|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 19, 2010 8:16:04 GMT -6
And it still bothers me that clerics might not be required to pick Law or Chaos, yet have access to one spell list or the other. I can't imagine that they could do BOTH until suddenly at 7th level they would have to give one up.
As I've said, however, I'm biased by 35 years of reading the early version of the rulebook.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Apr 19, 2010 9:30:40 GMT -6
Clerics not having to declare alignment until 7th level is one of my absolute favorite features of OD&D. I like the idea that the deities are not particularly interested in a mortal follower until they are of sufficient power to be noteworthy. I also like it because I'd prefer to play the cleric as more of a spiritualist/sorcerer than priest/devotee - this gives a rationale for the cleric to utilize whatever divine conduits are available.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Apr 19, 2010 9:59:12 GMT -6
Though - admittedly, 'not having to declare alignment' is my interpretation of that rule!
And now having read the whole thread - that is a starnge situation isn't it - the difference in printings leading to BTB variations...
whadda game!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMyth on Apr 19, 2010 11:00:50 GMT -6
And it still bothers me that clerics might not be required to pick Law or Chaos, yet have access to one spell list or the other. I can't imagine that they could do BOTH until suddenly at 7th level they would have to give one up. As I've said, however, I'm biased by 35 years of reading the early version of the rulebook. Yet, they don't have to choose. A Lawful Cleric can use the Finger of Death (a 5th level spell acquired at 7th level)...but only in emergencies! The only example in the 3LB of a Cleric being able to use a spell supposedly reserved for Anti-Clerics. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 19, 2010 13:00:45 GMT -6
I like the idea that the deities are not particularly interested in a mortal follower until they are of sufficient power to be noteworthy. But isn't this the reason why 1st level clerics can't cast spells? I always assumed that a 1st level cheric wasn't that signifant, but by 2nd level they are starting to gain noteworthy status. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 19, 2010 20:13:37 GMT -6
As I read through this, I'm favoring the "not have to choose till level 7" option. I suspect Gygax was thinking in terms of something that nobody seems to have pointed out yet, so I will. In non Abrahamic traditions, gods don't usually care about the "alignments" of thier priests. Is Zues good or evil? is Mercury lawful or chaotic? The gods themselves are often arbitrary and contradictory in behavior, so why would they insist on having only "lawful" or "chaotic" priests at all as long as the were fervent believers and prosylytizers? Right!? So a reason a cleric would eventually have to declare an alignment is presumably because they have reached a level of sainthood where they are becoming an established religious figure whose teachings and behavior become a model for all other followers.
I suspect it was thinking along these lines that was behind the insertion of the rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 20, 2010 0:43:35 GMT -6
That's a good theory and I can't fault it. I know Gary kept working on the game.
But does anybody know if Gary worked at all on the later printings? I mean, by the time the sixth printing came around, surely TSR had grown to the point that he had people to do these things.
I just checked over at the Acaeum, and they say that the sixth print came from 1977. By that time Gary was already working on AD&D.
I think it's possible that somebody else added the part about 7th level in this section.
Does anybody know, one way or the other? I mean, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 20, 2010 2:31:48 GMT -6
Once again I can only quote the Holmes example where he said "someone at TSR" changed his wandering monster tables, suggesting to me there was a team of editors. Certainly reading the testimonies of those who worked for TSR back then, they all seemed to take it in turns having a go at editing.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 20, 2010 5:06:56 GMT -6
I'm not really sure that it matters too much who edited in the 7th level "declaration of alignment" rule. I guess when it came in might be important if you want to play a really pure, really early version of the game, but most of us love to house rule anyway  That aside, the idea of a "generic cleric" has been a bugbear for me ever since I started thinking about how and why the game is the way it is... a cleric's powers are divinely given, after all, so it's a simple leap to conclude that there could (or even should??) be different kinds of clerics for different Deities. However, recently I have been thinking more and more along the lines of a polytheist cleric who draws his powers not from a single Deity, but from many. Taken to the extreme, it is possible to imagine a World where every individual cleric spell is the province of exactly one God-like being. For a cleric to expand his spell casting repertoire in such a World he would have to ingratiate not just one, but a handful, or even dozens of individual Deities. Some of the weaker Godlings would have to tolerate the cleric fraternising with other Gods -- while most of the more powerful Deities certainly would not! As the cleric seeks higher level spells, the Deities he must solicit for them would become more and more jealous and intolerant of the cleric's devotions to "other" Gods -- especially those of opposed alignments. Supernatural Beings capable of granting 5th level (or more powerful) clerics spells would be absolutely intolerant of any interaction with their rivals -- and hence, at this level, the cleric must choose between all lawful benefactors, or all chaotic benefactors, or else go without his most powerful spells. Well, it's just a notion |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 20, 2010 8:20:54 GMT -6
I'm not really sure that it matters too much who edited in the 7th level "declaration of alignment" rule. I guess when it came in might be important if you want to play a really pure, really early version of the game, but most of us love to house rule anyway That aside, the idea of a "generic cleric" has been a bugbear for me ever since I started thinking about how and why the game is the way it is... a cleric's powers are divinely given, after all, so it's a simple leap to conclude that there could (or even should??) be different kinds of clerics for different Deities. However, recently I have been thinking more and more along the lines of a polytheist cleric who draws his powers not from a single Deity, but from many. Taken to the extreme, it is possible to imagine a World where every individual cleric spell is the province of exactly one God-like being. For a cleric to expand his spell casting repertoire in such a World he would have to ingratiate not just one, but a handful, or even dozens of individual Deities. Some of the weaker Godlings would have to tolerate the cleric fraternising with other Gods -- while most of the more powerful Deities certainly would not! As the cleric seeks higher level spells, the Deities he must solicit for them would become more and more jealous and intolerant of the cleric's devotions to "other" Gods -- especially those of opposed alignments. Supernatural Beings capable of granting 5th level (or more powerful) clerics spells would be absolutely intolerant of any interaction with their rivals -- and hence, at this level, the cleric must choose between all lawful benefactors, or all chaotic benefactors, or else go without his most powerful spells. Well, it's just a notion Yeah I think you are making some really good points here. Its true that in many, perhaps most non western cultures, priests aren't priests of Xuan Wu or whoever they are priests of "the gods" - devoted to a particular pantheon rather than a particular god. This is especially true in tribal societies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2010 9:20:22 GMT -6
In the 3 LBB's does anyone know where it is stated that the cleric spells are divinely given?
Maybe this is an assumption acquired from later versions of D&D, Clerics can research new spells and its implied that, like Magic Users, they have spell books(p.34 M&M).
Maybe it is only the higher level spells that are divine gifts of the gods, God or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 20, 2010 10:00:47 GMT -6
I’ve been toying with that idea, too. Arthurian and Carolingian knight-errant stories are full of hermits who perform sorcery from books. In the Middle Ages, the clergy were also the only class (social class) with booklearning. The ability to cure light wounds might have seemed like magic when it was perhaps just basic medicine. (Though within D&D you don’t have to make a distinction between real magic and a charlatan.) You sometimes see these hermits even summoning demons and such. So the cleric class could be treated as simply a sage class which happens to be considered a religious order just due to social conventions, and at higher levels (through the “magic” that is Apostolic Succession and Episcopal laying-on-of-hands as it was understood in the west) really taps into higher powers, for good or for ill. Sort of a “fake it till you make it” approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 20, 2010 15:40:34 GMT -6
In the 3 LBB's does anyone know where it is stated that the cleric spells are divinely given? Maybe this is an assumption acquired from later versions of D&D, Clerics can research new spells and its implied that, like Magic Users, they have spell books(p.34 M&M). No you are right, it doesn't state in the 3LB how clerics get their spells and yes the inference is that clerics have spell books too. They certainly conduct spell research in exactly the same manner as magic-users. Frustratingly, the one place that goes into detail about spell casting and memorisation only mentions magic-users. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 20, 2010 16:33:48 GMT -6
I'm not really sure that it matters too much who edited in the 7th level "declaration of alignment" rule. I guess when it came in might be important if you want to play a really pure, really early version of the game, but most of us love to house rule anyway Agreed. The only place where it really matters is if you're trying to have a "by the book" campaign, and in that case I guess it comes down to which book you own. (As an example, Knights & Knaves has two seperate sections for OD&D -- one for BTB and one for Houseruled, so it matters to some people.) Ultimately, this discussion will probably end as a draw. The problem being that there are two clear BTB versions and each has been around long enough to be accepted as canon by a certain segment of the population. If I was to find a player who hadn't experienced either one, I could probably sway that player into agreeing that one was more "correct" than the other, but taking a person who has played one way for 20 years and talking them out of their version is probably not going to happen.  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 20, 2010 16:39:38 GMT -6
In the 3 LBB's does anyone know where it is stated that the cleric spells are divinely given? Maybe this is an assumption acquired from later versions of D&D, Clerics can research new spells and its implied that, like Magic Users, they have spell books(p.34 M&M). I can't recall off the top of my head where it is, but I recall a passage of text "somewhere" (perhaps in reference to extra spells per day for higher ability scores?) that explains that a cleric's wisdom score doesn't impact his spell casting ability because his spells are divinely given. I have an inkling it might be in Greyhawk... I will search for it tonight |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 20, 2010 16:50:53 GMT -6
Yup, it's in Greyhawk alright:
Although in Men & Magic, the section on Clerics says:
So it's reasonable to assume that they might get their spells from above as well, although as you point out this isn't explicitly stated until Greyhawk.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 20, 2010 21:55:38 GMT -6
Thanks Coffee, you saved me the trouble ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Apr 21, 2010 20:30:42 GMT -6
So ... is it really a LBB rule or not? If it's a "5th printing and later"; rule then technically it was written after the supplements. Anyone have a thought on this? My thought is that revisions to a particular document should be included. The fact that these printings came out after the Supplements were published doesn't matter to me. It was Men & Magic that was updated/clarified/whatever. So there it is. I fully understand that someone who has been using a 1st-4th printing for 30+ years would probably stick with it, but if someone asked me what the official rule should be I would say "The most recent publication." As for my table, I use the "choose at 7th level rule", but solely because I think it makes a better campaign world. I like ambiguously moral priests and hazy ethical boundaries in my churches. Keeps the politics interesting. As for "how" that works, I make it clear in my house rules document (for the benefit of my players that have played too much Baldur's Gate and associate God, Church and Cleric alignment and world-view as mandatorily in sync) that Mystics (as I have renamed the Cleric class to sever any associations with Christianity (as religion that doesn't exist in my campaign)) get their powers through intuitive meditation, but not necessarily from a God. To quote: The Mystic is a student of the inner powers of wisdom, and the ability of mankind to sympathize with magics they do not have the intelligence to understand. For this reason their sympathetic magic is wholly different from the otherworld magics commanded by High Elves and Magic-Users. Mystics are often associated with a Church or Holy Order but not always. The Mystics which go on adventures are not the pacifist Sufis but rather the warrior-monks whose martial training is as important to their nature as their meditations.
Just so there are no misunderstandings, not all priests are Mystics (though most are), and not all Mystics are priests (though most are). Further the priests and Mystics of a given Church or sect are not necessarily the same as the purported alignment of their church or God. There are bad apples everywhere. Ergo, just because he's a cleric of the God of Justice, you can't assume with 100% certainty that he's not an Anti-Cleric. The mandatory choice of alignment at 7th level is framed as being mentally and emotionally "in tune" with the forces that shape the Universe. Someone who can't really commit their hearts to either Law or Chaos simply cannot get past this point on the path to Enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 8, 2010 11:49:12 GMT -6
The Chaotic alignment is a non-player alignment in my game in order to keep it a cooperative game versus a competitive one.
Clerics, as well as every other class, have to choose an alignment during character creation. The options are Lawful or Neutral. The deity they worship is according to the description they give. This description is then converted into the game rules for alignment. This means the PC may follow a deity that is not their alignment. Both at the during generation or at any time during the game.
|
|
