|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 14, 2012 21:44:08 GMT -6
"they have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (no arrows!)" (Men & Magic page 7) Apologies in advance for returning to this topic. So the above quote seems to be all the text regarding cleric weapon restrictions in the 3 LBBs. Am I missing anything else? Assuming that we interpret the quote so that it applies to mundane weapons, what weapons would you allow an observant cleric to wield? The mace really seems to be the only cut-and-dry case. Morning stars and flails are both borderline, but I bet most people would allow them. What about spears? One could make an effective spear with no edge without difficulty. War hammer, probably, but it doesn't show up as a mundane weapon on Men & Magic. There are magic war hammers in Monsters & Treasure though. Staff, club, and cudgel seem obvious if we don't mind adding new weapons to the list. What about slings? They are not in Men & Magic, but they are mentioned in Greyhawk. Sling stones may be blunt, but they don't seem very cleric-like to me. I've always rather liked the image of a vampire-hunting cleric with a stake-firing crossbow, but I suppose that is pushing it given the "no arrows!" clause. I know I'm being pedantic here, but I'm working on something that I would like to be useful for an arbitrary OD&D referee, and thus I would like to interpret the cleric weapon restrictions conservatively. In my own game, any class can actually use any weapon, so I admit this is a bit perverse, but there you have it. There is already this good thread on weapon restrictions: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=426But that doesn't quite answer the question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 21:56:42 GMT -6
Mace, hammer, club, quarter-staff.
I've gone several ways with slings. I eventually settled on disallowing them, reasoning that a cleric or anti-cleric would want to punish the enemies of his faith by his own hand.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 14, 2012 23:01:50 GMT -6
The morning star is a piercing weapon, which I would therefore not allow clerics to use (considering a "point" to be an "edge", as are arrows in the text). See here, for example (entry 8, halfway down). It is debatable whether the military flail ever actually existed. The agricultural flail (a tool for beating wheat) was, occasionally, pressed into military service in peasant armies however (see here), but the concept of a military flail is widely accepted in mainstream fantasy. For me, the military flail similar to a mace, but with a length of chain between the haft and the head, and allowable to clerics. If the head is spiked, the weapon would instead be classed as a morning star. For me, I think I would allow the following: * hammer (one handed), * club, * mace, * flail, * staff (one or two handed), * war hammer (two handed), * sling. And variations thereof.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 14, 2012 23:31:09 GMT -6
I go with: no missile weapons, no polearms, no points or edges. So, the same list as WotE, minus the sling.
Edit: forgot to add that those are the allowable staring weapons, but unlike Fighters, a starting Cleric only has training in the weapons actually purchased. Clerics can study other weapons later, even "forbidden" ones. Only Lawful Clerics are penalized for using edged/pointed weapons; neutrals and Chaotic heretics might have a bad social reaction, but no penalty (and open Chaotics who found there own sect or join a chaotic cult get no negative reaction from their colleagues.)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 15, 2012 5:17:36 GMT -6
Slings are the interesting case, in my mind. I don't mind that they aren't listed in M&M; the equipment lists therein are not meant to be exhaustive, but indicative (thus it says "Other items cost may be calculated by comparing to similar items listed above."). What's interesting is that while slings fire missiles with neither point nor edge (not breaking any explicit law of clericalism) they do nudge into the implicitly fighter-only territory of missile weapons. I like Dubeers' explanation as much as any: I've gone several ways with slings. I eventually settled on disallowing them, reasoning that a cleric or anti-cleric would want to punish the enemies of his faith by his own hand. In a (theoretical) by-the-book 3LBBs game, I think I would probably disallow slings also. In a (theoretical) game with supplements and/or house-rules, I think I would probably allow them. unlike Fighters, a starting Cleric only has training in the weapons actually purchased. Clerics can study other weapons later, even "forbidden" ones. Only Lawful Clerics are penalized for using edged/pointed weapons; Intriguing... is this a house rule Talysman? Or can it be found somewhere in one of the source books?
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 15, 2012 15:52:38 GMT -6
House rule. I choose to interpret the Fighter "use any weapon" liberally, as a special Fighter ability (he knows how to use anything he picks up as a weapon) and I interpret the others as meaning "weapons they could have received training in". Untrained use means fight at 0 level. Training means fight at actual level. It's the easy way to solve the "I want my magic-user to have a crossbow/sword" issue, *and* it makes Fighters more interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 16:00:30 GMT -6
Not bad. If I ever get a yen to play around with class-permitted weapons, I may give this a try. Have an exalt.
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Miller on Jul 15, 2012 21:03:17 GMT -6
It might be easier to answer this question if the rule about cleric weapons were seeking to simulate a well-defined tradition about Christian clerics. Clearly, the Christian prohibition against shedding blood seems to be part of the inspiration for the D&D rule. People usually cite the example of Bishop Odo at the Battle of Hastings wielding a club instead of a sword (as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry). I think it's debatable what exactly Odo did at Hastings and whether it had anything to do with his being depicted with a club rather than a sword in that particular tapestry. And even if Odo wielded a club instead of a sword to avoid shedding blood, this does not seem to have been a generally accepted interpretation of the duties of a Christian cleric.
The fact that the historical or legendary inspiration for the D&D rule is itself rather hazy makes it harder to interpret or extend the D&D rule than it otherwise might be, even though of course D&D is its own thing and there's no requirement that D&D follow history in this regard or any other.
I personally like games which simulate history and legend. As such I basically interpret D&D clerics as Templars; they are ordained clergymen, who take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, but they are also warriors trained in the same manner as non-clerical knights. On this interpretation, it makes sense to let clerics use any type of weapon whatsoever. The Templars shed blood, and seemed happy to do so.
My campaign is brand new (only one session in) so it remains to be seen whether this rule will break the game. I think the main issue is the availability of magical weapons for use by clerics. The magical swords tend to be the strongest magical weapons in D&D. One way around this would be to just prohibit clerics from using magical weapons, though that seems pretty arbitrary (though, ironically, it does appear to be the way the rule for cleric weapon restrictions is literally stated in Men and Magic).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 21:36:27 GMT -6
If you think it adds to the fun of your campaign if clerics carry swords then, by all means, let them carry swords.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 15, 2012 23:32:28 GMT -6
Yeah, I decided not to make a big deal about it for non-Lawful clerics. Law, regardless of actual religious sect, prefers to do minimal harm. The neutral clerics have no such compulsion, although individual sects might have rules about this that could get some kind of social sanctions. The Chaotic clerics in my campaigns are all heretics, part of the mainstream churches, but secretly working towards personal power and self-aggrandizement. Any cleric can carry a sword, but the churches and temples don't provide any sanctioned training, and the Lawfuls might lose the Turn Undead ability temporarily or permanently (I'd make a divine reaction roll.)
But then, I've been developing a very non-standard version of the cleric, so what works for me might not work for others.
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 16, 2012 9:03:13 GMT -6
House rule. I choose to interpret the Fighter "use any weapon" liberally, as a special Fighter ability (he knows how to use anything he picks up as a weapon) and I interpret the others as meaning "weapons they could have received training in". Untrained use means fight at 0 level. Training means fight at actual level. It's the easy way to solve the "I want my magic-user to have a crossbow/sword" issue, *and* it makes Fighters more interesting. This is really quite an elegant reconciliation of the rules with realism. What is the difference between fighting at 0 level and a first level fighter in your games?
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jul 16, 2012 12:37:43 GMT -6
You could also double the ego scores of magic sword for non-fighting men. Or, since clerics (and thieves) have lesser strength scores than fighters anyway, it may not be such a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 16, 2012 14:55:12 GMT -6
House rule. I choose to interpret the Fighter "use any weapon" liberally, as a special Fighter ability (he knows how to use anything he picks up as a weapon) and I interpret the others as meaning "weapons they could have received training in". Untrained use means fight at 0 level. Training means fight at actual level. It's the easy way to solve the "I want my magic-user to have a crossbow/sword" issue, *and* it makes Fighters more interesting. This is really quite an elegant reconciliation of the rules with realism. What is the difference between fighting at 0 level and a first level fighter in your games? I use "fighting at 0 level" to mean "no bonus from level or hit dice". On the standard matrix, that's a -1 to hit... but since I use Target 20 in actual practice, that just means "roll a d20 and add AC but not hit dice, hit on 20+". A normal man has 1 HD and can attack as a 1st level fighter with whatever weapons he has trained to use -- basically, whatever he's carrying. If he picks up a different weapon or improvises an attack with a barstool, he attacks at 0 level.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 16, 2012 15:00:02 GMT -6
Oh, and vaguely related: I like using the original OD&D hit die progression precisely because I can just say "add hit dice to d20 + AC" for Target 20. Clerics aren't as good as Fighters, Magic-Users are even slower to improve.
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 16, 2012 17:38:24 GMT -6
Mace, hammer, club, quarter-staff. I've gone several ways with slings. I eventually settled on disallowing them, reasoning that a cleric or anti-cleric would want to punish the enemies of his faith by his own hand. I think this is probably the most appropriate way for what I am doing now. I particularly like the "punish by his own hand" bit, which fits very nicely with how I am conceiving of clerics. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Jul 17, 2012 15:55:16 GMT -6
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I take the passage literally. Clerics may use any non-magic weapon they please, but only non-edged magic weapons. Why? Because it's MAGIC! As long as it's consistent, it doesn't have to make sense. Same thing with magic-users, they can use non-magical weapons and armor but the enchanted stuff doesn't work for them. If they try, the enchantments fail and they get no bonuses nor abilities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2012 16:33:46 GMT -6
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I take the passage literally. It doesn't matter if you are the minority! It's your game. Play it in whatever way makes it fun for you and your group. I've had the advantage of being present when the author explained what he meant by that passage. I'm equally certain, however, that Gygax would say to you the same thing I am: make it your own game! I'm confident you won't find anyone here disagreeing with this statement.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 17, 2012 23:11:28 GMT -6
It doesn't even have to be consistent, as long as it makes sense in your game.
But it should at least be consistently inconsistent...
|
|
|
Post by vito on Jul 18, 2012 6:47:31 GMT -6
Fists aren't edged. Could a cleric use a cestus? Or gauntlets? A huge stone fist like Hellboy?
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 18, 2012 8:13:27 GMT -6
Fists aren't edged. Could a cleric use a cestus? Or gauntlets? A huge stone fist like Hellboy? Sounds good by me. In fact, one could allow clerics to do lethal damage with unarmed attacks, and one instantly has a monk class.
|
|
|
Post by vito on Jul 23, 2012 4:01:35 GMT -6
So I've been thinking...
Musket balls don't have edges. They do pierce, but they aren't sharp and pointy like arrows. They're just like sling bullets except they travel at a higher velocity. Should clerics be allowed to use guns in settings where firearms exist?
I tend to draw from Hellboy as a source of inspiration whenever I play these clerics. The guy has a belt of holy symbols, he fights demons and undead, he clobbers evil with his huge fist, and he does occasionally use magic. Hellboy is totally a cleric. He uses a gun.
Sam and Dean from Supernatural use guns. Those guys are basically clerics.
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 23, 2012 8:58:41 GMT -6
Musket balls don't have edges. They do pierce, but they aren't sharp and pointy like arrows. They're just like sling bullets except they travel at a higher velocity. Should clerics be allowed to use guns in settings where firearms exist? Yeah, I think this comes down to if you want clerics to be using ranged weapons or not. If so, then guns would be okay in my book. As I mentioned before, in my own campaign, I have interpreted the class weapon restrictions very liberally (as mostly being cultural things). So any class can use any weapon.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 23, 2012 17:04:59 GMT -6
Musket balls don't have edges. They do pierce, but they aren't sharp and pointy like arrows. They're just like sling bullets except they travel at a higher velocity. Should clerics be allowed to use guns in settings where firearms exist? It's a cool idea, for sure. One possible interpretation is that firearms are wands (e.g., a "wand of punching fire" or similar), and the ball and powder is the "charge". This could work nicely in a setting where science/technology is a form of sorcery/magic. An alchemist may need to be sought for the "magic" black powder, for instance. Also, there is already a precedent for allowing various wands/staves to clerics, and even allowing a new wand/stave of this sort to all classes could work out very neatly.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jul 23, 2012 20:48:37 GMT -6
"Firearms as charged wands" is brilliant, brilliant I say!
|
|
|
Post by vito on Jul 24, 2012 3:26:59 GMT -6
It's interesting that one of the primary sources of inspiration for the cleric, the character Abraham Van Helsing, was a medical doctor and one of the foremost scientists of his day.
I like the idea of clerics having a scientific side to them to serve as a counterpoint to their religious side. I am a big fan of A Canticle for Leibowitz after all.
I really wish my buddy Micah would run an AD&D game again. I want to play as a cleric.
|
|
|
Post by aher on Jul 24, 2012 3:51:54 GMT -6
The prohibition on clerics using edged weapons seems to stem from this theological principle: Ecclesia non novit sanguinem. The church does not shed blood. The idea is that a club (or mace) is compatible with a cleric's duty to refrain from bloodshed, because it primarily crushes an opponent's skull and bones, whereas an edged weapon like a sword (or arrow) pierces an opponent's hide and thus sheds blood. Many gamers hold antithetical opinions to this idea, nicely expressed here, Busting the myth about clerics and bludgeoning weapons, because in the real world, bludgeoning weapons shed blood, just as much as piercing weapons. My answer to that is: While real clerics (priests, pastors, cohens and levites) are best advised to refrain from bloodshed and warfare if possible, in a fantasy world it is conceivable that bludgeoning weapons need not draw blood. Perhaps monster hides are so tough that you can kill them by clubbing them without ever shedding a drop of blood. In that case, a DM might want to impose weapon restrictions on clerics. And to reinforce these restrictions, it wouldn't hurt to have some theological basis for the prohibition of piercing weapons in your game. So here are some choice quotes, which if taken literally, prohibit the shedding of blood by clerics. In Summa Theologica II-II, Question 40, On War, Saint Thomas Aquinas writes: Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with the duties of a bishop and a cleric, for two reasons. [...] Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. For this reason it has been decreed that those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular. Now no man who has a certain duty to perform, can lawfully do that which renders him unfit for that duty. Wherefore it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight, because war is directed to the shedding of blood. Digging even deeper into the prohibition on clerics shedding blood led me to the priestly blessing (birkat kohanim or ברכת כהנים), found in Numbers 6:24–26, which is performed daily by Kohanim (Jewish priests) in Israel as well as Catholic priests. It is also used in the Anglican and Lutheran liturgies. Here it is in the Roman Missal. Wikipedia notes: A Kohen may be disqualified [from blessing the people] by, e.g., having imbibed too much alcohol, having a severe speech impediment, blindness, having taken a human life, having married a disqualifying wife (such as a divorcee), the recent death of a close relation. When I tracked down halakhic rulings pertaining to the disqualification of priests from saying the priestly blessing, they specifically mention bloodshed: ... any kohen [Priest] with blood on his hands, even if it comes from one of the obligatory wars of self defense, shall not bless the people. --Rav Yisachar Ber Eilenburg: Tzaidah Laderech (p. 69a) Similar halakhah can be found here: - Harav Ben Zion Ouziel: Mishpetei Ouziel, Part 1, Section 10
- Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik: Nefesh Harav, Section 132, Par. 5
A midrash comments that Moses was disqualified from entering Eretz Yisrael (Deuteronomy 3:23-27) on account of shedding an Egyptian's blood (Exodus 2:12). (OTOH, had Moses done nothing to stop the Egyptian taskmaster from killing the Israelite, he also would have been condemned, on the basis of Leviticus 19:16--a Catch-22.) Another midrash comments that King David was disqualified from building the Temple on account of his involvement in obligatory wars (מלחמת מצווה). Insofar as why priests who come in contact with blood are disqualified from their duties to bless the people, I'd have to guess this comes from the blood taboo (Leviticus 17:11-14), where it says "the soul [transl. life] is in the blood." The soul belongs to God, or rather, it is the very vehicle for Divinity in the world. So God has a strong interest in regulating how blood may be used.
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 24, 2012 9:42:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 24, 2012 16:58:30 GMT -6
The way I interpret the "do not shed blood" prohibition is: Edged weapons can sever limbs or cause massive, quick blood loss, and piercing weapons can hit vital organs and kill quickly, so clerics are supposed to avoid using or training in those weapons on general principal. The faithful are not *supposed* to shed blood , maim, or kill, but the church recognizes that sometimes it will happen; they just don't approve of preparing to cause maximum damage.
Of course, if you adopt this attitude, then all missile weapons, including firearms, are out. A non-lethal ranged weapon, like a thrown net, would be OK.
|
|
|
Post by saveforhalf on Mar 6, 2013 16:22:00 GMT -6
I use the hammer as the symbol of Law, symbolizing justice, building, and forging. Clerics of Law are forbidden from using any weapon other than a hammer. Over the centuries, however, the definition of "hammer" has become looser and looser until it now covers any blunt weapon. I allow slings under this loose definition.
Clerics of Chaos have no restrictions on weapons, since rules are the antithesis of Chaos. However, clerics of Chaos must deal with cruel and capricious gods who usually treat them no better than slaves. The relationship between Elric and Arioch is a good example. Also, most human settlements lean towards Law. Going into a human city and openly showing yourself as a cleric of Chaos is similar to going into a medieval city and declaring yourself a witch or warlock. You'd likely get burned at the stake.
I don't allow neutral clerics. If I decided to allow neutral priest types, I'd use the druid class instead.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Mar 6, 2013 16:59:33 GMT -6
Maybe one reason clerics would be inclined to wield blunt weapons rather than edged weapons is that they're easier to learn to use. (Is that true, by the way? Not that it really matters.) Viewed in this way, it reflects a cloistered lifestyle focused on scriptural study and the caretaking of one's flock - the cleric is a scholar/administrator, not a warrior, so she chooses a weapon that doesn't require a great deal of training and practice.
Having said that, my policy is to always allow players to do everything, so this issue doesn't often come up.
|
|