|
|
Post by keith418 on Jan 30, 2012 13:39:02 GMT -6
Do clerics have to be able to read? Are there primitive tribes with shamans either leading them or part of their communities? I am wondering when the idea of barbarians with clerical shaman first appeared? Was it part of the Judges Guild?
|
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Jan 30, 2012 18:30:59 GMT -6
I don't think OD&D addresses literacy like later editions (which tie it to the Intelligence score). However it appears as though there are clerical scrolls, and perhaps even clerical spellbooks depending on your interpretation, so I would say "Yes, clerics have to be able to read."
However if you want primitive clerics, then say "No, clerics do not have to be able to read." Doing away with cleric spellbooks and making an Intelligence requirement to read scrolls would be easy.
Of course the "barbarians" could have a surprisingly developed and complex culture, complete with runic script, religious scripture/legends/sagas and only appear to be illiterate brutes to the more "civilized" people. I personally think this is a more interesting way to do it than having them be brainless berserkers.
I think the political role of the shaman depends on the culture. In many societies they were a separate power from the chief. They were not tribal leaders, but feared and respected for their spiritual power. I guess the same could generally be said about the medieval church in Europe...a parallel power structure existing alongside the political/state one.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 1, 2012 8:02:04 GMT -6
I don't think OD&D addresses literacy like later editions (which tie it to the Intelligence score). However it appears as though there are clerical scrolls, and perhaps even clerical spellbooks depending on your interpretation, so I would say "Yes, clerics have to be able to read." Have to disagree. By the book, Magic users are required to read. There is no such requirement for Clerics. They aren't required to read to learn thier spells or to learn them from scrolls or books. Further Magic Users cannot cast Cleric spells written on scrolls, which means that being able to read it has nothing to do with being able to cast it, which conversly means that being able to write it has nothing to do with being able to cast it. In my games clerical spells are written in common language that anybody can read but only a Cleric is able to call on the divine power to cast the spell. There's no reason that Clerics must be literate. I think the political role of the shaman depends on the culture. In many societies they were a separate power from the chief. There are many living traditional cultures round this world with shaman spiritual leaders, though the practice is in decline. True that Shamans are often politically independant, but then again, so are priests. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Feb 1, 2012 8:40:32 GMT -6
Shaman is the third title in the anti-clerics hierarchy (Men&magic, p. 34). Though the definition of anti-clerics is not clear, it seems likely they are clerics of Chaos. The only sure facts are that a cleric who use Finger of death in another situation tan life-or-death will immediately turn to an anti-cleric, and that evil clerics use reversed versions of the spells only among which finger of death). So, most probably, shaman is evil and chaos in OD&D By the way, I have to disagree with Aldaron: btb, clerics uses spell-books so they should be litterate. Maybe not in Arneson manuscripts  |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Feb 1, 2012 11:17:24 GMT -6
I don't think OD&D addresses literacy like later editions (which tie it to the Intelligence score). However it appears as though there are clerical scrolls, and perhaps even clerical spellbooks depending on your interpretation, so I would say "Yes, clerics have to be able to read." Have to disagree. By the book, Magic users are required to read. There is no such requirement for Clerics. They aren't required to read to learn thier spells or to learn them from scrolls or books. Further Magic Users cannot cast Cleric spells written on scrolls, which means that being able to read it has nothing to do with being able to cast it, which conversly means that being able to write it has nothing to do with being able to cast it. That line of reasoning doesn't work, since you could swap "Magic-User" and "Cleric" and come to the same conclusion: "Clerics cannot cast Magic-User spells written on scrolls, which means that being able to read it has nothing to do with being able to cast it, which conversly means that being able to write it has nothing to do with being able to cast it." What strangebrew is alluding to is the last paragraph on the last page of Men & Magic: "Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level." There's no exemption given for Clerics, and the preceding section on magical research makes it clear these paragraphs apply to both Magic-Users and Clerics ("Both Magic-Users and Clerics may attempt to expand on the spells listed...") So, clearly, Clerics by default are required to read. This doesn't mean that you can't tweak the Cleric to create an illiterate shaman class, or even tweak the Magic-User the same way. Just replace the spellbook requirement with something similar, something that can be lost or stolen and so might need to be replaced (which is what the aforementioned section on spellbooks covers.) I believe this is why the AD&D holy symbol requirement evolved, although it was never developed properly (holy symbols are too cheap, compared to spellbooks.) |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 1, 2012 11:26:33 GMT -6
By the way, I have to disagree with Aldaron: btb, clerics uses spell-books so they should be litterate. Maybe not in Arneson manuscripts Well, this is an interesting debate really. Its true that "Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books..." Which does mean Clerics have spell books too and can research new spells. But, only the "Magic-User gains spells by preparations such as memorizing incantations, and once the spell is spoken that particular memory pattern is gone completely." and only the magic user has the Read Magic spell. So while Clerics might have scrolls and books, they aren't described as necessary for spell casting. Nowhere does it say the cleric has to memorize spells from a spell book, prepare special spells ahead of time, or cast a special spell to be able to read a spell book or scroll. Since it doesn't say it's required for clerics, I think it must not be. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 1, 2012 11:42:37 GMT -6
Have to disagree. By the book, Magic users are required to read. There is no such requirement for Clerics. They aren't required to read to learn thier spells or to learn them from scrolls or books. Further Magic Users cannot cast Cleric spells written on scrolls, which means that being able to read it has nothing to do with being able to cast it, which conversly means that being able to write it has nothing to do with being able to cast it. That line of reasoning doesn't work, since you could swap "Magic-User" and "Cleric" and come to the same conclusion: "Clerics cannot cast Magic-User spells written on scrolls, which means that being able to read it has nothing to do with being able to cast it, which conversly means that being able to write it has nothing to do with being able to cast it." Sure it works; Clerics can not read magic user spells. Being able to read a magic user spell does have something to do with being able to cast it. The reverse is not true. There's no exemption given for Clerics, and the preceding section on magical research makes it clear these paragraphs apply to both Magic-Users and Clerics ("Both Magic-Users and Clerics may attempt to expand on the spells listed...") So, clearly, Clerics by default are required to read. Nah. That's reading more into the text than what's actually there. Being able to write down a new researched spell doesn't imply a literacy requirement for existing spells. Think of cleric spells as liturgical litanies and such. You don't need to be literate to know "Tabitha cumi" or "hail mary full of grace......"; you do need to be a 2nd Level or better Cleric to make the litany actually become empowered, though. |
|
|
|
Post by keith418 on Feb 1, 2012 13:15:27 GMT -6
This is a fascinating discussion and it's one of the reasons that I find this forum so helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Feb 1, 2012 14:15:00 GMT -6
Good points Aldaron. I'll read it again and again and give a better advice
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 1, 2012 18:35:01 GMT -6
For either clerics (shamans) or magic-users (witch-doctors), they could use a different type of written language from what we use. Spells could be written as pictograms, hieroglyphics, runes, etc. Spellbooks could be on animal hides, rock tablets, carved in wood, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Feb 2, 2012 7:11:08 GMT -6
This discussion is raising interesting and complicated (albeit probably too interesting and complicated for the game!) questions about what constitutes literacy in the first place. At a root level, it can mean merely the capacity to recognize basic words/characters/ideograms of a given language system. Even among people fully literate, we acknowledge that there are degrees of literacy. After all, we distinguish, e.g. children's, young adult, and adult fiction not only by theme and interest, but also at least as much by presumed literacy. A literate person might not be able to make heads or tails of an article on string theory in an academic journal without thereby failing to be considered literate.
Of Medieval interest is that fact that literacy, in much of the Middle Ages, tended to mean (in the West and Central Europe) the ability to read Latin. Other languages tended not to have much by way of literature, and when they did, the writing system was simply a phonetic use of Latin letters. If you knew your letters and could speak Old French, you could read Old French. On the other hand, we know from, e.g. episcopal visitations of parishes in the 13th century that some priests had barely tolerable abilities in Latin. They had memorized their prayers, and so they could function ritually as priests in a minimal way, but this earned them the ire of their bishops!
Yet, perhaps they still had divine favor? A popular Medieval legend from this era tells of a priest whose Latin was so bad, he merely memorized the prayers for a Mass in honor of the Virgin Mary which he said daily, no matter what feast day it was. When the bishop learned this, he forbade the priest from celebrating the Mass until he learned to read Latin (i.e. to read at all) and so to use the proper Mass for the proper day. The bishop, however, then became gravely ill, and was visited in a vision by the Virgin Mary, who chastised him for dealing so poorly with her faithful servant. So corrected, the bishop permitted the priest to resume his former (i.e. illiterate) practice and was thereby cured from his disease.
Whatever you make of the legend, it does suggest how, e.g. a low intelligence cleric might still have divine (and saintly) favor, and so succeed without precisely knowing how to read. This doesn't tell us, however, what said priest would do with a magic scroll ...
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 2, 2012 8:56:28 GMT -6
... Whatever you make of the legend, it does suggest how, e.g. a low intelligence cleric might still have divine (and saintly) favor, and so succeed without precisely knowing how to read. This doesn't tell us, however, what said priest would do with a magic scroll ... Great post. Some related bits from Greyhawk worth bringing in to the discussion: "All cleric spells are considered as "divinely" given and as such a cleric with a wisdom factor of 3 would know all of the spells as well as would a cleric with an 18 wisdom factor." (p8) (not intellegence per say but it would seem to be about the same idea) "...Magic-Users cannot use a Cleric spell and the reverse holds true." (p58) |
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Feb 2, 2012 10:09:36 GMT -6
"All cleric spells are considered as "divinely" given and as such a cleric with a wisdom factor of 3 would know all of the spells as well as would a cleric with an 18 wisdom factor." (p8) (not intellegence per say but it would seem to be about the same idea) "...Magic-Users cannot use a Cleric spell and the reverse holds true." (p58) Interesting, perhaps a clerical scroll would somehow provide magical literacy to the cleric who is reading it. Maybe a kind of spiritual possession or transcendental consciousness. It is magical, after all. A higher-level cleric with a low Wis and/or Int who is eligible to create scrolls but is still considered illiterate could enter a similar trance state while creating the scroll. I do like the idea of clerics having "spellbooks" in the since of having a book of prayers, which they use in their daily prayer/spell recharge. But in an actual game, I don't think I'd enforce their use for reasons like the ones that llenlleawg provided. |
|
|
|
Post by keith418 on Feb 5, 2012 17:15:06 GMT -6
I found these distinctions interesting: "CLERICS: In my game, all priests are not members of the Cleric class. Instead, Clerics are rare and devoted holy men that can perform miracles (i.e. Cleric spells) and are usually militants of one sort or another. Clerics are rarely found in common shrines and temples; they tend to be action-oriented, smiting evil foes and performing holy missions. Successful and famous Clerics often form their own temples and orders, so they can also be found in the upper ranks of the church hierarchies. (Note that only humans may be Clerics. This doesn't mean that demi-humans don't have priests or holy men, but only that these demi-human priests are not members of the Cleric class.)" - Jason Cone (http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf) inthecitiesdotcom.wordpress.com/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 17:36:18 GMT -6
Jason "Philotomy Jurament" Cone is always an interesting read when it comes to OD&D. He is a [unprintable] good referee, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 5, 2012 20:56:43 GMT -6
I found these distinctions interesting: "CLERICS: In my game, all priests are not members of the Cleric class. Instead, Clerics are rare and devoted holy men that can perform miracles (i.e. Cleric spells) and are usually militants of one sort or another. Clerics are rarely found in common shrines and temples; they tend to be action-oriented, smiting evil foes and performing holy missions. That's the basic intent of the OD&D class, judging by the 1975 Temple of the Frog, where few if any of the priests are actually clerics. |
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Feb 6, 2012 4:29:19 GMT -6
Jason "Philotomy Jurament" Cone is always an interesting read when it comes to OD&D. He is a [unprintable] good referee, too. I wish he still came around here. |
|
