what you recommend results in the player and DM just sort of making things up on the fly.God forbid.
No -- it's perfectly fine if ALL clerics fall under that umbrella, as MIB recommends. It fails when Cleric A is a priest of Arrrrrgh, God of the 10,000-page Manifesto, has a lot of restrictions... whereas cleric B is a generic priest of Battle and Boisterousness, and has no real restrictions at all.
I would not allow a Cleric of "I smash faces", but on the other hand, a player that wants to create, or co-create an in depth belief system both encourages RPing far beyond what any printed deity based faith can allow for, (because it is manditory in it's creation), but also offers options that the player might want to do that simply are not existant in the game.
Well to build something like that with the player does encourage active participation and ownership with the GM's game - so a lot of good can come from the exercise. It's great when players get involved and add weight and depth to your adventures, and often allows them to open up (accident or design) some great adventure hooks.
Even though we have some basic directional disagreements, it sounds like we both enjoy a detailed game :)
...except that the rules of needing a deity patron don't ban the cleric of Ares, Kord, Tempus, Dol Dorn, or Gorum, so you still have the cleric of smashing faces.
To simply label their tenets and motives, and their role within their respective pantheons as being 'the clerics of smashing faces' is rather flippant at best and seems a tad churlish :)
No -- it's perfectly fine if ALL clerics fall under that umbrella, as MIB recommends. It fails when Cleric A is a priest of Arrrrrgh, God of the 10,000-page Manifesto, has a lot of restrictions... whereas cleric B is a generic priest of Battle and Boisterousness, and has no real restrictions at all.
Your party has two clerics? o.O
Now THAT is unfair. I've only got half of one.
I don't think that it's that difficult to work out what a cleric should be doing or not doing based on only a two or three word description of his faith. Like domains. I've only seen maybe... two? times a DM has had to call a player out on running contrary to his own ideals.
You are going to explain why clerics of the god of smashing faces instead of talking are desirable but clerics of the philosophy of smashing faces instead of talking aren't.
Simple, because NONE of the Gods you mentioned are the 'Gods of smashing faces'. To go further, we have no details of any Gods of Smashing Faces, but we do have mountains of Philosopical Deities.
If you are suggesting my position is that Philosophy > War then I'd point out that it could be easily argued that War gods ARE Philosophers. There is significantly more to their makeup than whacking something with a mailed fist, even in the most overtly zealous warmongering Deities personifcations. I think someone would be hard pressed to come up with more battle oriented Deities than the Norse, but you'd find that Thor and Odin would have quite a lot of dogmas that would bind your Cleric.
There is just no way to divorce a Cleric from a Deified belief set - the name of the class alone clearly defines this. Central to the character is a religious sized hole that needs to be filled with something.
Your party has two clerics?
We run two parties on alternating adventure scenarios. Party A has a dwarven cleric of a homebrew goddess with a clearly-defined portfolio and a pretty clear set of directives. The player (Silverhair) has a lot of fun pushing the narrow boundaries of his faith, expecting me to strip away his spells any day now.
Party B has a cowardly cleric of Norberger, whose backstory and faith as we interpret it leave him with very few (if any) restrictions on his behavior. Luckily, the player (Andostre) adds a LOT of restrictions to himself through roleplaying, so everything evens out.
So I've been lucky so far. But then someone like houstonderek (currently playing the rogue in party A) looks at the situation and thinks "If I were cleric A it would suck; if the party gets killed off later on and I roll up a cleric, I'll be more like Cleric B because then I can get away with anything I want to!" And, yes, I can and would step in and apply limits, as the GM, but I'd much rather not have to, is the point.
There is just no way to divorce a Cleric from a Deified belief set - the name of the class alone clearly defines this. Central to the character is a religious sized hole that needs to be filled with something.
Gah. A cleric, by definition, is someone who is part of a church. Not all churches in real life have a central deity or even any deity at all. Why should the game be different?
EDIT
Noun
* S: (n) cleric, churchman, divine, ecclesiastic (a clergyman or other person in religious orders)
It has late Latin roots, if you're curious.
Even if the average peasant wouldn't know the difference, the average group of PCs would and, for the sake of the story, that's nearly just as bad.
Maybe. Some of a diety's followers may be hedge wizards using arcane magic to fake miracles. Honestly, would the average peasant know the difference?
Not really, it all depends on the story and the situation.
Yes, the PC will most likely easily see through the deception, but what if they are dealing with an entrenched establishment. Sure, you go ahead an call out the priest(who is really a wizard) in the temple in front of the temple guards(who's sword are most definately NOT fake) and all those innocent level 1 followers. Let me know how that works out for you, I'll be back at the inn.
Calling out the head priest could very well lead to a blood bath as many of the commoners will take up arms to defend their beliefs and probably get killed by the PCs. So, basically, the PC just provoked a fight which lead to the death of many innocents just to call out a wizard who was using his magic to give these people hope(and make a little money on the side).
Moreover, many believers want to believe in something bigger than themselves. Unless the PCs give them an alternative to fill that vacuum, they will be right back in another temple a month later, so what good would the PCs really accomplish?
The whole thing sounds like a situation full of lots of interesting moral choices.
That all happens -after- the PCs have definitive proof that the Cleric in question isn't being faithful to the tenets of his church. I'm talking about what happens -before- the PCs have that definitive proof or even (better) if they -can't ever- get definitive proof.
It's that whole question of "who is speaking for God, the Protestants or Catholics?" that I'm interested in.
My understanding is that God speaks for God, but what happens when people hear God and try to put that into their own words is another story.... Once people become involved in the equation, things get weird.
How to you know the hedge wizard doing fake miracles isn't preaching the word of their god?
What if he thinks he is doing his god's will by tricking people with fake miracles?
What if he is gathering money for a good charity using questionable methods?
Depending on what god he follows, maybe he may actually be speaking for his god. A God of self-reliance might actually like that he is doing it on his own without the god's help.
Gah. A cleric, by definition, is someone who is part of a church. Not all churches in real life have a central deity or even any deity at all. Why should the game be different?EDIT
Noun
* S: (n) cleric, churchman, divine, ecclesiastic (a clergyman or other person in religious orders)
It has late Latin roots, if you're curious.
It is ok, I understand the genesis of the word - Latin was compulsory in High School :p
Which Church, exactly, is devoid of any deity at all? That has my curiosity. Legit examples only please :) No Sacred order of the Holy Beer-Keg who have the Alpha-Omega Frat Hall as their 'Chucrch' :p
Which Church, exactly, is devoid of any deity at all? That has my curiosity. Legit examples only please :) No Sacred order of the Holy Beer-Keg who have the Alpha-Omega Frat Hall as their 'Chucrch'
Well, let's see: Buddhism and Shinto are major world religions...
From Gorum's description: "His first reaction to an unexpected situation is typically violence, and when he sees something he likes, he takes it. His priests often emulate these traits."
Gorum would make a great Deity for a cranky Barbarian tribe/BBEG foil for the players. The vaguely half-wit mentality displayed by this Deity doesn't lend itself to a PC choice for campaigns, let alone good aligned PC's.
Significantly, there have been other REALLY POOR design choices made by some authors in the past (across many editions) that have really led to some daft, almost childish, deities being thrown around that are totally out of step with what you'd expect to see in any sort of evolved culture.
Anyhow, back on track, we obviously aren't going to see this issue the same way. That's cool, as the game is able to be played different ways at different tables, and the debates we have on here only serve to expose us to different stuff we can take or leave on their merits and appeals.
If you were more local, I'd invite you round to our table to see how we run with the material. Then you could run yours. Aren't RPG's fun? :)
Which Church, exactly, is devoid of any deity at all? That has my curiosity. Legit examples only please :) No Sacred order of the Holy Beer-Keg who have the Alpha-Omega Frat Hall as their 'Chucrch' :p
I would need a little more info regarding what you consider the definition of religion (which is actually very sticky) before I could name a "legit" one with certainty.
Some easy examples: Buddha is not a deity. Nationalism is civil religion in which a deity is replaced by a country (if you doubt it, try walking on a flag; they're sacred objects). Jesus was not technically a deity, but he is also not technically worshiped (same for Mary Magdalene); so that one is iffy. Confucius was most definitely not a deity, but he pretty much laid out a system that supplanted religion with bureaucracy in China. Chinese civilization influenced every other nation around them, like Korea and Japan, and this altered what had previously been pantheon worship to something more like "enshrined manners". The Japanese are fairly notorious for replacing worship of actual deities with demonstrations of intense focus.
EDIT
Curse your brevity, Kirth.
Well, let's see: Buddhism and Shinto are major world religions...
I dunno how far you'd get with that argument though.
I'd have the debate in full, as I happen to be a fan of Buddhism (but not a follower) however you might find that it still has divine beings at its core - Gautama Buddha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
I'd have the debate in full, as I happen to be a fan of Buddhism (but not a follower) however you might find that it still has divine beings at its core - Gautama Buddha.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Nosir. And I didn't follow the link but I doubt I'd be swayed much by wikipedia.
Gautama Buddha is a great teacher who has attained enlightenment. The place of a Buddha is to elevate all other beings to transcendent buddha-hood so we can get on with the business of being really wise as a group.
It complicates matters somewhat that there are so many flavors of Buddhism, because unlike Protestant denominations, Buddhist thinkers are deliberately vague. You can't be walked down the path, only pointed in the right direction.
EDIT
I followed the link, because I didn't want to appear needlessly dismissive.
This caught my eye: "This article needs additional citations for verification." :)
Seriously though, I'll admit that I skimmed but the core argument seems to revolve around Buddha and Devas. Devas are no more gods than I am, period. Buddha (and there are many Buddhas) is just a nice guy who sacrifices his time to help other people out and happens to have achieved a point of confluence between his understanding and how the universe works.
Would this be a good point to admit that I never learned how to do that little "spoiler omitted" thing that makes your post short?
Confucius was most definitely not a deity, but he pretty much laid out a system that supplanted religion with bureaucracy in China.
He phased out Clerics in favour of Wizards? :p
Nationalism is civil religion in which a deity is replaced by a country (if you doubt it, try walking on a flag; they're sacred objects).
I see idiots burning them all the time. The day a big thunderbolt comes clapping from the sky as a pillar of omnipotent rage I will rejoice heartily.
The Chinese and Japanese doctrines that you refer to were about removal of deity systems altogether.
What I am asking for is for a reference to a legitimate World religion that exists without any deity at all; Buddhism, for example does not have a Creator God, however it has Enlightened Beings that have ascended to become divine. Therefore, there are divine beings at its core.
Scientology is about the only lot that crops up - but you can take or leave that one as you'd prefer.
|
Satanism, also. Various oriental and Native American belief systems do not have any deities, but rather ancestor and spirit "worship". However, there are temples, shines, and similar places as well as spiritual rites and beliefs for them.
I mentioned Hinduism as a good example of a true pantheonistic religion(s) that venerate no "patron" deity and furthermore do not hold the deities in any particualr high regard.
Satanism, also. Various oriental and Native American belief systems do not have any deities, but rather ancestor and spirit "worship".
Which leads down the path of Shamanism, which is rather different in approach from the Cleric class as laid out in medieval based fantasy RPG's.
The other thing about Satanism is that it is still completely tied to the Abrahamic religions.
Bad counter-example. I see people burning bibles and crosses all the time, and I don't see pillars of fire coming down from above to destroy them, either. But in a fantasy realm, it very well might. I'm reminded of 7th Sea, where the land of Russia was remade, and was in fact very much alive and aware, and would definitely bring the beatdown if you insulted her. Emperors become patron deities of nations is far from an unusual example. As a matter of fact, it's the entire basis of the templars from the Dark Sun setting!
A cleric of war may well be the perfect choice for an adventuring cleric. There's nothing wrong with that...combat is central to the game. A god of peace might be a horrible choice. That's fine, too. In real life, the god of war is going to be marginalized, and priests of that faith have a very high mortality rate as they try to take by force, and get owned. The cleric of peace is likely to gain much more secular power in a community, and have power and respect among civilized and normal people...who are NOT adventurers. Which is why you make a pantheon instead of just a god or two, to contrast these choices.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Satanism, also. Various oriental and Native American belief systems do not have any deities, but rather ancestor and spirit "worship".Which leads down the path of Shamanism, which is rather different in approach from the Cleric class as laid out in medieval based fantasy RPG's.
The other thing about Satanism is that it is still completely tied to the Abrahamic religions.
Only in the very basic sense. Satanism is an atheistic philosophy that believes you should only do what best serves you. Outside of that, there is no right or wrong, nor are there any afterlife consequences. In fact, the opening of the Satanic Bible reads something like "I do not believe in God or Satan, but of the two, Satan is more justified".
I don't want to inflate things needlessly, so I think I worked out how to shrink my post.
[spoiler=
He phased out Clerics in favour of Wizards? :p
Well, kinda, yeah. Although I suspect in the real world they were equally ineffective.
I see idiots burning them all the time. The day a big thunderbolt comes clapping from the sky as a pillar of omnipotent rage I will rejoice heartily.
See, this is a problem. You're defining religion ONLY as the worship of a divine being and then asking me to show you a religion that doesn't have one. That's a catch 22.
The Chinese and Japanese doctrines that you refer to were about removal of deity systems altogether.
Not at all! Japan has always had a bustling religious field. Confucius was essentially given divine merit on par with any Buddha or deva, in much the same way (the idea that you can earn or attain it). But he was demonstrably not a god.
What I am asking for is for a reference to a legitimate World religion that exists without any deity at all; Buddhism, for example does not have a Creator God, however it has Enlightened Beings that have ascended to become divine. Therefore, there are divine beings at its core.
And I'm providing them, but as I expected (and this is not a dig), our different definitions of religion are interfering. And I will leave scientology, thank you. Although it does have dedicated adherents with spiritual beliefs but no actual deity.
[/spoiler]If you're interested, there's a few definitions that we could go with:
Religion as an opiate, in which case its purpose is entirely to aid the haves in suppressing the have-nots.
Religion as symbols that justify our beliefs.
Religion as symbols that dictate our beliefs.
Religion as a form of "social glue".
None of these were invented by me, and they all have merits and flaws. But I honestly don't know how YOU are defining religion, so it's difficult for me to answer you.
Bad counter-example. I see people burning bibles and crosses all the time, and I don't see pillars of fire coming down from above to destroy them, either.
Yep - the difference, as you point out, is that it is asserted that the Gods are alive and kicking and involving themselves in the affairs of mortals in the typical setting in which we are operating when running our adventures. I haven't really seen 'Nation as a God' represented anywhere, perhaps we could go and call it Mother Earth - and be a Druid? :p
A cleric of War WOULD be a good choice for an adventuring Cleric, it's a no brainer - but War covers more than just crushing stuff under foot all day, there are a whole smackload of other factors that come under than mandate.
Personally I think the Pantheistic approach is the best approach, or even going the other route and portraying the central divine being as a multi-faceted one, and people are channeling particular 'Aspects'. Duality of man and all that.
"Satanism" was a very poor choice of name and no more coherent as a set of beliefs than asking a random sampling of Wiccans to come up with a bible. Crowley wanted attention.
And you know, in the original Hebrew, Satan wasn't a name; it was a title.
|
Which Church, exactly, is devoid of any deity at all? That has my curiosity. Legit examples only please :) No Sacred order of the Holy Beer-Keg who have the Alpha-Omega Frat Hall as their 'Chucrch' :p
Grammaton Cleric. Unless you want to count Father as God rather than head priest.
"Satanism" was a very poor choice of name and no more coherent as a set of beliefs than asking a random sampling of Wiccans to come up with a bible. Crowley wanted attention.
And you know, in the original Hebrew, Satan wasn't a name; it was a title.
Actually I think Anton LaVey was the one who really took Satanism by the horns and ran with it. He also appeared to try having it both ways - and whilst I found the "Satanic Bible" and his later work "Satanic Rituals" an interesting read - I didn't put much stock in their authenticity.
I haven't really seen 'Nation as a God' represented anywhere, perhaps we could go and call it Mother Earth - and be a Druid? :p
Sure you have, Chelliax. They have Asmodeus now, and Aroden in the past; but the entire history of the nation revolves around how great they are. Their support by a specific deity is just proof. Does the nation provide spells to clerics? Well in many games it could, but in yours I suspect it couldn't. So we're left at an impasse. You want me to give you compelling evidence, but the only evidence you find compelling involves a sky-man telling people what's what.
Let me ask you something. What would you say religion "does". Not gods, and not clergy. Religion itself.
Tis blasphemy! You forgot Iomedae!Sure you have, Chelliax. They have Asmodeus now, and Aroden in the past; but the entire history of the nation revolves around how great they are.
I don't owe you anything, and certainly not a date. ;D
And because some of us want to play games with stories about holy wars between followers of splinter religions. Or games where you can't be 100% sure that a deity is real and has thus-and-so agenda. Or games where religion and spirituality aren't a large part of the game. Or games where clergy are allowed to have some doubt. Or games with an omnibenevolent creator and no other deities. Or games with disinterested, distant deities. Or games with corruptible clergy who don't have a big blinking heretic light.
Because Forgotten Realms(Which in 3.5 required ALL clerics to follow dieties) has never had any instances of followers of the same god *cough* Lolth *cough* fighting each other amirite?
Well in many games it could, but in yours I suspect it couldn't.
Certainly not whilst operating in the traditional medieval fantasy gameworld that represents the average D&D campaign.
I like Dark Sun - I liked all the Elemental orientations.
I liked Dragonlance - where Cleric was pretty much MIA.
The point of the Cleric class is that it is a channeler of DIVINE Magic, and therein lies the rub. Whether you are talking the Universe (Taoism) ascended enlightened ones (Buddhism) the souls of the Ancestors (Shintoism) or an Omnipotent being (Abrahamic) the ebb and flow of the order of Nature (Shamanism - more of a Druid though) it is all calling on divine powers.
Now when we run a medieval based fantasy RPG, we run with a default mindset that a Cleric is a Cleric, and represents the God(s). If we wish to redefine the campaign world (ala Darksun) then we may need to see a range of changes to a range of classes - How good were those DarkSun Paladins? :p This is going to take a significant chunk of work, and probably leave us with something vastly different to the Cleric as we know it - and probably means we need to actually write a new class to make it work (ala Templars)
For the sake of the game, I'd answer that question totally from a structural-functionalist perspective.
Otherwise, the question would be too big to be operative.
Yeah its actually quite a big question in a very small box :p
Give it up, guys. His argument is that no setting can go without interventionist deific personifications, and that if you have clerics of these interventionist deific personifications then there's no possibility for any other religion with clerics.
No it isn't.
Only the traditional D&D setting in which these things are said to exist.
Darksun was a great example where the dynamics are quite different and give some rationale with why the core mechanic has been altered.
If you take away the Divine as the Clerics/Druids source of power, then you are going to need to draw on the Arcane - at least until Psionics are reintroduced - drawing on the power of ones will.
Atheism is legaly a religion now in America.
Irony, now served in a new flavour :p
For the sake of the game, I'd answer that question totally from a structural-functionalist perspective.
Otherwise, the question would be too big to be operative.
Feel free. I'd be interested.
I asked the question because we can't effectively discuss something in detail without at least agreeing on the parameters that define it.