Why I would play a cleric or inquisitor for that matter of a concept?
The polytheism/ duality issue has already been brought up.
Another reason: Getting in on the ground floor of deity. Look to Small Gods by Pratchett, for where I am going. A gods follower base start somewhere it may even start before the deity has a defined name or identity.
Perhaps St. Cuthbert started out as a cleric of a concept till he became the sainted then deified embodiment of said concept
That is my point. He is saying that by his logic that is the rule. He was not stating it as an opinion.
What I am stating is from a pure metagame point of view the gods do not exist. Now a GM can change that and they did not come right out and say it as they wanted to lave the option open.
But, if your "God" has never been in your universe, has never been seen or inter acted with by any being, is not on the plans, has no after life, has no servants, and no effect on the game universe at all.
Then he is just a concept with preset domains. From a game point of view Eberron does treat them as concept clerics with pre selected domains.
The game treats concepts and gods differently for this class. Eberron however treats it the same for eveyone, No matter if ya worship one of the "Gods" or your dog.
So they are all treated as Concepts.
I am not saying it is cut and dry for in game, as how would they know? But from a meta game point of view it is clear.
Seeker, all I can say is what I have said before about this - your belief that magic and divinity must be entirely un-mysterious and clear cut, that there must be a specific set of "rules" in place, and that nothing can ever break these rules, is utterly and completely anathema to myself and to my gaming philosophy.
The greatest source of drama and conflict in the world has been under the question of the divine. If you refuse to even consider there being a question, you have killed a lot of good ideas.
Seeker, if you feel that gods must be codified as existing (otherwise they cannot exist and DMs stating they do are houseruling) and that you must never mix deity clerics with concept clerics...
...I have no idea how you could ever cope with Planescape, a setting that is by definition and decision ambiguous. Are the Athar who believe the Powers are just really strong berks the "right" one that the DM must enforce? What about the Godsmen that state the Powers are basically really strong berks, except everyone can potentially be one, and there's a level beyond that? What about religious Harmonium who think both of those viewpoints is absolute bunk, that the gods quite clearly exist as gods, and that's that? What about Signers that believe everything is a product of their own imagination?
There is no one "logical" answer in Planescape. How would you cram this into your viewpoint that everything must fit in a single set of rules?
Planscape is its own setting with its own set of rules. I view it like any setting, it has its own take on things, however unlike eberron it does treat gods as gods not as concepts. Coarse planescape had a wild take on anything and every thing and was the ultimate "kitchen sink/Every thing and anything goes" setting. I kinda liked it, but that is one of the things that kinda killed it for me, no consistency.
@Lazerx, sorry but by the core book alone that is simply not true. From a game stand point gods are treated as concepts. The 3.5 core and pathfinder do not treat gods as concepts, clerics of god and clerics of concepts are not treated the same.
Eberron treats all clerics as if they are concept clerics. From the setting info we have, you see gods have never had a single thing to do with the planes or the planets.
By the book gods are concepts that the GM may or may not make into something more.
Also ProfessorCirno, I didn't say everything. What I said ( a few times now) was most settings that allow both do not make a lick of sense as they tend to just skip over the topic. And that to me you can't mix and match without really covering the subject. And that the setting I make and the ones I like most ( Golarion, Eberron, FR and Darksuns) do one or the other not both.
Also I did not say it must be un-mysterious, that would be what you said. But no you are not allowed in any games I run to play a concept cleric in FR for instance as the setting disallows it, and allowing it changes the setting greatly. No where near the same as saying there is no mystery to how it works in character.
Hmm, is not an "all-powerful force" a concept? Could not a Jedi be built upon a Clerical chassis? Hmm...
There are many who believe in the divine nature of mankind's capacity to do good without necessarily ascribing that attribute to a specific, named deity. The tenets of social justice, for example, aren't necessarily limited to one religion.Yes Brian, but that's an extremely modern concept. In midieval times for instance, it was conceivable that one could read a book silently, verbalising what you read was an automatic part of reading. In a millieu that predates the Enlightement the concept of Atheism was practically unheard of. The concept that an Atheist would expect to receive divine spells would be unheard of.
I, too, remember medieval times, with it's fireball throwing magicians, and the clerics that had actual divine power to heal people. Why, remember when the Crusade never happened because the clerics just prayed and God himself told them "Yo, they chill, don't fight?" I do.
:bubblepipe:
In my game, the civilized nations don't have gods. Instead they have a unified religion based around the Virtues, and each priest is called to follow one of the Virtues (which has an associated set of domains) primarily, while still being expected to represent all of the Virtues as well.
In other words, if you want to be a cleric from a standard race in my game, you worship a concept. Gods are for more primitive races.
In other words, if you want to be a cleric from a standard race in my game, you worship a concept. Gods are for more primitive races.
That is kinda a neat concept and one that is more in line to what I was talking about.
How do you handle relations between the servants of gods and the more civilized clergy?
Hmm, is not an "all-powerful force" a concept? Could not a Jedi be built upon a Clerical chassis? Hmm...
In that setting I say yes( although they prob be more inquisitors stat wise) as the Force is a Religion.
In other words, if you want to be a cleric from a standard race in my game, you worship a concept. Gods are for more primitive races.That is kinda a neat concept and one that is more in line to what I was talking about.
How do you handle relations between the servants of gods and the more civilized clergy?
Civils view brutals as being essentially sub-human, and see their gods as being a crutch for minds too primitive to comprehend the nature of the Divine.
Brutals see civils as delusional sheep whose priests have forgotten the names and natures of their gods.
Why I would play a cleric or inquisitor for that matter of a concept?
The polytheism/ duality issue has already been brought up.
Another reason: Getting in on the ground floor of deity. Look to Small Gods by Pratchett, for where I am going. A gods follower base start somewhere it may even start before the deity has a defined name or identity.
Perhaps St. Cuthbert started out as a cleric of a concept till he became the sainted then deified embodiment of said concept
That's sort of how I see it too. Even small gods get clerics sometimes. St. Cuthbert was once a human, so the cleric of a concept to god thing makes sense. If I didn't like Cuthbert, I wouldn't have based 2.5 characters on his faith. That said, the Pathfinder version is more an amalgam- a poly-theist somewhat lost in his faith, but still receiving powers as he's devoted to Retribution (and thus Destruction and Protection). I think I forgot to mention he's a neutral cleric that channels negative energy. Incidentally, there are two clerics in our party- the second is a Saranae cleric (all about Redemption) who does heal. I think they make a nice foil and get along rather well due to mutual respect. Though I can forsee a falling out when Geth's alignment leads to choices that fall farther away from Saranae's teachings.
While Abadar comes closest to Cuthbert, my guy pays lip service to him to gain approval in Korvosa and follows Nethys as much as he does because it matches his tortured soul ideal better with the two domains Nethys Grants. Irori is in there for flavor as well as my guy was a Sailor. (note I also picked a sub-domain of Defense, so mechanically that changes the game a little).
I don't see my cleric, who carries 3 and a half holy symbols (he carries a cudgel) as having that much less faith or validity than a single deity cleric who doesn't focus on a concept more than a deity specific set up. An unclear idea of St. Cuthbert is his deity. No, he isn't as clear course as a Cleric of St. Cuthbert, but he doesn't have to be. I always saw Cuthbert as a conflicted deity anyway. Protect the innocent and hard working, punish the guilty and chaotically destructive and espouse the faith...judging all the way, leaving a path of destruction in the wake.
Still, I'd defend my True Neutral Death cleric too, while I've played aligned clerics, the Neutral ones- the ones that conform to their faith in a concept more than society's expectations are the more interesting ones. Negative energy is non-generic.
Civils view brutals as being essentially sub-human, and see their gods as being a crutch for minds too primitive to comprehend the nature of the Divine.
Brutals see civils as delusional sheep whose priests have forgotten the names and natures of their gods.
That is pretty much how I thought it would play out really, Not that I disagree.
|
In other words, if you want to be a cleric from a standard race in my game, you worship a concept. Gods are for more primitive races.That is kinda a neat concept and one that is more in line to what I was talking about.
How do you handle relations between the servants of gods and the more civilized clergy?
Civils view brutals as being essentially sub-human, and see their gods as being a crutch for minds too primitive to comprehend the nature of the Divine.
Brutals see civils as delusional sheep whose priests have forgotten the names and natures of their gods.
Are you intentionally trying to foster the impression to your players that in this setting Worshiping concepts is better? Because that's the impression that I got from two posts, you use civil and brutal to describe the two cultures instead of urban/developed and rural/agrarian/barbarian
Given that St. Cuthbert dates from AD+D which did not have truck with godless clerics, He may have been originaly a cleric of Pholtus, if I recall correctly. The following are gleaned from the two applicable Wikipedia articles.
He's also named for a real life canonised monk of the 7th century. He's the patron saint of North England.
St. Cuthbert was one of the first two dieties created when Gygax's cleric players got tired of his response. "Your powers come from the gods", and demanded a name. He gave them two, Cuthbert and Pholtus... whose clerics deny that any other gods exist. First published appearance... Dragon #2.
But Cuthbert was ret-conned into 3rd ed which does deal with concept clerics, so while I am aware of his real life analog I should have been more specific about which variant of Cuthbert I was speaking of.
Are you intentionally trying to foster the impression to your players that in this setting Worshiping concepts is better? Because that's the impression that I got from two posts, you use civil and brutal to describe the two cultures instead of urban/developed and rural/agrarian/barbarianIn other words, if you want to be a cleric from a standard race in my game, you worship a concept. Gods are for more primitive races.That is kinda a neat concept and one that is more in line to what I was talking about.
How do you handle relations between the servants of gods and the more civilized clergy?
Civils view brutals as being essentially sub-human, and see their gods as being a crutch for minds too primitive to comprehend the nature of the Divine.
Brutals see civils as delusional sheep whose priests have forgotten the names and natures of their gods.
The PCs are civils. These are the terms they use, and the setting is presented to the players from that perspective.
So, yes.
Cuthbert's mortal life hasn't ever been detailed. but given that this is Greyhawk, it's a good assumption to make that he was either a non-cleric or a cleric of Pholtus in his mortal life. (Given that Pholtus' clerics teach that there are NO other gods, the particular rivalry between the two clergy would make sense in that perspective)
Given that no godless clerics have ever been published in either game literature or company-based novels it's a fair assumption that Cuthbert was NOT a concept cleric, especially given his roots. The only ret-conning that's happened is the alternation between LG(N) and LN(G) alignments. the rest of the details have remained the same for the most part.
Considering Pholtus isn't listed as a god in the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB I would say you are making a very shoddy assumption that he would have been affiliated with a god not found in that edition of the game.
|
Without having read this completely, (and hoping I'm not repeating anyone), I would hands down rather create a Cleric without a deity than with one.
Without one, you, as a player can then actually add something to the character and to the setting by creating your faith. I do not mean just picking a few Domains and that BS. I mean what was originally intended by that rule in creating an actual faith. Even if you are the only practicioner. To require a Cleric to pick a deity, especially one from a setting book, to me is rediculous.
Do you require a Wizard to pick an arcane academy AND limit what spells they can ever learn as well as their point of view?
Do you require a Fighter to have a warrior school that limits their Feat and weapon/Armor/Shield options throughout their career?
Or Rogues to be part of a guild that dictates FOR THE what skills they are allowed to train? I'm guessing the answer is no, and yet, DM think that they should have this sort of power over the Cleric player.
Not only does it take away the players creativity and ability to craft what they really want to play, but it also really forces them to play someone elses idea, in a way. It also leaves too much room, I think, for (poor or jealous?) DM's to mess with the Cleric in some cases, by removing the option for the player to limit themselves.
Even in the earliest iteration of the Cleric, they where not followers of a patron deity. They where just Clerics, weilding Divine powers. There where no specific gods.
On the other side of the issue, is that it makes it difficult, (without any good reason) to play a Cleric of a pantheon. It's not that I personally like the idea, but that that option should only be in the players hands. Heck, just make the patron deity an optional rule and be done with it.
:)
|
|
Considering Pholtus isn't listed as a god in the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB I would say you are making a very shoddy assumption that he would have been affiliated with a god not found in that edition of the game.
St. Cuthbert was one of the two first deities specified as existing (for players), in the original GreyHawk. Before that, it was just "the gods", in the sense of "I serve the Light".
Pholtus wasn't listed intentionally, because then having St. Cuthbert as a LN deity wouldn't make any sense. He is LG, but not as Lawful Stupid as Pholtus, hence their major rivalry and St. Cuthbert being the god of practicle goodness and wise law, vs Pholtus being pure law and 110% by th edge of a sword, preferably.
Seeker is trying to argue that folks who play in an Eberron campaign ONLY worship concepts, despite what the text and the players may think.
As the rule book I am using {ECS} treats them as concept clerics with different fluff, yes that is what it does. You can dislike it but it is what it is. They are treated as the core rules treats concept clerics. So while you can claim it does not say that in the fluff part, it does indeed treat it in the game side as if it did.
Are you intentionally trying to foster the impression to your players that in this setting Worshiping concepts is better? Because that's the impression that I got from two posts, you use civil and brutal to describe the two cultures instead of urban/developed and rural/agrarian/barbarian
As it is his setting what if he is? In that setting concepts are better { well by the core rules as well) you are not chained to some great being who can cut you off from power on a whim, but indoctrinated to a more orderly and world concept.
Not all worlds use the same rule, some do not allow concept clerics at all, while others only allow them. It makes since that if both are real in a world one or the other will become dominant and in time the other will be driven out. In his worlds the gods lost among the civilized races it seems.
Seeker, I could care less that that that's the way you interpret it. It is however arrogant for you to assume your interpretation is the force of RAW as far as Eberron is concerned, especially since one of the major intents of the setting is to leave as much of the answers for the big questions to the GM to decide.
I could care less you ignore the rules you dislike. 3.5 treated god worshiping clerics and concept clerics differently by the rules. This is just how it is. You wish to ignore that by invoking fluff.
Eberron treats all clerics the same way, that being the way concept clerics are treated. Its not opinion it is the way the rules are written in the ECS.
Fluff has little to do with the rules, fluff is that "no one knows" but the rules treat them as concept clerics with pre selected domains.
You are using fluff to argue rules here.
I think you should have to be true to a concept in the same way you have to be true to a deity since the concept is an actual force. Using some twisted logic that killing innocents is valor because (insert psychotic belief), and you lose your powers.
In my games players that choose deities occasionally get hints if they are about to make the wrong decision since they have a deity to guide them. Those without deities are their own guides for the most part.
PS:None of what I just wrote is official. It just makes players not take the best domains for the purpose of taking the best domains.
I hate to break it to you but D&D as well as Cuthbert and Pholtus were decades before 3.0.
Check the Greyhawk books with the full diety list for the World of Greyhawk. The clergy of Cuthbert and Pholtus are fully detailed within that setting.
You aren't breaking anything to anyone. I had World of Greyhawk back in highschool :)
What you are doing is conflating details of multiple editions or specific settings to defend your position. In 3.X Cuthbert is part of the default deities listed in the PHB with no mention of Pholtus. IE He was Ret-conned to fill a role in the non setting specific core book for a new edition of the game. An edition that DOES allow for Concept based clerics. To bring in a deity that isn't listed to defend your position in regards to that non setting specified edition is shaky. It is just as likely (perhaps more-so as no deity that isn't listed is involved) that he was a concept cleric.
I'm rejecting your claim to be the "RIGHT" OR "RAW" or one true way or whatever. The aim to in presenting Eberron was to be expansionist, not exclusive.
Feel free to reject it, but as written they are handled on the GM side of the screen as concept clerics.
I am not sure if you are misunderstanding what I am saying or just like to argue, but it is what it is. I am not interpreting a thing. I am using the rules presented in the book. You need to step back from the fluff and look at it from a rules stand point.
The game treats the two types of clerics in a different manner rule wise,Eberron treats them all the very same way, that being the way concept clerics are handled.
Personally depending on the setting I despise concept clerics. It works in Eberron because of the vague sense that the gods don't exist or at least in active. Heck the most widely worshipped being isn't a god at all but a supernatural phenomenom.
In Dark Sun it's the dragonlords and elements that get he most worship. Not gods but reverence that seems to give the power.
In places like Faerun or Golaria concept clerics should be seen as an abomination to be expunged if they exist at all. Gods are active and grant powers to their loyal followers, in turn these loyal followers spread the gods dogma and use their spellcasting and powers to aid those followers. When someone is running around doing that in the name of a concept such as Death rather than in the name of Pharasma or Nerull than that god should be taking issue and working to quash that. The mysterious power gimmick is already taken by the oracle or witch.
Now from the perspective of other settings like eberron or Warcraft power can come from incredible faith which brings up interesting points and questions about the nature of gods and religion.
No it's NOT the way concept clerics should be handled. A concept cleric is no more free to run off the rails in a standard game than one actually bound to a diety. If anything I hold them even MORE strictly because they don't have an actual POWER as the anchor point for thier faith.
Actually an Eberron campaign should have NO concept clerics for this very reason.
Again that has nothing to do with what we have been talking about, sorry but now you are using pure conjecture and opinion. While I agree with you, that is simply not the way it is written in the rules. You are interpreting how you think it should be done, not how it is written.
By the rules they do not have that issue at all, Concept clerics can not be stripped of power. RAW states only those who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features.
Concept clerics have no god, they have no one to strip them of power by RAW. I know and agree this is not how it should work, but it is indeed how it is presented. If you do not have a God then you can not fall.
Eberron treats every cleric this way, they can not fall. They are all concept clerics with no rules difference between them at all.
I'm rejecting your claim to be the "RIGHT" OR "RAW" or one true way or whatever. The aim to in presenting Eberron was to be expansionist, not exclusive.Feel free to reject it, but as written they are handled on the GM side of the screen as concept clerics.
I am not sure if you are misunderstanding what I am saying or just like to argue, but it is what it is. I am not interpreting a thing. I am using the rules presented in the book. You need to step back from the fluff and look at it from a rules stand point.
The game treats the two types of clerics in a different manner rule wise,Eberron treats them all the very same way, that being the way concept clerics are handled.
There is nothing stating them as concepts. Eberron was made with a lot of things not specifically answered as to exactly how they work so the GM could make the decision.
Do they exist physically? Are they only spiritual beings? Can they physically walk the planet? There is speculation that the traveler does.In short leaving it up to the GM does not make it a concept. I could just as easily say since the book does not label them as a concept in exact words that they must exist as actual beings.
If the wizards's boards had not been decimated by the changes I could find where Keith Baker(main designer) said the exact nature is left open on purpose.
They behave similar to concepts mechanically, but by the rules a concept can't come down and smite you in the face for misbehaving. Since it is left open in Eberron as to the nature of deities a GM could have it happen.
That possibility alone makes it not a concept.
Last printed issue of Dragon magazine.
If the wizards's boards had not been decimated by the changes I could find where Keith Baker(main designer) said the exact nature is left open on purpose.
I remember the article on The Mourning saying the exact cause was never detailed. I guess I will have look at it again.
So once more its Fluff vs mechanics. Fluff is whatever the GM wants, mechanically they are treated as concept clerics.
This it the argument we are having seen from another view
The Krajeen Campaign setting does not have the wizard class, all "wizards" use the sorcerer class but are limited to the Arcane bloodline
ME "The Krajeen setting doesn't really have wizards "
LazarX " They do to, that is just your opinion as the book clearly has them"
Me" Yes but only by fluff, mechanically they are not wizards"
LazarX "That is your opinion"
This is the very argument we are having, Mechanically they are indeed all treated as concept clerics.
So once more its Fluff vs mechanics. Fluff is whatever the GM wants, mechanically they are treated as concept clerics.
This it the argument we are having seen from another view
The Krajeen Campaign setting does not have the wizard class, all "wizards" use the sorcerer class but are limited to the Arcane bloodline
ME "The Krajeen setting doesn't really have wizards "
LazarX " They do to, that is just your opinion as the book clearly has them"
Me" Yes but only by fluff, mechanically they are not wizards"
LazarX "That is your opinion"
This is the very argument we are having, Mechanically they are indeed all treated as concept clerics.
A concept by the rules can not take your powers away.
In Eberron you don't have to follow your deities alignment, but nothing says he can't just snatch your powers away due to displeasure.Why would a deity allow you to be of a different alignment, but get upset at you for another reason. I guess that depends on the GM, but I do see your point now.
You were saying the ability to ignore alignments and so on make them pretty much no different than concepts. I took it as you saying the deities are concepts.
I don't agree, but I see your point now. I can't agree because it is left open for a GM to decide if a deity in Eberron would take your powers for another reason, by the very openess of the campaign.
The issues is we KNOW they do not, we Know corrupt NE clerics of LG "gods" never fall, we have examples of NPC's that willing break any and every "law" of their faith if they feel like it and they never fall.
The only way a cleric in eberron can ever fall is if the GM randomly decides he should. Which isn't fair as if an NPC can be NE or CE and break any and every tentent of his faith with zero issues {as long as his superiors do not find out and kick him out of the order or something) why should PC's?
So you either one: Punish the PC's for something that everyone else in the world can and does get away with or Two: change the way the settig is written,
The issues is we KNOW they do not, we Know corrupt NE clerics of LG "gods" never fall, we have examples of NPC's that willing break any and every "law" of their faith if they feel like it and they never fall.
The only way a cleric in eberron can ever fall is if the GM randomly decides he should. Which isn't fair as if an NPC can be NE or CE and break any and every tentent of his faith with zero issues {as long as his superiors do not find out and kick him out of the order or something) why should PC's?
So you either one: Punish the PC's for something that everyone else in the world can and does get away with or Two: change the way the settig is written,
Why do you think NPC's can't fall? They probably won't because they won't exist until the GM creates them, and the fall will just be background like most other NPC's, but having someone do something bad enough to lost their powers is not impossible. In my Eberron anyone can lose their power which leads us back to the openess issue again. Now if a GM is going to be inconsistent he may need a more concretely written setting to run.