|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Sept 13, 2015 7:10:22 GMT -6
For those that detail out your deities and religions a bit and assuming a polytheistic culture do you add any motivation or justifications for why a cleric would choose a particular reason to serve one deity exclusively? Most people in a polytheistic culture play lip service to nearly all the deities at some point. So why would a person choose just one at the exclusion to all others?
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 13, 2015 7:24:56 GMT -6
Religion is often associated with either conversion- which may involve a life changing supernatural experience or, otherwise, a major change of ones world view.
It can also be associated with fanaticalism- which often gives the appearance of extreme life style choices.
Both of these could cause extreme devotion to the exclusion of other religions.
There is also the idea of family or tribal tradition that could be looked at.
|
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Sept 13, 2015 7:41:17 GMT -6
I usually don't have a set pantheon, or any gods at all really. I have players make up their own gods when they choose to be a cleric, but the assumed story is the there are thousands of gods out there, not unlike Hinduism or Shinto. Everyone believes in all the gods, because they're all real, but they just pick out favorites based on occupation, problems, intuition, etc like a Catholic might pick out a favorite saint. Clerics make this devote a full-time job. I'm pretty sure a priest of Apollo believed in all the other gods as well, but he just felt a special kinship with Apollo.
If a cleric wanted to not devote himself to a specific deity, but rather all of the deities, I'd probably allow it. And if a cleric of a rain god was trying to light a campfire, he'd probably say a prayer to a fire god (or the patron saint of camping).
|
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Sept 13, 2015 8:00:06 GMT -6
Real world polytheistic societies are a mix of priests that serve the pantheon, and priests that are devoted to a singular god. I don't think priests devoted to a singular god were a regular part of Viking/Nordic society, but the Roman empire had the flamines, who were priests of specific gods. It really depends on the gods. Some are more selfish than others.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 13, 2015 8:12:23 GMT -6
I don't think priests devoted to a singular god were a regular part of Viking/Nordic society. The Vikings were notoriously harsh to Christian missionaries until their regions were Christianised. Even then, they often continued or blended it with their own traditions. This is sometimes called syncretism. |
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Sept 13, 2015 8:43:23 GMT -6
Helping players who have only known monotheism in real life wrap their heads around polytheism has long been a goal in my DMing. I think I've succeeded best in my Verbobonc Campaign. While the players may specialize in the ethos of a particular deity, they know to invoke any of the gods in the Temple of the Heavenly Virtues, depending on which best fits the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Sept 13, 2015 13:06:04 GMT -6
I've done away with clerics in my campaign altogether. I use the Celtic and Cthulhu pantheons, so the religious functionaries the characters are famuluar with are batds, druids, and seers, all of whom are now relegated to NPC status.
Infrequent healing.
No turning undead.
Life is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 13, 2015 13:16:45 GMT -6
Real world polytheistic societies are a mix of priests that serve the pantheon, and priests that are devoted to a singular god. I don't think priests devoted to a singular god were a regular part of Viking/Nordic society Some sagas , like the Saga of Hrafnkell Freysgoði (Hrafnkell, the priest of Frey) tend to picture heathen goðar as such, but much were written by christian clerks centuries after the chritianisation of Iceland, so such a description must probably must taken with its grain of salt. Nevertheless, norsemen had often a very personnal relation with their patron deity , calling him astvinr ("dear friend"). |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 13, 2015 13:23:34 GMT -6
the Roman empire had the flamines, who were priests of specific gods. It really depends on the gods. Some are more selfish than others. Also , the priestly functions in ancient Rome were somewhat of a public office, more that a thing of faith. In one of my campaigns set in some kind of pseudo late-era Roman Empire , I had clerics organised in colleges. Clerics could be "nominated" in such or such college and "switch" patron deities according to the public needs and career advancements. |
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Sept 13, 2015 15:00:41 GMT -6
I think there are a number of reasons for this, bestialwarlust.
The deity might be the patron or overseer of a domain or sphere of very special interest to the devotee, such as a specific type area of nature, certain human arts or activities, or certain animals or phenomena.
Or their church or temple might be preeminent socially or politically in the cleric's early experience.
There might be be a particular faith tradition within the family, tribe or clan of the devotee.
The cleric could believe that their god or goddess is in fact the only true divinity.
And there are lots of other possible reasons.
I do think, though, in a polytheistic setting, there should be more cohesion among adherents of the gods in one culture than is commonly portrayed.
If you were in classical Greece, you might a priestess of Athena, and serve her temple especially, but you would still honor the other gods, and might even pray to them when the supplication involved the special domain or correspondences related to one or other of them. You would not pray only to Athena, and though you would defend her faith with a special zeal, you would actually defend and serve the entire pantheon.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 14, 2015 0:10:14 GMT -6
Most people in a polytheistic culture play lip service to nearly all the deities at some point. So why would a person choose just one at the exclusion to all others? "Lean Times in Lankhmar", a story of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser by Fritz Leiber, illustrates a very D&Dish answer to your question. Fortunately, it's a fun story to read. Fortunately again, here it is for free: www.baenebooks.com/chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___2.htm |
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Sept 14, 2015 18:46:19 GMT -6
"Lean Times in Lankhmar", a story of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser by Fritz Leiber, illustrates a very D&Dish answer to your question. Fortunately, it's a fun story to read. Fortunately again, here it is for free: www.baenebooks.com/chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___2.htm[/quote] One of the top ten fantasy short stories of all time, IMHO. Seriously, Read it if you haven't before. Now. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Sept 15, 2015 0:25:31 GMT -6
I used to have all kinds of monotheist and pantheonic religions, but these days I have (in 3-way or 5-way alignment, respectively): - "The Church" - the source of Lawful (3-way) or Lawful Good (5-way) clerics.
- "The Old Faith" - druids, primitive tribes, country folk, basically druidic but with animist undertones, may be Neutral druids, or Chaotic (3-way) or Chaotic Good (5-way) clerics, although there are some disgruntled Chaotic (3-way) or Chaotic Evil (5-way) clerics and witches.
- "Cults" - mostly evil fanatics like the Callers of Cthulhu or Dagonites, Chaotic (3-way), or Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil (5-way) clerics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 15, 2015 5:33:33 GMT -6
I had druids mostly Neutral, but with the (rumored) existance of a "Red branch", as the "crazy, human-sacrificing, wickerman-burning, inhuman-Nature worshippers" which counted as neutral as far as Alignment detection, divisional languages, etc. were involved, but actuelly behaved as Chaotic, and an even more secret "White bough", which behaved as Lawful to fill in the role of the "peacifical, helpful tree-huggers". |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 15, 2015 11:11:37 GMT -6
I used to have all kinds of monotheist and pantheonic religions, but these days I have (in 3-way or 5-way alignment, respectively): - "The Church" - the source of Lawful (3-way) or Lawful Good (5-way) clerics.
- "The Old Faith" - druids, primitive tribes, country folk, basically druidic but with animist undertones, may be Neutral druids, or Chaotic (3-way) or Chaotic Good (5-way) clerics, although there are some disgruntled Chaotic (3-way) or Chaotic Evil (5-way) clerics and witches.
- "Cults" - mostly evil fanatics like the Callers of Cthulhu or Dagonites, Chaotic (3-way), or Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil (5-way) clerics.
I like this, but just to clarify: Lawful : church Neutral : the old religion Chaotic : cult/s Yes? If so then I am right there with you. Same with me. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 15, 2015 12:10:32 GMT -6
My view is very similar to Vile’s. I think this model is pretty well baked into the game:
1. Good clerics
2. Neutral druids
3. Evil anti-clerics
(For Good read Lawful or CG+LG, and for Evil read Chaotic or CE+LE, depending on alignment model.)
Even in the AD&D PHB with its ostensible 9-point alignment system, you are still either casting cleric spells, druid spells, or reverse cleric spells, so, albeit given a little flexibility in stated alignment, you are still functionally one of the three types.
Good clerics are crypto-Christians, so deal with that how you will. In Hommlet, there is local chapel dedicated to Saint Cuthbert, so, a cleric PC might easily be a member of that order, a totally “English Christianity” themed friar who calls upon his patron saint while performing miracles straight out of the bible.
For other deities, there are so many ways you can go. Many aspects of ancient religions (Egyptian, Canaanite, Babylonian, Greek) influenced ancient Hebraic/Judaic religion, so you have the ancient images of God as reigning over a court of the gods, God as champion of the gods (triumphing over Chaos/Tiamat), and God as one nation’s god triumphing over other nations’ gods. As Christianity spread, sometimes local gods were condemned as idols or demons, sometimes they were syncretized with a Christian saint who had the same name or a similar name or characteristics (the Irish deity Brigid with Saint Brigid, Abbess of Kildare, for example, or in Slavic lands, the Virgin Martyr Paraskeva of Iconium took on the aspects of the fertility-patroness Piatnitsa). In D&D-land, we are also meant to imagine that somehow Druidism just continued to exist and never came into conflict with anybody unless nature or the balance were threatened.
So if a player comes along and wants to be a worshiper of [insert any deity from GDDH/DDG], I let the player decide what kind of a cult it is: Is it a benign deity who was gladly absorbed into God’s court (i.e., is the deity “really” an angel or saint or Vala or Oyarsa)? A proud demon that continues to function as an idol-deity-godking or straight up serves Satan in the underworld? Or is it a sponsor of nature who quietly fits in the Druidic hierarchy?
Though honestly most of this rationalization exists in my head, and the players just do what the players will do and don’t give it much thought!
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 15, 2015 14:59:15 GMT -6
For those that detail out your deities and religions a bit and assuming a polytheistic culture do you add any motivation or justifications for why a cleric would choose a particular reason to serve one deity exclusively? Most people in a polytheistic culture play lip service to nearly all the deities at some point. So why would a person choose just one at the exclusion to all others? What a player wants to play is completely up to them. I'm not there to motivate them as a DM. By my understanding D&D doesn't require players to choose only 1 patron deity. They have to declare an alignment prior to play, but that can change. That's the clerical game. Even if they declared for an entire pantheon of deities spanning the alignment chart, they would still only receive spells from those in the PCs current Alignment. Shifting alignments may not be as interesting due to already knowing the other deities, but it would still require the same game actions to be taken to gain new spells. For the record, I don't believe D&D (or Greyhawk) is polytheistic. It's open for everything and anything, but everything as designed within the alignment system. One of the greatest features of Greyhawk is its original deities. There are several pantheons. Many deities overlapping the same "domain". Many with roots lost to time. Many completely unique personalities. Several which are very similar to each other, often due to culture. Plenty that aren't politically correct. There are some secret gods unknown to the players. Adding new lesser known deities, which still may be significant elsewhere, is a breeze, even expected. In other words, Greyhawk feels like a real world. That pool is organic. It feels grown rather than invented. It comes off as active and actual and not designed to fit cookie cutter ideas about domains like almost every other fantasy world. Maybe by doing it first it didn't fall into common mistakes now taken? EDIT: Link to my Greyhawk example starting deities: drive.google.com/file/d/0B7FU9KrsDZtvUi1jNXFpSmZPLUU/view?usp=sharing |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Sept 15, 2015 18:53:15 GMT -6
I used to have all kinds of monotheist and pantheonic religions, but these days I have (in 3-way or 5-way alignment, respectively): - "The Church" - the source of Lawful (3-way) or Lawful Good (5-way) clerics.
- "The Old Faith" - druids, primitive tribes, country folk, basically druidic but with animist undertones, may be Neutral druids, or Chaotic (3-way) or Chaotic Good (5-way) clerics, although there are some disgruntled Chaotic (3-way) or Chaotic Evil (5-way) clerics and witches.
- "Cults" - mostly evil fanatics like the Callers of Cthulhu or Dagonites, Chaotic (3-way), or Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil (5-way) clerics.
I like this, but just to clarify: Lawful : church Neutral : the old religion Chaotic : cult/s Yes? If so then I am right there with you. Same with me. Pretty much, but the more negative aspects of the old faith are sometimes espoused by chaotic clerics and witches, too. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 15, 2015 18:53:53 GMT -6
Wow. Thanks for that link! What an amazing story! What fun to read! I want my campaign to feel like that! |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 16, 2015 0:49:17 GMT -6
Pretty much, but the more negative aspects of the old faith are sometimes espoused by chaotic clerics and witches, too. And also, neutral clerics could weasel their way into the Lawfull Church to fill the role of the greedy, corrupted fat prelate (although they won't climb higher than 8th level due to their holiness-less) |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Sept 16, 2015 4:27:15 GMT -6
No Neutral clerics in Holmes, though.
|
|
JMiskimen
BANNED
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Sagan
Posts: 53
|
Post by JMiskimen on Sept 16, 2015 7:24:50 GMT -6
One thing that always bothered me about Clerics being the go to holy-man character is when, say when a player decides to venerate Zeus, and BTB he must use a non edged weapon like a club or mace, when it'd probably make more sense for him to use a spear or javelin. Yet, a Druid seems to be a poor fit for the worshipper of Zeus. I'm not saying every faith needs a character class to emulate the player's intent, but a more viable class could be developed ... Maybe a Pagan or Heathen Class, considering the origins of the Cleric?
|
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Sept 16, 2015 7:51:26 GMT -6
One thing that always bothered me about Clerics being the go to holy-man character is when, say when a player decides to venerate Zeus, and BTB he must use a non edged weapon like a club or mace, when it'd probably make more sense for him to use a spear or javelin. Yet, a Druid seems to be a poor fit for the worshipper of Zeus. I'm not saying every faith needs a character class to emulate the player's intent, but a more viable class could be developed ... Maybe a Pagan or Heathen Class, considering the origins of the Cleric? Luckily if you're playing with d6 damage then you can just ignore the edgeless-weapon rule easily. Even using Greyhawk spears and javelins do comparable damage to maces and sling I think. You could just not allow double-handed weapons, and also reserve the sword as a cultural tradition where only fighting-men can use them. I think a bigger hurdle would be a lack of appropriate spells for, say, a priest of Zeus. Maybe Lightning Bolt at high levels or something? |
|
JMiskimen
BANNED
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." - Sagan
Posts: 53
|
Post by JMiskimen on Sept 16, 2015 8:15:29 GMT -6
Actually, I do use d6 damage and I simply tell the players of "Pagan" Clerics that they may use the weapons of their deity. I agree that the spell list is a bigger hurdle, and in some traditions - since we're talking about the Greek pantheon - the ability of turning undead is an odd fit (I don't recall any undead in Greek Mythology. Shades, perhaps...Jason and the Argonauts not withstanding - LOL) Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in 'Don't fix it unless it's broken,' And I don't think Clerics are broken - I'm just making observations that the class is what it is and certainly isn't what it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 16, 2015 8:52:30 GMT -6
For what it's worth, here's how I've been doing clerics:
my Carcosa campaign:
CN clerics of Azathoth
CE clerics of the other Old Ones
LG clerics of the elder gods
outside of Carcosa:
LG crypto-Christian clerics
CE crypto-Satanist clerics
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 16, 2015 11:14:30 GMT -6
JMiskimen: I think the real mechanical point (pun not intended) of the no edged weapon rule for clerics is to keep magic swords something special and unique to benefit only fighting-men. As long as you said: no normal magic swords for clerics; then I think you would be following the spirit if not the letter of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 16, 2015 12:14:11 GMT -6
@jmiskimen: I think the real mechanical point (pun not intended) of the no edged weapon rule for clerics is to keep magic swords something special and unique to benefit only fighting-men. As long as you said: no normal magic swords for clerics; then I think you would be following the spirit if not the letter of the law. I think this is exactly it. When all weapons do the same damage, and combat uses the D20 matrix instead of weapon vs armour, there are really only two mechanical reasons to restrict weapon use: 1) to restrict who could make ranged attacks, and 2) to restrict who could benefit from the special bonuses of certain magical weapons. Only dwarves get the chance to have the +3 bonus of the magic dwarf hammer, and only fighting-men get the variety of bonuses found in magic swords. An easy fix to this is just to rule that magic swords only 'speak' to fighting-men. Magic-users and clerics can use whatever weapons they want—even magic swords—but in their hands it just be a normal sword. The real game-changer would be in allowing full access to ranged weapons for classes who would normally not have that. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Sept 16, 2015 15:09:31 GMT -6
An easy fix to this is just to rule that magic swords only 'speak' to fighting-men. Magic-users and clerics can use whatever weapons they want—even magic swords—but in their hands it just be a normal sword. The real game-changer would be in allowing full access to ranged weapons for classes who would normally not have that. I just opted for this solution in a "viking" campaign. Norse godar can use any weapon, but only FM can have the benefits of magic swords (although a magic sword in the hands of a non-fighter can still harm monsters as wights and wraiths) |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 16, 2015 20:33:06 GMT -6
Clerics aren't designed for combat or magic. Those are overlapping abilities with the other 2 primary classes. Just as Fighting Men have some magic use, primarily arms and armor, and Magic-Users have some combat ability and proficiency, they have some clerical system ability too. But they aren't focused on it. They can manipulate the Alignment system, but truthfully, better than any other class the Cleric and cleric subclasses can.
Clerics are not their class abilities. They are their focus on the cleric system. Your campaign core classes should fit your systems and starting campaign map. The weapons listed for FM certainly don't need to be those used. same with magical spells. The clerics ability to turn primarily and then secondarily call on miracles and combat aid is also campaign specific.
My point is, if you want to change the armor and weapon tables known for the starting location generic cleric, then do so. But don't unbalance them and make them a pseudo-FM class. Same with increasing their spell effectiveness and magic use. All of those abilities are there to aid players to roleplay those class. So all those abilities should be limited to that focus.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 17, 2015 11:56:19 GMT -6
howandwhy99 wrote:
I agree the ability to turn and the calling on of miracles and combat prowess is campaign specific, which makes them external qualifiers. So what is the cleric system? Do you mean just the concept of a holy man (which could either be a normal man or adventuring class)?
|
|
