high-end magic effects, and they're not necessary for clergy. After all, eight levels of Cleric already can't cast Raise Dead, so how is it a problem that the priestess of Lliira can't after twenty levels? How is she any less of a priestess than those level 8 and under Clerics?
See the above mea culpa on unfamiliarity with the deity / setting in question. Others with more familiarity with that deity / setting may, or may not, wish to argue that point with you. I agree on the armor bit by the way, I've been swapping out armor proficiency for more fitting bits (depending on the deity) since 3E (and by using kits in 2E). Let me reiterate however, that the expectations for clergy are not always that flexible (although they may be) from deity and setting to deity and setting.
In all ways, the Bard is the superior representation, the natural and logical fit, rather than Cleric. Bard does everything that the player wants out of the character, and everything that is reasonably appropriate to the position.To then force the player to either remove their character from the clergy proper or take the Cleric class just because the expectation that all clerics are Clerics has been given the weight of law, and if you want to be clergy, you have to shoehorn your character into the Cleric class is quite simply wrong, and contributes nothing to the game. It's forcing the player to try and pound a square peg into a round hole.
Again, see the above.
Except the priestess of Lliira was ordained as a priestess and holds the status as a priestess, just like I am pursuing my civil engineering degree because I seek to become a civil engineer.
Good. Then you get your degree and you *can* fit the role. Works for me. Once you have the degree, and some experience, you can design bridges and highways for me and I'll drive them with confidence.
Here's where your analogy falls apart. Seminary and the station of Catholic priest? Civil engineering degrees and the profession of civil engineer? These exist in our world. Likewise, ordained and status as priestess of Lliira exist in the game world. However, the Bard class does not. Character class has no place in the game world. It's an abstraction, a tool for representing the world, not anything the characters knowingly and actively pursue, or anything they're even aware of. My priestess of Lliira went through the process and became ordained as a priestess of Lliira, and the mechanics that were selected as the best representation for her were those of the Bard class, simply because they are most appropriate for who she is and what the player wants out of the character.
*sigh* Yes, in that particular world / setting. The examples cjosen (by me anyway) were meant to apply in broader strokes than this narrow one.
Ah, but you're missing the point of using Bard in the first place. Bard was selected because it is the superior fit, representing the abilities desired from the specific character better than the Cleric. It's the Cleric that would have to be patched without end to be acceptable, ultimately without adequate end, rather than the Bard. The Bard isn't supposed to mimic the Cleric. The Bard is supposed to represent a character. The priestess of Lliira. For whom the abilities of the Cleric class are simply inappropriate.
So I hgather from your explanation. That doesn't mean you can swap out classes / skill sets fro everything that you might think fits a given role. It may not work. If it does, fine, if not, you're out of luck in that given situation.
And requiring the priestess of Lliira to multiclass as a Cleric/Bard only results in her being forced to stink at both for the sole purpose of picking up a metagame tag, which is completely unreasonable.
Are you seriously saying a 20th level character who is a Bard / Cleric would "stink" at both roles? They may move more slowly up the ranks in a given skill / area, but the combination of abilities would be quite powerful. A 20th level Bard / Cleric would be a power to be reckoned with in, I would hope, any world. Not too many NPCs ever hit levels like that in either class (in most game worlds that I'm aware of). *shrug* Of course, very high level characters may be common in some settings. Not so much in mine.
the problem with all this bard as cleric arguments is that it is the DM who chooses what kind of deities exist in his world and how it is that thwy grant powers and or blessings. A player can't alter the way the things in the world work just to fit him or her playing an specific class.
If the DM said that the goddes of music granted powers through giving joy by skillfull gifted artists and still not allowed a bard , then that DM would be doing his job wrong. However if he stablished that said goddes of music and joy gave er gifts through some kind of cleric variany (homebrewed variant closer to favored soul than cleric) and some player still wanted to lay a bard then guess who'd be at fault.
There is a small window of exemption here, in that while the goddess may be the one empowering the clerics and the favored souls, the bardic worshipper of her who says she's a priestess is simply using bardic powers to work her way up in the hierarchy of the church. Given that, it might be entirely possible that an Aristocrat is the head of the church, a la the Medici popes, with no divine approval involved.
However, even then, the same as the goddess is the DM's puppet, just so is the hierarchy of the church also the DM's puppet, and the DM gets to decide whether this other character of a different class is in fact an accepted member of the church hierarchy.
Yes, NPCs can't look at other characters' character sheets, but they can still look at someone's in-game capabilities and go from there.
A Bard can't mimic a Cleric perfectly -- or as close as this role may requireActually, a Bard can mimic a Cleric "close enough" as far as being a generic priest goes - leading services, performing healing, curing ailments - what other actions do you think a priest of an outlying church should be able to perform in order to be a priest of that church?
As long as they are able to care for their own community and perform religious services, then they have the necessary aptitude to be a leader of the faith. Given that the vast majority of clerics serving as priests of outlying churches are unable to raise the dead, saying that "well bards can't raise dead so can't be priests" is completely bunk.
And if you're going to argue based on what a character could presumably do later on in their career, then that's an entirely meta argument and thus not relevant to an in-world position.
Repeating myself is getting... repetitive :) I was giving one example of many possible about the differences betwen the two. How hard is this to understand? The Bard and Cleric spell lists alone provide numerous examples of things that each class can do that the other can not. Look it up. Stuff that any country Cleric can do, the Bard can not. The congregation might like it if the preist of *insert your deity here* could Detect Poison, Purify Food and Drink, (and eventually) Consecrate, or do a hundred other things that Clerics can (eventually in some cases) do. The Bard can say the same about the Clerics spells / abilities. there are things a Bard can do that a Cleric can not. And please, don't drag magic items into it. If my priest has to go buy a magic do-dad to perform his basic functions I'm finding a new Church. *sigh* It isn't *any one thing*, it's a plethora of things.
Sorry. Venting a bit. I've had to go over this several times.
*edit* Btw, my game has lay priests and deacons who can perform a number of basic, non-magical, religious functions, but in a world of magic, the faithful probably have higher expectations of their preists. Unless of course the role is established as being fulfilled by another class, say bards, in which case that is fine. Perfect in fact.
+ a bunch to kyrt-ryder.
I think what alllll this boils down to is a difference in DMing philosophy. Some DMs see the world as their sandbox that they're letting the players play in, and some see it as a communal sandbox that everyone's playing in. Personally, I've always found that the DM and players telling a story together comes out infinitely better than the DM telling a story about the players.
See, there is a missing 3rd philosophy that I think most GM's who make their own worlds follow.
The GM creates a world, in all it's details, and the players tell their story within that backdrop. Does that backdrop have limitations? Absolutely. Do those limitations keep the players from playing any character they want? Sometimes. Is that capricious? No, not at all. The GM is setting the background and filling in all the actors for the players to interact with to tell their story. The GM is perfectly valid to say 'that story can't be told in this world'. A GM telling his story is a bad GM. A game where there are no limits and no internal consistency because the rules changed based on what the players want at any given moment is just as bad as a GM that dictates the players IC choices.
can't read mdt's post...
I was still typing it in. :)
+ a bunch to kyrt-ryder.
I think what alllll this boils down to is a difference in DMing philosophy. Some DMs see the world as their sandbox that they're letting the players play in, and some see it as a communal sandbox that everyone's playing in. Personally, I've always found that the DM and players telling a story together comes out infinitely better than the DM telling a story about the players.
See, there is a missing 3rd philosophy that I think most GM's who make their own worlds follow.
The GM creates a world, in all it's details, and the players tell their story within that backdrop. Does that backdrop have limitations? Absolutely. Do those limitations keep the players from playing any character they want? Sometimes. Is that capricious? No, not at all. The GM is setting the background and filling in all the actors for the players to interact with to tell their story. The GM is perfectly valid to say 'that story can't be told in this world'. A GM telling his story is a bad GM. A game where there are no limits and no internal consistency because the rules changed based on what the players want at any given moment is just as bad as a GM that dictates the players IC choices.
+5
Thank goodness someone gets it.
|
Try to maintain an aura of darkening horror in a game based on Shadow over Innsmouth when Mary Poppins shows up, with all the magical powers, as well as a large-breasted anime cat girl and Ash from the Evil Dead series.
You should pitch to Hollywood.
I know some people who would totally go pay to see that.
(eventually in some cases)
That's my point - there is no way for people in the world to know what a particular character would eventually be capable of.
Given that a first level cleric can be a priest of a particular faith, it only makes sense to base the "minimum requirement" for priesthood on what a first-level cleric can do.
Further, priests are not adventurers, and thus purely military abilities (such as the ability to fight well in heavy armor, spells like magic weapon, and so on) don't make sense as requirements. This leaves a small list of "minimal capabilities" such as performing healing.
+ a bunch to kyrt-ryder.
I think what alllll this boils down to is a difference in DMing philosophy. Some DMs see the world as their sandbox that they're letting the players play in, and some see it as a communal sandbox that everyone's playing in. Personally, I've always found that the DM and players telling a story together comes out infinitely better than the DM telling a story about the players.
See, there is a missing 3rd philosophy that I think most GM's who make their own worlds follow.
The GM creates a world, in all it's details, and the players tell their story within that backdrop. Does that backdrop have limitations? Absolutely. Do those limitations keep the players from playing any character they want? Sometimes. Is that capricious? No, not at all. The GM is setting the background and filling in all the actors for the players to interact with to tell their story. The GM is perfectly valid to say 'that story can't be told in this world'. A GM telling his story is a bad GM. A game where there are no limits and no internal consistency because the rules changed based on what the players want at any given moment is just as bad as a GM that dictates the players IC choices.
+5
Thank goodness someone gets it.
+3 more - this was very well said.
(eventually in some cases)That's my point - there is no way for people in the world to know what a particular character would eventually be capable of.
Given that a first level cleric can be a priest of a particular faith, it only makes sense to base the "minimum requirement" for priesthood on what a first-level cleric can do.
Further, priests are not adventurers, and thus purely military abilities (such as the ability to fight well in heavy armor, spells like magic weapon, and so on) don't make sense as requirements. This leaves a small list of "minimal capabilities" such as performing healing.
I wouldn't even put in the healing as mandatory, even if that's what most people would want from a cleric. But limiting healing to gods with healing as part of their portfolio is a reasonable house rule.
That said, the spells that every cleric should be able to cast, regardless of god, are as follows: Bless, Bless/Curse Water, Consecrate/Desecrate, Atonement, and eventually Miracle. Every priest should be able to do those at a bare minimum.
That's my point - there is no way for people in the world to know what a particular character would eventually be capable of.
Given that a first level cleric can be a priest of a particular faith, it only makes sense to base the "minimum requirement" for priesthood on what a first-level cleric can do.
Further, priests are not adventurers, and thus purely military abilities (such as the ability to fight well in heavy armor, spells like magic weapon, and so on) don't make sense as requirements. This leaves a small list of "minimal capabilities" such as performing healing.
And the heirarchy of the Church are fine with someone who will not be able to perform his dutues later? It's about his / her current abilities too. There are basic things that each of these classes can not do that the other can. Can a 1st level Bard do everything expected of a 1st level Cleric? Even just the practical stuff? No, they can't. Many yes, all, no. As for the armor, I agree which is why upthread I commented that I had Clerics of some deities swap out armor proficiencies for things that fit closer with their deities focus. I also think you're underestimating the knowledge of the lay community about the powers and requirements of priesthood. Not to speak of their intimate knowledge of what passes for a priests private life... sometimes I think that's why monasteries were invented :D
And the heirarchy of the Church are fine with someone who will not be able to perform his dutues later?
How do they know the character will be unable to perform his "dutues" later? You're giving them knowledge that you wouldn't give players in the same circumstance (the character's mechanical class).
By the way, the thing I find the most darkly amusing about this whole "Bards are physically incapable of being clergy" debate is that Erik Mona (Paizo staff) wrote for and Sean K Reynolds (Paizo staff) developed the 3rd edition Faiths and Pantheons book, which explicitly states that non-Clerics are members of the clergy in quite a few different deities' churches.
That certainly doesn't mean that they have to be allowed in your own game, but it certainly shows that the people who work for Paizo don't consider Clerics to be the only possibility for clergy.
By the way, the thing I find the most darkly amusing about this whole "Bards are physically incapable of being clergy" debate is that Erik Mona (Paizo staff) wrote for and Sean K Reynolds (Paizo staff) developed the 3rd edition Faiths and Pantheons book, which explicitly states that non-Clerics are members of the clergy in quite a few different deities' churches.
That certainly doesn't mean that they have to be allowed in your own game, but it certainly shows that the people who work for Paizo don't consider Clerics to be the only possibility for clergy.
I think the trouble here is that people are glossing over the "quite a few" and thinking "all" or "none."
And it also doesn't get into the difference between someone's official title and someone's actual character class.
I had one game where the ruler had her order of paladins, all shining armor, noble steeds, the full nine yards. Except for the fact that they were all actually Cavaliers with pretentions to paladinhood, and the only actual Paladin in the ciy was a deeply religious young guard who all "paladins" spat on because he was known to be some bankrupt nobleman's illegitimate son.
Having the High Priestess of Llira being represented as a bard basically means that anyone, upon bringing their dead friend to town and succeeding in a gather information check, will find out that you go to the High Priestess of Llira if you want a really nice funeral with lots of singing and not a dry eye in the house. However, if you want your friend raised from the dead, you probably want the crazy ascetic who lives in the cave over there.
I think the trouble here is that people are glossing over the "quite a few" and thinking "all" or "none."
And it also doesn't get into the difference between someone's official title and someone's actual character class.
I had one game where the ruler had her order of paladins, all shining armor, noble steeds, the full nine yards. Except for the fact that they were all actually Cavaliers with pretentions to paladinhood, and the only actual Paladin in the ciy was a deeply religious young guard who all "paladins" spat on because he was known to be some bankrupt nobleman's illegitimate son.
Having the High Priestess of Llira being represented as a bard basically means that anyone, upon bringing their dead friend to town and succeeding in a gather information check, will find out that you go to the High Priestess of Llira if you want a really nice funeral with lots of singing and not a dry eye in the house. However, if you want your friend raised from the dead, you probably want the crazy ascetic who lives in the cave over there.
Exactly. I agree with everything you said in that entire post.
And, in a mostly-unrelated note, I'd rather if that were the case for just about every church. Raising the dead shouldn't be a minimum bar for entry into the clergy of every church, it should be the ultimate aspiration for the clergy of a select few churches (and the miracle spell should be just a pipedream, reserved for living saints). That's the kind of power that should scream either "I'm a PC!" or "I'm a prime mover-and-shaker in the world!". Again, just my personal world-building POV; other interpretations are valid.
|
You know, my group started a campaign in my long-term homebrew setting not long ago. This is a setting I'm quite attached to, so naturally I'm careful about contradicting established "facts" about the game world.
When one of the players asked me, "What about character concepts/classes/deities/flavors that don't fit the setting?" I replied, "Then we'll simply assume that character is from off-world." Crisis averted. It occurred to me that any homebrew setting worth playing in has to be big enough to hold things other than just its creator's ego.
Same here. While there are established "rules" for my homebrew (as in, natives of the land are restricted by the "laws of nature" for that corner of the multiverse), my homebrew also allows that there are other "dimensions", where "strangers in a strange land scenarios are possible. I'll discuss any concept with a player, and I'm generally open to ideas unless they are pungent in eau de frommage.
Of course, I play in Kirth's homebrew, and took to it like a fish to water as we share a lot of the same influences on our gaming, and are of an age.
And the heirarchy of the Church are fine with someone who will not be able to perform his dutues later?How do they know the character will be unable to perform his "dutues" later? You're giving them knowledge that you wouldn't give players in the same circumstance (the character's mechanical class).
Presumably the church / temple in question is responsible for training thier own clergy. They don't know what Clerics are capable of? Seriously, with many of them being Clerics? Some being high level Clerics? They may not know every nut and metagame bolt of the class, but I'd say they hsve a good grip on the possibilities...
Presumably the church / temple in question is responsible for training thier own clergy. They don't know what Clerics are capable of? Seriously, with many of them being Clerics? Some being high level Clerics? They may not know every nut and metagame bolt of the class, but I'd say they hsve a good grip on the possibilities...And the heirarchy of the Church are fine with someone who will not be able to perform his dutues later?How do they know the character will be unable to perform his "dutues" later? You're giving them knowledge that you wouldn't give players in the same circumstance (the character's mechanical class).
Heh. That reminds me of a series of books I happen to love, "The Deed of Paksenarrion", by Elizabeth Moon. It involves, among other things, a "natural" paladin (one appointed by the Gods directly) in a world where paladins are trained and appointed by the church.
And back on topic... no, I disagree almost completely. I disagree so completely that I don't even know where to start explaining how I disagree. The only way it makes any sense at all to me is if your world has level 20 clerics to lead every single poor village church ... which kind of makes one wonder why the village is poor and why the hell PCs even exist.
And the heirarchy of the Church are fine with someone who will not be able to perform his dutues later?How do they know the character will be unable to perform his "dutues" later? You're giving them knowledge that you wouldn't give players in the same circumstance (the character's mechanical class).
Because he was unable to channel energy when he was in the seminary and he never graduated. Honestly. A Bard cannot channel positive energy. Before the church graduates someone from the seminary, they have to show they have learned their lessons. If they can't channel energy, then they can't graduate. That is a valid reason for a bard not to be an ordained cleric.
If the Bard instead was a Cleric/Bard, then that is a different story, he is just a slow learner, or he's a different type of cleric, or he's concentrating on the musical aspects of his goddess instead of the catechisms. If the church is ok with that, then that's fine. But, if he can't pass seminary, then he's not a priest.
Because he was unable to channel energy when he was in the seminary and he never graduated. Honestly. A Bard cannot channel positive energy. Before the church graduates someone from the seminary, they have to show they have learned their lessons. If they can't channel energy, then they can't graduate. That is a valid reason for a bard not to be an ordained cleric.
No, it isn't. Not in a church that doesn't give two hoots about either undead or healing. That's like saying that a cleric who can't do long division in his head (as might be expected of a cleric of Abadar) can't be a cleric of Sarenrae.
And back on topic... no, I disagree almost completely. I disagree so completely that I don't even know where to start explaining how I disagree. The only way it makes any sense at all to me is if your world has level 20 clerics to lead every single poor village church ... which kind of makes one wonder why the village is poor and why the hell PCs even exist.
Sorry, I disagree with you almost 100% completely. No offense. As I stated above, a Bard cannot channel energy, even another first level cleric would know they are not touched by the divine, since they cannot channel energy.
Again, a multiclass bard could do it, but then, they'd BE a cleric of insert god here.
Because he was unable to channel energy when he was in the seminary and he never graduated. Honestly. A Bard cannot channel positive energy. Before the church graduates someone from the seminary, they have to show they have learned their lessons. If they can't channel energy, then they can't graduate. That is a valid reason for a bard not to be an ordained cleric.No, it isn't. Not in a church that doesn't give two hoots about either undead or healing. That's like saying that a cleric who can't do long division in his head (as might be expected of a cleric of Abadar) can't be a cleric of Sarenrae.
If you wish to have a church that allows any class to be a priest, you may, in your own game. If the church has a minimum requirement to graduate seminary (Say, cast cure, bless, channel energy, Knowledge (Religion) : 3 ranks), then a Bard cannot qualify.
The discussion is not 'What church can I make'. You can make any church you want. The discussion was 'How would a church know they could not raise dead eventually'. My response is 100% correct, if he can't channel energy, he is not going to raise dead in 10 levels.
I'll be happy to have discussions, but please don't move the goalposts when someone points out a bit of obviousness.
I think the trouble here is that people are glossing over the "quite a few" and thinking "all" or "none."
And it also doesn't get into the difference between someone's official title and someone's actual character class.
I had one game where the ruler had her order of paladins, all shining armor, noble steeds, the full nine yards. Except for the fact that they were all actually Cavaliers with pretentions to paladinhood, and the only actual Paladin in the ciy was a deeply religious young guard who all "paladins" spat on because he was known to be some bankrupt nobleman's illegitimate son.
Having the High Priestess of Llira being represented as a bard basically means that anyone, upon bringing their dead friend to town and succeeding in a gather information check, will find out that you go to the High Priestess of Llira if you want a really nice funeral with lots of singing and not a dry eye in the house. However, if you want your friend raised from the dead, you probably want the crazy ascetic who lives in the cave over there.
Exactly. I agree with everything you said in that entire post.
And, in a mostly-unrelated note, I'd rather if that were the case for just about every church. Raising the dead shouldn't be a minimum bar for entry into the clergy of every church, it should be the ultimate aspiration for the clergy of a select few churches (and the miracle spell should be just a pipedream, reserved for living saints). That's the kind of power that should scream either "I'm a PC!" or "I'm a prime mover-and-shaker in the world!". Again, just my personal world-building POV; other interpretations are valid.
Funny thing is, I agree too. If that is how the world works, great. All I'm saying is that some classes can't meet certain expectations in the world for a given position, not that "all priests have to be just Clerics". It depends on the priesthood / deity in question as to whether or not a given class can fulfill the role. If the expectations are that prieshood X can do Y, then they have to be the right class to do Y. I don't see the problem with this position.
As for the raise dead type thing, any number of temples in my world will not (i.e. it's interfering with the natural course of events or they have some other philisophical objection) or are very picky about whom they do raise... attitudes vary from temple to temple and even within the same temple opinions differ.
Sorry, I disagree with you almost 100% completely. No offense. As I stated above, a Bard cannot channel energy, even another first level cleric would know they are not touched by the divine, since they cannot channel energy.
Again, a multiclass bard could do it, but then, they'd BE a cleric of insert god here.
So 1st through 3rd level paladins aren't "touched by the divine"? LOL. Level 20 Favored Souls aren't "touched by the divine"?
Because he was unable to channel energy when he was in the seminary and he never graduated. Honestly. A Bard cannot channel positive energy. Before the church graduates someone from the seminary, they have to show they have learned their lessons. If they can't channel energy, then they can't graduate. That is a valid reason for a bard not to be an ordained cleric.No, it isn't. Not in a church that doesn't give two hoots about either undead or healing. That's like saying that a cleric who can't do long division in his head (as might be expected of a cleric of Abadar) can't be a cleric of Sarenrae.
Sorry, another follow up. Your argument has a fallacy in it, I never said anything about long division. I said, if a priest is expected to channel energy, and Clerics can all channel energy, then a Bard cannot pass as a cleric. If clerics are the only valid priests, then he cannot pass as a priest.
If the church doesn't care, then it doesn't care. There are plenty of gods who put limitations on their clerics (Alignment, deeds, etc). Would you argue that a priest of Bast could eat cats for dinner? Would you argue that a priest of Herronius could be chaotic evil assassin? There are certain things the gods require of their clergy. The GM is the controller of that god. If the god wants their clergy to be able to channel positive energy and cure, then no amount of argument by a character that they are a priest is going to turn a wizard into a priest.
If the god wants all the preists to be able to cast fireball, then no cleric is ever going to qualify as a priest (without some unusual domain or some feat that lets them). The god is the final arbiter of who is and is not a priest of them, and the GM is thus the final arbiter of who is and is not a priest of that god. There is nothing in the world wrong with a GM saying 'God X has these requirements to be a member of their church clergy'. That means a cleric who worships that god may not be allowed to be in that gods church and clergy. If they don't fit the requirements. Doesn't mean they don't get their spells from the god, doesn't mean some bard can't worship them and sing their praises, just means the church does not recognize them as clergy.
The discussion was 'How would a church know they could not raise dead eventually'. My response is 100% correct, if he can't channel energy, he is not going to raise dead in 10 levels.
FALSE.
Favored Soul.
Druid.
Spirit Shaman.
Archivist.
So 1st through 3rd level paladins aren't "touched by the divine"? LOL. Level 20 Favored Souls aren't "touched by the divine"?Sorry, I disagree with you almost 100% completely. No offense. As I stated above, a Bard cannot channel energy, even another first level cleric would know they are not touched by the divine, since they cannot channel energy.
Again, a multiclass bard could do it, but then, they'd BE a cleric of insert god here.
No, paladins are not priests. They are Paladins of the god. A cleric cannot be a Paladin just because he wears heavy shiny armor and worships a god. To be a Paladin he has to have certain abilities, and any Paladin would rebuke him for claiming to be so if he wasn't. A first level Paladin has lay on hands. If a Cleric can't lay on hands, then he is not a Paladin of his god. And most Paladins of his god would be upset at him claiming to be.
And as to Favored Souls, they are touched by the divine, but they are not part of the church clergy. They specifically are NOT priests (see the fluff). They don't even like the clergy/priests of their god.
They specifically are NOT priests (see the fluff). They don't even like the clergy/priests of their god.
FALSE.
The discussion was 'How would a church know they could not raise dead eventually'. My response is 100% correct, if he can't channel energy, he is not going to raise dead in 10 levels.FALSE.
Favored Soul.
Druid.
Spirit Shaman.
Archivist.
FALSE FALSE
Favored Soul : A favored soul is not a priest of his god, he is a specially favored one of the god. He might be a prophet, or he might just be someone who's shined upon by the god, or maybe the god had a daliance with a mortal (Ala hercules), but the favored soul is not a member of the clergy (they specifically don't like the clergy, read the class).
A druid is a worshiper of their god, but they are not a priest of the god. They do not worship in that way.
Spirit Shaman : Spirit Shaman's don't even worship a god. So they wouldn't be in the seminary in the first place.
Archivist : Not sure about this class, don't even know it.
Sorry, another follow up. Your argument has a fallacy in it, I never said anything about long division. I said, if a priest is expected to channel energy, and Clerics can all channel energy, then a Bard cannot pass as a cleric. If clerics are the only valid priests, then he cannot pass as a priest.
If the church doesn't care, then it doesn't care. There are plenty of gods who put limitations on their clerics (Alignment, deeds, etc). Would you argue that a priest of Bast could eat cats for dinner? Would you argue that a priest of Herronius could be chaotic evil assassin? There are certain things the gods require of their clergy. The GM is the controller of that god. If the god wants their clergy to be able to channel positive energy and cure, then no amount of argument by a character that they are a priest is going to turn a wizard into a priest.
If the god wants all the preists to be able to cast fireball, then no cleric is ever going to qualify as a priest (without some unusual domain or some feat that lets them). The god is the final arbiter of who is and is not a priest of them, and the GM is thus the final arbiter of who is and is not a priest of that god. There is nothing in the world wrong with a GM saying 'God X has these requirements to be a member of their church clergy'. That means a cleric who worships that god may not be...
Nicely put. I've been trying to get that point across for a while now, without success. Good luck with it :)
The discussion was 'How would a church know they could not raise dead eventually'. My response is 100% correct, if he can't channel energy, he is not going to raise dead in 10 levels.FALSE.
Favored Soul.
Druid.
Spirit Shaman.
Archivist.FALSE FALSE
Favored Soul : A favored soul is not a priest of his god, he is a specially favored one of the god. He might be a prophet, or he might just be someone who's shined upon by the god, or maybe the god had a daliance with a mortal (Ala hercules), but the favored soul is not a member of the clergy (they specifically don't like the clergy, read the class).
A druid is a worshiper of their god, but they are not a priest of the god. They do not worship in that way.
Spirit Shaman : Spirit Shaman's don't even worship a god. So they wouldn't be in the seminary in the first place.
Archivist : Not sure about this class, don't even know it.
None of which has anything to do with your assertion that "If you cannot channel energy, you will not be able to cast raise dead", and you know it. No one's buying the smoke you're trying to blow.
See my above post: the class abilities of a Cleric are not gained by learning; they are gifts from the Cleric's god. This is why they need to prepare spells; they pray each morning to be allowed to perform certain miracles that day. If these were abilities that one could learn, one couldn't lose them by making said god angry. Also, as has already been mentioned, one of the 3e books explicitly states that several religions do not require one to be a Cleric to be a member of the clergy.
No one is suggesting that this should apply to all religions, nor is anyone suggesting that one should be able to play a Psion and enrol him in a college for Wizards. All that is being suggested is that occasionally the class that is usually used for a given archetype might not be as good a fit as another class for a given character. VV's priestess did pass seminary. She was granted abilities by her goddess; they are simply different from the abilities granted to most of her priests. In the same way, a Psion may well be a better fit for a spontaneous caster than a Sorcerer, because the former is a class based around spontaneous casting while the latter is a class based on reverse-engineered vancian casting.
I agree 100%, if the god allows Bards to be priests, then the Bard is a priest. What I don't agree with is the statement that all GM's must allow all characters to be priests. That is the argument I was coming out against. The question was, how would the church know the person wasn't a cleric if only clerics are allowed by their god? Well, if the god didn't say anything, then they'd know because they couldn't channel energy. If the god allows them in, then that's fine. Same with the Psion, if the god says 'Hey, psions are cool' then that's fine. If the god says 'You must worship me, and must be a cleric' then guess what? You better be a cleric or you ain't a priest. Simple as that. And the god is controlled by the GM, so it's the GM's call if you can play a Bard as a priest.
What I don't agree with is the statement that all GM's must allow all characters to be priests. That is the argument I was coming out against.
You're making up that statement.
None of which has anything to do with your assertion that "If you cannot channel energy, you will not be able to cast raise dead", and you know it. No one's buying the smoke you're trying to blow.
Man, chill out.
I'm not blowing smoke, but you sure are setting off a huge flame war for some reason. Not sure why. I'm answering your posts very politely, if you can't respond in the same way, then I'll ignore your posts going forward.
What I said was : The seminary is going to not make you a priest if you can't channel energy because you won't then be able to raise dead later. The statement was with the assumption that the church only allows in priests that exhibit certain abilities. Can other classes raise dead later? Quite possibly. If the church requires it though, and requires they be able to channel energy, then failing to channel energy means you don't become a priest, simple as that.
What I don't agree with is the statement that all GM's must allow all characters to be priests. That is the argument I was coming out against.You're making up that statement.
Nope, I'm pretty sure that was my statement. I disagree with the argument that a GM must allow a character to become a priest if they want to be. Yep, that's my statement. Didn't make it up at all, that's exactly how I feel.
The Yellow Bunny ate my homework.
Now, that statement I made up entirely.
What I said was : The seminary is going to not make you a priest if you can't channel energy because you won't then be able to raise dead later. The statement was with the assumption that the church only allows in priests that exhibit certain abilities. Can other classes raise dead later? Quite possibly. If the church requires it though, and requires they be able to channel energy, then failing to channel energy means you don't become a priest, simple as that.
You're the one who made up the channel energy requirement. The question was, "How is the church going to know you won't be able to raise the dead in 8 levels?". You responded by adding in a specious requirement that not even the original originator of the argument had added.
Once again, the question was, "How is the church going to know you won't be able to raise the dead in 8 levels?". "Because they cannot channel energy" is an incorrect response because there are plenty of classes who can cast raise dead and who cannot channel energy.
Easy guys, no need to wrangle.
Is the role of priest defined by the game mechanics (in which case, clerics are probably the choice of most) or is it defined by the duties of the faith, as laid down by the god?
While this is a 2E case, when you look through the line of books for the Realms (Faiths and Avatars, Demihuman Deities), many churches have separate arms of the faith. Some of them have two or more 'competing' branches that perform clerical (not the class, but the profession) work within the faith and are considered priests. They were often standard clerics vs. specialty clerics, but certain faiths got really diversified.
And here's a point: since we got going with the bard-as-priest-of-Lliira, why would the ability to raise the dead be important to those that worship the goddess of dance? Only those with the wealth to afford a raise deadare going to actually know that distinction, as they're the ones who are going to come asking for it. That means adventurers (read: PCs) and maybe the movers and shakers of the realm. To the common man, the power to raise the dead is most likely (not always, YMMV based on campaign) a near-mythical thing that they know truly powerful spellcasting priests can do. If a poor farmer goes to the Lliiran and asks him to raise the dead son of the farmer, that Lliiran could honestly answer "I'm afraid that's not possible" without further explanation.
What I don't agree with is the statement that all GM's must allow all characters to be priests. That is the argument I was coming out against.You're making up that statement.Nope, I'm pretty sure that was my statement. I disagree with the argument that a GM must allow a character to become a priest if they want to be. Yep, that's my statement. Didn't make it up at all, that's exactly how I feel.
The Yellow Bunny ate my homework.
Now, that statement I made up entirely.
Fine, let me rephrase then:
You're making up an argument that didn't exist.
Not one person in this thread has advanced the concept that "all GMs must allow all characters to be priests".
See my above post: the class abilities of a Cleric are not gained by learning; they are gifts from the Cleric's god. This is why they need to prepare spells; they pray each morning to be allowed to perform certain miracles that day. If these were abilities that one could learn, one couldn't lose them by making said god angry. Also, as has already been mentioned, one of the 3e books explicitly states that several religions do not require one to be a Cleric to be a member of the clergy.
No one is suggesting that this should apply to all religions, nor is anyone suggesting that one should be able to play a Psion and enrol him in a college for Wizards. All that is being suggested is that occasionally the class that is usually used for a given archetype might not be as good a fit as another class for a given character. VV's priestess did pass seminary. She was granted abilities by her goddess; they are simply different from the abilities...
So... no training required. No knowledge of the god, their religious duties, the rituals they have to perform. You don't see any educational requirement for all that meditation and reflection they do? No need to have any knowledge of their possible spells or the specific verbal / somantic requirements? Why not just "poof" it works? Why bother to have a different class then if their is no professional training required? That's odd.
Anyway, nobody is saying that all priests have to be only Clerics (I think not anyway) just that specific classes / powers are required for some priesthoods. And that not everybody will qualify. End of story.
Fine, let me rephrase then:You're making up an argument that didn't exist.
Not one person in this thread has advanced the concept that "all GMs must allow all characters to be priests".
Actually, several people have said "if you don't allow them to play a bard as a priest you are a bad gm, and it's not the GM's place to decide what is or is not valid to be a priest". So, the logical result of that is that all GM's must allow all characters to be priests.
Actually, several people have said "if you don't allow them to play a bard as a priest you are a bad gm, and it's not the GM's place to decide what is or is not valid to be a priest".
Please cite. I assert that you're mis-remembering or mis-reading. And I will expect citations of several different people saying this, meaning more than two.
Easy guys, no need to wrangle.
Is the role of priest defined by the game mechanics (in which case, clerics are probably the choice of most) or is it defined by the duties of the faith, as laid down by the god?
While this is a 2E case, when you look through the line of books for the Realms (Faiths and Avatars, Demihuman Deities), many churches have separate arms of the faith. Some of them have two or more 'competing' branches that perform clerical (not the class, but the profession) work within the faith and are considered priests. They were often standard clerics vs. specialty clerics, but certain faiths got really diversified.
And here's a point: since we got going with the bard-as-priest-of-Lliira, why would the ability to raise the dead be important to those that worship the goddess of dance? Only those with the wealth to afford a raise deadare going to actually know that distinction, as they're the ones who are going to come asking for it. That means adventurers (read: PCs) and maybe the movers and shakers of the realm. To the common man, the power to raise the dead is most likely (not always, YMMV based on campaign) a near-mythical thing that they know truly powerful spellcasting priests can do. If a poor farmer goes to the Lliiran and asks him to raise the dead son of the farmer, that Lliiran could honestly answer "I'm afraid that's not possible" without further explanation.
And I agree. Again, I said I have no issue with a Bard being a priest of the goddess of dance, if the goddess of dance allows it. I took exception to what seemed to be people saying the GM had to allow it and change his world to accomodate it. If the goddess allows it (IE: The GM is ok with it) then the Bard is a priest, no big deal. If the GM says "You can worship Lliira, but if you call yourself a priest, the priesthood will call you a heretic and burn you at the stake." then the character can still call themselves a priest, but they better invest in fire retardant long johns.
And I agree, the commoner may not know the difference (which is why the priesthood would be very likely to hunt down someone claiming to represent their goddess without papers). They don't want their followers led astray. Again, I'm not against a Bard being a priest of Lliira. I actually think it's a good fit, all I'm against is the idea of forcing the GM to accomodate every character that someone thinks up as a priest, and then arguing they are a bad GM if they don't.
Knowledge, rituals and so forth come under the skill Knowledge (Theology). A friend of mine is studying it in Belgium to become a real life priest. In seven years time, he'll be standing in front of a congregation of a couple of hundred people giving sermons and Holy Communion. This kind of thing requires years to learn. The ability to perform miracles, however, is a divine gift, not something one learns. This is where the difference lies. Or are you going to insist that all priests should learn armoured combat as well?
Uhm, I think his argument was 'The church has a minimum requirement of knowledge before it ordains him a priest'. He is a Cleric (note the capital C). A priest (note the lower case) is a specific title granted by a church. For that church to grant that title, the person must meet certain minimum standards that the church requires. What standards those are will vary from church to church and god to god.
There may even be two churches of the same god, and they may have different priestly requirements (IE: Protestant vs Catholic).