Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2008 21:39:38 GMT -6
I think that Clerics need to pick one alignment and stay there. I think that if a god is willing to grant powers to the Cleric, that Cleric needs to follow the alignment of that god. If you don't follow the teachings of the god (i.e. you do things not of his alignment) then the god will stop giving you spells.
I voted for 1st level becasue it makes more sense to me that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2008 22:01:28 GMT -6
> 2. Also, if one argues that cleric spells are given by a particular god, what happens when that neutral cleric opts to choose a lawful or chaotic alignment? Does that mean that a different god is now supplying the spells?
Perhaps up until 7th level both chaotic and lawful gods have been granting spells to cleric in an attempt to woo the cleric to their side.
A very interesting and dangerous game to be playing the gods off one another. I very much like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 16, 2008 0:00:59 GMT -6
I'm not sure to what degree alignment in the three LBBs has such cosmic or even sectarian implications, or follows the equation of Law=Good and Chaos=Evil. Certainly Gary wrote (in the magazine article presenting his expanded alignment scheme) that he had thought in "just about the same" terms to some extent. ("Notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at the time.") He also wrote that the wording had led to "considerable confusion" to which Greyhawk added ("for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined").
I don't think it's indicated in the books that a Cleric's spells (as they are explicitly termed) are granted/witholdable by a deity. It is stipulated that both Clerics and MUs require spell books. Note that in days of yore, "clerk" (derived from "cleric") not only denoted literacy but sometimes connoted lore of enchantment. I can't think of anything in the LBBs suggesting that the spell-casting process so differs by class. To infer such an elaboration from other class factors seems to me unwarranted. No rationale (much less a detailed supernatural one) is given for restrictions on use of arms and armor.
In other words, a Cleric's magic may be of the same kind as an MU's -- and something quite apart from god-worked miracles.
Law, Neutrality and Chaos refer to conflicting "stances" among men and monsters. To presume that God (or a god) must be on the side of one of the "alignments" (whatever those may be) is to impose a constraint not in the text.
Might not theologically competing sects (or even rival nations "in communion") be Lawful versus Chaotic -- yet worshipers of the same deity? One might think of Byzantium (herself riven by fierce disputes) and her neighbors.
The matter becomes a bit different as one adds the supplements, which in so many ways approach the assumptions taken for granted in later editions and by later "generations" of players.
Of course, the Judge is free to interpret, alter and add rules in his or her own campaign! If attempting to present "the rules" given in the LBBs, though, I would be wary of going so far beyond the text even to make implied (by later sources) subtext explicit. Should not new enthusiasts have the same opportunity to arrive at their own readings? Else, why not simply turn to one of the less ambiguous editions?
On that principle, I'll vote for the later and less exclusive option. It does not bar imposing a penalty of the Referee's devising for alignment changes (or Neutrality) at lower levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 16, 2008 7:18:19 GMT -6
Okay, here's another nugget to consider... I'm looking at page 22 of my Men & Magic (once again, 4th printing) No mention is made of "neutral" Clerics here, which might imply that one cannot be "neutral" but must choose sides. So, under the "pick at 7th level" model... A 6th level Cleric can:* cure and cause light wounds * purify and putrify food and water * detect good and evil * protection against good and evil * light and darkness * bless and curse * cure and cause disease * continual light and darkness * cure and cause serious wounds * protection from good and evil, 10'r * turn undead A 7th level Cleric can:* gain one extra d6 hit die * gain a 5th level spell * loses half of the abilities listed above  Why would I ever want to advance to 7th level? I don't think that a "neutral" Cleric was ever supposed to be an option. Here's a quote from Men & Magic page 7 (4th printing again) Of course, this is slightly muddied by the next line, which says: This second line would seem to imply that changing sides is possible. I suppose my conclusion would be that "neutral" Clerics do not exist (or that they are Druids, if these are allowed) but that Clerics can choose to switch between Law and Chaos if they are less than Patriarch (8th level). What say you all? By the way: I would be interested to find out if anyone has a later printing or PDF with differences in the quotes above. I'm curious now if that one change from the OP was a fluke or if someone was actively trying to change the rules about Clerics...  |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 16, 2008 10:57:36 GMT -6
Advancing to 7th level is a prerequisite for attaining 8th ...  But seriously, Note: There are Anti-Clerics (listed below) who have similar powers to Clerics. Clerical spells underlined on the table for Clerical Spells have a reverse effect ... (M&M, p. 34) How does it follow that a Neutral character would have the powers of both a Cleric and an Anti-Cleric? That looks like a straw man, not a wicker man! It is nowhere indicated that one can be both at once, nor that one is Lawful and the other Chaotic short of 8th level! The clear point of the "7th and up" rule has to do with the bennies received at 8th. Choose a rule if you insist; perhaps it's better (in "S&W WB") to present both. Please, though, refrain from adding rules of your own to such an offering. |
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Nov 16, 2008 11:51:31 GMT -6
I'm with dwayanu on this one. As I read my copy of Men & Magic a starting cleric may be of any alignment. If Chaos is selected they are an Anti-Cleric, commanding undead and using reversed spells. In all other cases, the normal cleric rules apply. A Neutral Cleric must choose a side, Law or Chaos, in order to advance to 7th level. If they choose Chaos, they immediately become an Anti-Cleric.
The gods don't like fence-sitters.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 16, 2008 13:19:04 GMT -6
I hopes it's clear I don't suggest my reading is not the only possible one, but just a fun attemps to read it "by the text" - which is an abuse of reading. This is an archaeology of od&d - and I'm an archaelogist, IRL. I'll continue with the spell list soon - today, It's my Labyrinth's lord weekly session but I wanted to remind a point : it seems, form the description of Finger of death, that's it's the distinctive trait of the Evil high cleric : any high-level cleric can use it carefuly, but abuse turns you into an Evil anti-cleric. Dark side of the force... But lower level anti-clerics do exists (and be shaman at 3d level), so even if the firts anti-clerics were those who abused of Finger of death, it's clear they created their own hierarchy. This also, as many people reminded it, suppose that clerics don't get their spells from Gods ["Powers", in the text], but from their spell books, just as magic-users. But the way they use their spells leads them to various ways - and this is one point which could be in support of "no neutrality after 6th level". This way of turning to evil is also close to the idea that Law, Chaos and neutrality are various views in the same church, or at least in the same religious frame. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 16, 2008 13:37:42 GMT -6
Evil Clerics commanding undead rather than turning them is yet another "rule" not included in (indeed directly contradicted by) the LBB. (Nothing against its being Jeff's rule!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 16, 2008 16:59:12 GMT -6
No mention is made of "neutral" Clerics here, which might imply that one cannot be "neutral" but must choose sides. It is nowhere indicated that one can be both at once... My point exactly! ...nor that one is Lawful and the other Chaotic short of 8th level! I don't understand this statement.  Choose a rule if you insist; perhaps it's better (in "S&W WB") to present both. Well, if I remember right, the decision of the "steering committee" was to go with the "choose at 7th level" version since that's the most common and the version you get in the OD&D PDF if you buy one. Please, though, refrain from adding rules of your own to such an offering. Thanks for the vote of confidence. It's always been my intention NOT to add my own house rules as mandatory rules. (Occasionally there might be an "optional house rule" text box, but just as a source of ideas and not as an official suggestion.) My entire point throughout this whole thread is that folks like to throw the "by the book" phrase out a lot, but clearly if "the book" has changed from printing to printing then the waters are kind of muddy in a few instances. Your "by the book" might not agree with mine, and it's not just a "depends on how you read it" issue if the actual text isn't constant throughout every printing. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 16, 2008 17:34:24 GMT -6
"... nor that one is Lawful and the other Chaotic short of 8th level."
This assumes a later printing than yours (which may differ on these points as well).
The table of "Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures" lists Patriarchs under Law, and Evil High Priests under Chaos. I think that's the only alignment demarcation between Clerics and Anti-Clerics (but it's possible I've forgotten another). A 7th level Chaotic character is not necessarily an Anti-Cleric yet.
All EHPs = Chaotic and Evil
All Anti-Clerics =Evil (based on level titles, discounting Shaman) but not necessarily Chaotic
All Clerics = non-Evil
All Patriarchs = Lawful
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 16, 2008 17:40:00 GMT -6
"... nor that one is Lawful and the other Chaotic short of 8th level." The table of "Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures" lists Patriarchs under Law, and Evil High Priests under Chaos. I think that's the only alignment demarcation between Clerics and Anti-Clerics (but it's possible I've forgotten another). A 7th level Chaotic character is not necessarily an Anti-Cleric yet. All EHPs = Chaotic and Evil All Anti-Clerics =Evil (based on level titles) but not necessarily Chaotic All Clerics = non-Evil All Patriarchs = Lawful Hmmm. I hadn't thought about OD&D alignment in quite that way before. I guess I always assumed they interchange Good=Law and Evil=Chaos without distinguishing them. Y'know ... I exalt you for this. Makes me re-think alignment.  |
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Nov 16, 2008 19:15:39 GMT -6
...perhaps it's better (in "S&W WB") to present both. Please, though, refrain from adding rules of your own to such an offering. That's the approach I favor, as well. In any retro-clone, but especially one for OD&D, I think preserving such ambiguities is important (i.e. don't "clarify" it with personal interpretations that take away the referee's chance to interpret the rule differently). The Law/Chaos vs. Good/Evil thing is another such area; I'm against explicit linkage of law with good and chaos with evil in the S&W WB rules. On the cleric issue, the consensus of the steering committee on including the rule from the later print was "when in doubt, offer options." That is, offer a standard approach (my personal preference would be to offer a standard approach based on the most common rules: the OCE), and options in sidebars. I don't recall the exact approach that was settled on, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Nov 16, 2008 20:11:33 GMT -6
So, under the "pick at 7th level" model... A 6th level Cleric can:* cure and cause light wounds * purify and putrify food and water * detect good and evil * protection against good and evil * light and darkness * bless and curse * cure and cause disease * continual light and darkness * cure and cause serious wounds * protection from good and evil, 10'r * turn undead A 7th level Cleric can:* gain one extra d6 hit die * gain a 5th level spell * loses half of the abilities listed above Why would I ever want to advance to 7th level? Maybe to get close to getting a stronghold toguether with a fanatical body of followers. That is worth losing all the rest IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 17, 2008 15:04:44 GMT -6
I adher to dwayanu reading about Chaos / Law / Good / Evil. The only question is about good, because it's only mention"by the text" is to says that poison is not good or evil. We can deduce there's good as an opposite to evil, but it's too implicit to explain it clearly. The only clear thing is that abuse of Finger of death turns you to evil... an idea I like a lot. So, as promised, I continue with the 2nd level of spell, on the Law point of view. Two titles corresponds to these spells: Vicar and curates, which are clearly in the christian frame. They're suggest a parish, but nothing tell us if this is still the village (from the village's priest) or something else. I guess it its, but this can be widely debated [note: for a long time, I also think titles where poetic at best and I never used them. But in such an exegetic reading, any bit of imformation is good]. So, the spells allow to these vicars and curates to Find Traps, Hold Person, Bless, Speak with Animals. Why should trap finding be a religious task is a question I can't solve; I can't imagine it's just practical, maybe is it linked to the idea of divination, or to body integrity, which would fit better. Hold person is in the category as charm person, a kind of suggestion. I suggest to understand it as a part of the "law enforcement" mission of the cleric. Bless pose no major problem, as it's clear that knights-monks bless troops before battle. Speak with animals is the most interesting one, as it's shows that, before of the druid apparition [which cant' be the "old religion", because it arroves later than llb - it's rather a new one], the link between Law and Nature was not broken. Even if mots animals are neutral, three of the True-Lawfuls (unicorns, pegasi and hippgogrifs) are horse-like, and the two religious orders of Chainmail, Templars and Hospitalers, are also riders. So Law and animals are not opposed, even if the favorite one is the Horse - which should be, in some way, the symbol of Law. For anticlerics, I note the same 4th & 5 level correspond to Evil priest and Evil curate - the priesthood for anticlerics is later than for clerics and is not linked to villages. Are they more urbans? I'll come back on that question when i'm going to speak of Chaos. to be continued |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Nov 22, 2008 18:24:38 GMT -6
The Bishop is an important step in the carrier of our cleric: he becomes an hero, at least in terms of fighting, but it could have other meanings (like giving a confidence bonus to his followers) and he gains both 3d and 4th level spells, something unusual for later editions readers. The bishop is also a title strongly linked to the Christian hierarchy. Unlike the “village priest”, the bishop is strongly linked to a town and there can’t be two bishop for the same one – another demographic point which ask questions.
The Bishop is able to remove curses, cure disease and neutralize poison, three points which don’t pose problems according to what was already said on law ; same thing about protection form evil, 10’ [which don’t solve the problem of what’s evil] and continual light, ameliorate versions of spells they already had.
The Turn stick to snakes is clearly linked to biblical miracles. Once again, it proves the use of poison by itself is not forbidden by Law. The Old Testament style of some spells is very coherent with the Law: as far as I know, few major religions consider the Law as essential: Old Testament Torah is among these and gives a good base for the Law – the Cleric who use terrible means to defend the Law is a common figure there ; Islam is another, and I already pointed the fact that Sufism is another base, with the presence of derviches ; and the last one is Legism, in Old China, which is not really a religion, but was there before Buddhism, another influence on the definition of the Law. Just think to these Chinese syngagogs, with Persian-speaking rabbins, where the cult of the Emperor was practiced in the name of Yahve, as they were described by 17th century European travelers, and you probably get an interesting picture of the Law.
But the use of Locate Objets, outside of specific needs of adventure, is unclear and cant’ be clearly linked to classical miracles (apart the ability of St Christopher to find lost objects in catholic tradition). In the magic-user list, I would class it as the ‘pre-psionics’ mental abilities spells, along with ESP. But it fits with detection spells, and more, with find traps, with the idea the cleric is a specialist of divination, something which is among the common traits of antiquity priests, but can’t be linked with Christianity. Maybe we can also link it with the next title of Lama, as a rise in the degree of consciousness of the world and the ability to project outside of self.
I note the ability to create water, which is both linked to the ideal of purity, and a typical elemental spell, which tend to prove that elements are not really linked to any alignment in od&d – they went to neutrality with ad&d only.
Lastly, I notice the ability to speak with plants. Like with animals, it makes me think that od&d llb absence of druids makes more place and more sense for Law links with nature. Perhaps nature is viewed as natural Order, something which is strongly connected with Law – and the ad&d and later editions ideas of Nature as typically neutral has no base here. But as these spells have no reversal version, they can be use both by law and chaos clerics, which could lead to considers nature has no alignment at all – and the nature / civilization conflict, as it is described later in Forgotten realms and so son, is senseless here. Afterall, most od&d world seems to be a wilderness, something like a savage frontier, so nature has no use for defenders.
To be continued…
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 8, 2008 17:12:56 GMT -6
The presence of the Lama is probably the most puzzling and unexpected in the cleric hierarchy list. A Lama is a monk in Tibetan Buddhist tradition, or a skilled tantric practicer, and the most enlightened lamas even reincarnate. I discard the idea of tantrism, which rather don’t fit to all what I said on Law, and also discard reincarnation, as it is clearly the domain of magic-users in od&d. But the idea of an highly enlightened cleric fits perfectly with the initiatic tradition of Law I already stated in above posts. A quick search on Lama shows that Dave & Gary were perfectly right to connect Lama & Law : “Lama is a title for a Tibetan teacher of Dharma” ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama) and “The word dharma literally translates as that which upholds or supports (from the root, dhr- to hold, ma - mother or Earth or Universe or Nature depending on context), and is generally translated into English as law.” ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma). So it’s fine clear now: a Lama is a cleric who truly understood the real nature of Law and is able to teach it. Law is strongly connected to Earth, Universe and Nature - as the cleric nature-bases spells proves it [nature link with neutrality is a later evolve, when appeared the druidic religion]. Law is what supports universe. About spells, the Lama can create food for a fair amount of persons, which is rather symbolic than practical: the created food is naturally pure, as it wasn’t even touched by cookers hands. So it fits perfectly the ideal of purity. He can call an insect plague, something which reminds a biblical miracle and the fact that law can punish as surely as it protect. He can also dispel evil, but the nature of this evil is not specified, no more as in other spells description – and the fact this ability can be used to dispel magi don’t clarify very much, unless we understand magic as evil – ie. Inquisition hunting witches. He can also send people into quests, which could be linked with its teaching function: sending people in a quest is a manner to get them finding themselves the right way to law. The capacity to raise dead gives some strange clues about the world. Men, elves and dwarves – three species who aren’t even True law – can be raised, but Halflings, who are always on Law side, can’t. I still can’t explain that one, even if the spell description could be discussed deeply. I first thought some later Gary quotes could explain, as he considered that only humans have souls and all others have spirits. But as magic-users have spirits (as specified in Magic Jar description) as life force, and soul is not mentioned elsewhere, this stay unsolved [maybe Magic-Users have trade their soul against power ; it’s a very sword & sorcery reading]. But the most important spell, for our quest of nature of Law, is the ability to Commune. As far as I can understand, it as in English a double sense of communication and religion communion – another Christian trait. This communication is done with the powers "above", a rather prudent formulation but in which we can learn useful things: 1) These powers are plural, not singular – something unexpected, as the Christian mood could suggest a monotheism. It still could be, as the powers are not described as Gods [the word don’t appear in od&d]. It could be saints, angels, bodhisattvas or Kabbalah’s figures. 2) They live somewhere “above”. Literally, in the sky, stars or anywhere upper the cleric head – even if a more allegorical sense could suggest just a spiritual hierarchy. This could apply to the already named powers Could these “powers” be the same as the ‘creatures inhabiting higher planes of existence (the referee)’ , of the Contact Higher Planes? I first thank the Referee here could be the supreme power – and not a mundane rule reference. This hypothesis is seducing, as calling the Law God the Referee sounds fine. These creatures also live ‘above’, in higher planes. But they lie most of the times and get people insane, which is a problem – even if we already knows that lying isn’t impossible for Law. They could lie to magic-users and make them insane, and not do this with clerics, because clerics are faithful to Law [and perhaps, because they didn’t traded their soul!]. In this case, the Referee is the power above the power.
And more, this perfectly fits the idea, suggested in this thread, that all alignments have the same God:
The Referee’s word is the rule. The referee is Law.
The Referee keep the balance. The referee is Neutral.
The Referee is unpredictable. The Referee is Chaos.
[I’ll be back with the Patriarch, if a few of you have still courage to read my insane digressions]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2008 17:21:49 GMT -6
Gygax was self-admittedly fond of using a thesaurus for finding names for the various professions. Thus it is entirely possible he looked up "Priest" in the thesaurus, saw "Lama" and liked the way it sounded, and that is how that term ended up in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Dec 10, 2008 12:22:22 GMT -6
Hey, new here. Great site.
This is the way I interpret the rule. It says that Clerics of 7th level and above are either Law or Chaos. It does NOT say that clerics don't have to choose an alignment until 7th level.
A 1st level cleric has to choose an alignment just like every other character. Now a low level cleric could choose to be neutral, but then the cleric will either be limited to 6th level or will have to change alignment (with all of the consequences thereof) to advance further.
Clerics of level 1-6 who choose either Law or Chaos may still, on occasion, use the opposite version of various spells (i.e. cure/cause wounds, etc.) with perhaps only relatively minor consequences. However, once a cleric reaches 7th level he must adhear to either Law or Chaos much more strictly, thus using "opposite alignment" spells should almost never happen, and the consequences of violating that restriction can be severe.
Of course this has game balance issues as well. The spells cast by low level clerics aren't all that powerful, and being able to occasionally cast the opposite of these low level spells isn't that big of a deal. However, higher level clerics have access to some pretty potent spells. Instead of having clerics run around with 2 raise dead spells AND 2 slay living spells, the rules pretty much force you to pick one or the other.
Just my 2 c.p.
|
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Dec 10, 2008 13:09:05 GMT -6
I like that Lord CIas - have an Exalt
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2009 17:23:00 GMT -6
When I first read the rule on page 7 of Men and Magic it did not make sense to me.
" Note that Clerics of 7th level and greater are either "Law" or "Chaos", and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately be removed!"
A 7th level cleric is a Lama.
Years ago I felt that this was a type error. 7th level should have been 8th level.
The entire section of the paragraph from "When Clerics reach the top level (Patriarch)"... to... "Inhabitant/year." is for Clerics who are 8th level or more (not 7th).
Hearing that "7th level" is not in earlier editions re enforces my suspicion that I am right. Inserting this in later printings may have been an attempt exclude lower level clerics from the "benefits" "removed" sentence which followed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 10, 2009 23:04:44 GMT -6
This is the way I interpret the rule. It says that Clerics of 7th level and above are either Law or Chaos. It does NOT say that clerics don't have to choose an alignment until 7th level. Again, going back to the original post, the interesting thing is that printings 1-4 do not contain the phrase "of 7th level and above" in the paragraph. It says that Clerics are either Law or Chaos. That's what sparked the initial debate. I still find it funny that, depending upon which rulebook a person encountered first, folks are certain that their interpretation has to be right. For 30 years I never even realized that some editions had the "of 7th level and above" phrase, and so we certainly had never played it that way. Just an interesting observation, that's all. Clearly each Referee can make the call for his or her own campaign.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 4:57:21 GMT -6
Finarvyn, my point was that "of 7th level and above" was a typing error in the later editions and should have read "of 8th level and above"
This would make anyone's interpretation change, but it also would mean that those folks with eariler editions really didn't miss out on anything new.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Feb 11, 2009 5:57:34 GMT -6
It makes the exegetic reading funnier. Its should lead to shisms about the Thoul - typo or monster ? - and the 'Detect meal' property for the swords.
If I understand well, clerics have been in obligation to choose their alignement at level 7 after the vanishing (death?) of the Nazgul and Balrogs, when the Hobbits became halflings. If we don't see this like copyright problems but as world history, it's another interesting clue: a change of age, with a new balance with Law and Chaos.
I will take this point in consideration in the setting I'm writing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 18, 2010 8:01:00 GMT -6
I decided to give this a little "bump", as I was thinking about the topic while replying to Greyharp's thread on his 3LB reformat project.
Wonderful discussion here, but I still go back to the initial point of the whole thread and I can't quite decide what the correct answer might be: does one go with the most common (later) interpretation or the original one?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMyth on Apr 18, 2010 11:07:59 GMT -6
I decided to give this a little "bump", as I was thinking about the topic while replying to Greyharp's thread on his 3LB reformat project. Wonderful discussion here, but I still go back to the initial point of the whole thread and I can't quite decide what the correct answer might be: does one go with the most common (later) interpretation or the original one? Could you re-state exactly what those 2 interpretations are so we all don't have to read 4 pages of posts to re-create them? |
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 18, 2010 12:19:34 GMT -6
Finarvyn, my point was that "of 7th level and above" was a typing error in the later editions and should have read "of 8th level and above" This looks to be the case to me; it's just a note that was added to let the DM know that name-level Clerics couldn't change sides without losing their followers. But, the wrong level was marked down and never fixed; it looks to be talking about Patriarchs specifically. I voted "other" in the poll as Clerics should be able to change sides whenever they choose; just take whatever drawbacks come along with that choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 18, 2010 16:52:20 GMT -6
Could you re-state exactly what those 2 interpretations are so we all don't have to read 4 pages of posts to re-create them? Sure. I should have done this when I bumped the old thread. The early text (through 4th printing) says:The later text (5th printing and beyond) says:(The benefits mentioned are in the paragraph above my quote, where they discuss being able to build a temple stronghold at a discount and gain a bunch of faithful followers.) Having played 4th printing since the 1970's my interpretation has always been that clerics had to choose Law or Chaos upon character creation, and that this choice impacts whether they could cast regular or reversed spells. Many others got onboard later on and/or relied on the PDF (which is a 6th printing, I believe) and thereby interpret that clerics get to wait until reaching 7th level in order to make that choice. I'm not sure how they rule regular/reversed spells in low-level clerics. So the matter is somewhat complex with two "always done it that way" factions trying to decipher what was intended. I'm really not sure if one should conclude that this was a typo (later corrected) or a change in the way the rule was applied. My 4th printing has an errata sheet as part of the "reference sheet" pages and this particular issue isn't addressed. Anyway, that'll hopefully get you up to speed. |
|
|
|
Post by TheMyth on Apr 18, 2010 18:25:29 GMT -6
Awesome. Thanks, Finarvyn!
I've lately been thinking that there are, basically, 2 "Cleric" classes: The Cleric (who is Lawful) and the Anti-Cleric (who is Chaotic).
This isn't much of a problem until you get to Greyhawk and its Neutral Druids who are both Clerics and Magic-Users (which later gets re-created as the Neutral Druids of Eldritch Wizardy).
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 18, 2010 19:42:59 GMT -6
I've lately been thinking that there are, basically, 2 "Cleric" classes: The Cleric (who is Lawful) and the Anti-Cleric (who is Chaotic). That fits with the "pick at the onset" interpretation, which is the way I've done it for 35+ years. This isn't much of a problem until you get to Greyhawk and its Neutral Druids who are both Clerics and Magic-Users (which later gets re-created as the Neutral Druids of Eldritch Wizardy). This never bothered me. The only neutral clerics I've ever allowed are druids. (I guess that becomes an issue when clerics get matched up with their gods. I always used a generic God/Satan breakdown as per old movies becasue it fit the holy symbol and dispel undead model for the cleric.) |
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 18, 2010 21:08:53 GMT -6
I've lately been thinking that there are, basically, 2 "Cleric" classes: The Cleric (who is Lawful) and the Anti-Cleric (who is Chaotic). That fits with the "pick at the onset" interpretation, which is the way I've done it for 35+ years. It also fits with the level titles given for Anti-Clerics (Men & Magic page 34). I would have to say that this is one case where the amended text of later versions seems to be incorrect. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding in the editing process? I'm guessing there were a lot of fingers in the editing pie, just look at Holmes and his wandering monsters table fiasco. The only way I can see any logic in the 7th level business is if lower level clerics can make the alignment swap without penalty, but level 7+ clerics will suffer the penalty of losing their advantages - spells, use of clerical magic items, half-price stronghold and free followers, reflecting I guess the fall from a deity's favour and the high price such an exalted figure would have to pay for his betrayal. Perhaps the gods don't give a stuff at losing clerics of 6th level or lower? I have to say I prefer the original version - choice made at first level but change alignment at any time and lose all advantages. |
|
Why would I ever want to advance to 7th level? I don't think that a "neutral" Cleric was ever supposed to be an option. Here's a quote from Men & Magic page 7 (4th printing again)
