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).That isn't the default mindset. That is your mindset.
No, that's the mindset of the game for the last 30 years. Hence the 'Cleric' class, and his good buddy the 'Paladin'.
Yes they have dabbled around with various Pantheons; still doesn't divorce the fact that it is considered that the Gods play a central role in the running of the class - in the mainstream.
Re: Buddhism,
I myself am a Zen Buddhist. Gautama Siddartha was a mortal man who discovered how to free himself from emotional suffering, through the "eightfold noble path." We revere him as the first major historical figure to teach others how to go about it. He's most emphatically NOT a "god."
In its native India, Buddhism was often taught using the language of Hindu philosphy, which was the dominant form of religious expression at the time. Hence, it's easy to read some of the later commentary and get the (false) impression that Hindu gods and beliefs must be a part of Buddhism. Likewise, as Buddhism spread into Southeast Asia and Tibet, a lot of the locals chose to retain their local gods and spirits, which would lead an incautious observer in the present day to conclude that Buddhism itself has "gods."
Illithid were medieval? Vancian magic was medieval? Dungeon crawling was medieval?
Now when we run a medieval based fantasy RPG,
Ok so to put that back to you then, what period of Earth history would you say closest parallels Pathfinder in the main in order for us to run with a functional analog? We will still end up in a tight time period.
Vancian magic? We talking tales of Merlin other such characters from which it is all derived or...?
Illithid, as opposed to falling off the edge of the Earth and being eaten by seamonsters; werewolves, Tengu, Yowies, Bunyips, Yeti, creatures from the black lagoon or Bigfoot?
|
This might come across a bit snarky, but why not start with defining religion as "politics by other means" (yeah, Clausewitz is probably rolling in his grave right now)?
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.
Religion goes hand in hand with Religion, and vice versa especially. Unfortunatly, historically it is religion that takes most of secular politicse's blame.
Hey MiB if you were running the Summerian Gods in your campaign back 20 years ago I'd be keen to see it. How'd you handle Paladins and Cavaliers in your Babylonian settings?
Bah. Post eaten. The question of how to define divinity is caught up in the question of how to define religion; in my mind.
EDIT
And I personally don't mind describing religion as you suggest, Lillith. I think it devalues the effects of symbolism somewhat. I might prefer to call politics religion by other means.
Strawman much? ?:/Hey MiB if you were running the Summerian Gods in your campaign back 20 years ago I'd be keen to see it. How'd you handle Paladins and Cavaliers in your Babylonian settings?
Not at all.
It was the logical question to ask given the example.
I honestly don't know. What period of Earth history would you say closest parallels Alice in Wonderland in the main in order for us to run a functional analog?
First published in 1865, I'd say late-middle 19th century. ;)
Interestingly enough, Lewis Carrol was English (and a psuedonym) but we do not generally portray his work in film with English accents.
While I'm hardly an expert, I do have some knowledge of the magical traditions in effect during the Medieval European period, and they most definitely do -not- resemble Vancian magic.
Whaaaaa? I thought the only way to catch a witch was to wait for them to expend all their high level spells and then throw a net on 'em?
I wasn't aware that werewolves... had psionic powers.
This is just another of my endless asides, but I do believe there were tales from somewhere about "psychic" werewolves able to project a sort of... "fake version" (ectoplasm?) of themselves that had all the abilities of the real thing. I dunno.
I honestly don't know. What period of Earth history would you say closest parallels Alice in Wonderland in the main in order for us to run a functional analog?
Lets run with Victorian.
And whilst we don't have Mind Flayers featured in any particular historical fairy stories we are aware of, the point remains that there has always been a history of fanatastic monsters hiding under beds or in deep dark lonely woods - and Mind Flayers are just another name to add to the pile.
After a bit of quick research, let's hear it for late library access, I think I may have been mistaking some Houngan ability or other with something that African werewolves could do.
That narrows it down to sometime in the past 100,000 years (okay, less than that -- when were beds (the kind that something can hide under) created?)
You'll need to define bed.
:D
They had talking, hookah smoking giant caterpillars in the Victorian era? Man, why do all the most interesting things always happen in a different time period!
Wasn't there, but I assume they didn't.
However the story was set then, and the affectations of the protagonists were still in keeping with the period.
So, you're narrowing it down to any period where we have stories of monsters under the bed and down deep lonely roads?
Nope, just pointing out that we have always had tales of mythical beasts, and still do to this current day. The Mind Flayer example thus not holding a lot of water.
Interesting and not entirely unwarranted. But by that logic, the Pathfinder setting most closely resembles today.
Then why are we buying horses and not Hummers?
Then why are we buying horses and not Hummers?
I'm pretty sure I'll get yelled at if I make the joke I'm thinking.
How many characters born of the lower classes are buying their own personal horses in the game?
Not a whole lot frankly. Then again, player characters aren't typical members of the lower classes - but rather the exceptional cases. The majority are trying to work out how to harvest the next crop or some other agrarian practice.
Now is there a point you are trying to make by nitpicking minutiae?
I'm pretty sure I'll get yelled at if I make the joke I'm thinking.
Then why are we buying horses and not Hummers?
....! Ok I might try a different example :p
You're bad! :D
Indeed. ;)
I have to tear myself away from these forums or I won't be done with paperwork that seriously needs to be done. Thanks for the talk everyone, it was illuminating. Good night.
There weren't any that I know of because commoners weren't the kind of people one wrote stories about.
Chaucer! :D
|
They had talking, hookah smoking giant caterpillars in the Victorian era? Man, why do all the most interesting things always happen in a different time period!
They were rare and elusive even then. Such creatures, or others like them can still sometimes be spotted today. The first step in tracking down such an unusual beast is to discover exactly what the caterpillar was smoking in the hookah...
Anyhow, I have to get back to productive endeavours, but I have enjoyed the debate.
My final position is that Clerics are bound by the nature of their Divine Spellcasting, in that there is an external force that they are channeling and acting as an agent for - and in the mainstream D&D setting, this constitutes a Deity system. The 'energy' is attached to a particular Dogma which sets it aside from the Arcane energies tapped by Wizards - which has it's own 'rules', but of mechanics as opposed to philosophy.
Its a Religion v Science argument.
As to time period, in order to be able to make a lot of assumptions about the game setting, we benefit from drawing a parallel with periods of Earth history - and we could draw a line across a pretty broad era from the middle ages to the renaissance Western Europe. Of course there are going to be a range of details that don't fit, bit in the main, the theme does. It is a fantasy game after all, not a highly detailed historical wargame.
Now, how many medieval stories of adventure (I mean stories which actually originated in the medieval period) included a group of people (the protagonists) born of lower class who all were able to buy horses?
Thanks for making my point, and not elaborating on yours?
I don't know what point of yours you think I was making or what point of mine you felt I was failing to elaborate on.Thanks for making my point, and not elaborating on yours?Now, how many medieval stories of adventure (I mean stories which actually originated in the medieval period) included a group of people (the protagonists) born of lower class who all were able to buy horses?
Ok lets go one further... what does your question have to do with player characters in a D&D campaign?
Mrs. Fishy is shocked.
How do you break a cleric?!?!?!
GIVE IT TO MRS. FISHY!
Mrs. Fishy is shocked.
How do you break a cleric?!?!?!
GIVE IT TO MRS. FISHY!
Broken - not EATEN! Clerics are friends, not food!
Fine LT, but the average character in a Pathfinder game is *NOT* a dirt poor nobody.
At 1st level, people aren't telling tales of the amazing PC's.
Not many are buying mounts at that stage either - with 110GP being the average level 1 starting wealth across the classes you'd be blowing a significant portion of your budget on a ride instead of equipment.
Furthermore, the starting wealth equates to a current amount of $40650USD for a level 1 character when we translate that 110gp. Now I dunno how dirt poor you reckon your players are, but if they are literate, healthy, schooled, and kicking around with an average of 40k each - fighters starting wealth translates as $17250USD (50gp) - $106500USD (300gp).
Thats hardly poor.
And thats BEFORE they are 'famous'.
How much do YOUR guys start with?
Average annual Salary for skilled labour in the US - $39000/PA
Average annual Salary for skilled labour in Pathfinder - 109gp-ish/PA (assuming no tax)
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? :pGive 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. Any religion which doesn't have a inventionist, personified deity isn't a "real" religion. Examples of such religions from the real world are countered with claims that they aren't religions or aren't major enough.
There are no true Scotsmen, because anyone you propose as a possible Scotsman has an unspecified flaw preventing him from being a true Scotsman.
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?So intra-religious conflict is limited to the goddess of backstabbing, then. It doesn't mar my point.
In the real world, we have three religions all worshipping the same god of omnibenevolence, and millenia of war within and between their respective flocks. That's a lot of great story material...until being a follower of a god gets you the immediate smackdown for not necessarily adhering to the tenets perfectly.
That was the primary, there are several other gods of the CN and CE variety in FR that have a history of setting their followers against each other. You could find clerics of Tempus on both sides of a battle for example.
There was also the sect of Cyric that broke off and worked toward the rebirth of Bane.
The whole business with Midnight(who was NG trying to act like true neutral) did not sit well with a lot of Mystra's followers either.
And there is still nothing in FR that prevents someone from impersonating a cleric of another god and leading their faithful astray.
Lawful and/or good organizations are very unlikely to produce splinter factions. They are more likely to settle thing by the book, or with discussion than they are to resort to outright bloodshed. That is true regardless of whether the organization follows a diety or not.
The problem with using the real world as a baseline is that I don't exactly see catholic priests calling down pillars of flame to smite their enemies. that was more of an old testament kinda thing.
and as for your examples from earlier...
Bonus round time! A list of deities who don't restrict their clerics at all!
# A fatalistic deity/faith where all actions are predetermined/preordained, so that whatever happens is the right thing to happen.
# A random/dadaist faith, where followers are ordered to do things that don't make sense...for reasons that don't make sense.
# A deity whose portfolio includes free will.
# An unfeeling god of strength/war/victory, with the tenet that victors are right because they are victorious.That list took me longer to type than it did to conceive, and I could probably toss off more if you wanted.
A god of free will would be strongly opposes to slavery, so there is at least on restriction on their clerics.
A god of war would be strongly opposed to peace through diplomacy, so against there would be some restrictions.I have never worked with a patheon that has a fatalistic or completely random diety, so I really can't comment on thosee
Nowhere in the rules does it say that that external force needs to take a personal hand in the cleric's life beyond granting spells. You don't need to have a divine leash that gets yanked when the cleric whose religion says Thou Shalt Not Steal swipes something, and you get all sorts of neat stories and world-building ideas from cutting the leash.
The Cleric can follow the bouncing ball, and follow the rules. It's not that hard is it? I can't recall any session I've been in or heard about ever where a Cleric or Paladin had their powers yanked due to capricious DM'ing - can't speak for your table.
You seem to have an issue with the notion of a character being able to follow the rules, and would simply prefer that they can act at their whim with no blow back from class constraints or annoying hinderences like Codes and Ethos.
"This constitutes a Deity system" is a rule you just made up, and it's an artificially limiting one that serves no purpose.
Only if I was Gygax speaking with you from beyond the grave yeah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deities_&_DemigodsKinda started back then.
Hi! I play 3e and Pathfinder, where they discarded a lot of that Gygaxian "play my way or I'll passive-aggressively wreck any fun you could possibly have until you submit" BS. I don't see any reason to do things the way 1e did them just because 1e did them that way.
Nevermind that you linked a book with disinterested deities and abstract forces
Nevermind that there's a setting with disinterested or absent or nonexistant deities in publication nearly continuously since TSR started publishing settings.
Nevermind that limiting people to choosing a deity doesn't even accomplish Charender's stated goals.
For something I just made up, there appears to be a line of supplements for stretching back from 1st Ed all the way through to 3rd with only 4th yet to get one. Even in the pre-1st ed materials a Cleric was linked to his Church.
So, not quite something I just made up, no.
Anyhow, I never saw any of that alleged passive aggressive stuff either. Following rules is pretty straight forward, and deviations from them (to err is human) is probably expected by Deities. I could see your point if every Deity presented was a pedantic micromanager with a punitive mentality and a penchant for harsh discipline, but I haven't seen much of that either.
In most places, and with most good ethos, it is understood that a punishment would fit a crime... botching a few words at Mass normally doesn't result in excommunication.
If it does at the tables you game at, perhaps it is time for new tables.
I'm also talking about making it possible for a bishop of the god of omnibenevolence to be a petty, selfish, cruel man without the heretic alarm going off and his powers suddenly disappearing.
Though you'd kind of have to ask yourself what he was doing as the local Bishop when his attitude and beliefs were so far out of whack with the dogma...?
I can see this working well for a 'lay' system, but from what would he be drawing his divine powers when his head and heart were so far away from the forces they are supposed to be representing?
I'm talking about allowing priests of one half of the god of the omnibenevolence to declare war on the other half for not pronouncing mass correctly. I'm talking about allowing clergy to actually doubt the intent, divinity, or even existence of their patrons.
Sure, but those stories of doubt etc are happening in the backdrop of a World where we don't see any sort of interventionist god(s) and at the same time the performance of 'Divine Miracles' is at somewhat of a premium... in 2000 years we had one Water to Wine and some bloke apparently did a Water Walk. Theres some story about a dude getting a rez, but even that took 3 days and it was almost 2000 years ago.
I'd be doubting and struggling about whether my faith was legit too.In game terms though, Clerics casting said magics based on the Divine kinda preclude faith as there is a sort of 'proof'.
Now if they want to re-word the energy force and call it 'Willpower' or 'strong belief in ideals' then that more becomes some kind of Psionic affair - as you are making a clear distinction and step away from the divine.
A Psionic based 'Cleric'?
(Theres an idea for some 3PP to go crackers with - just include me in the credits and send a case of beer plzkthx!!!)