Godless Clerics

[soir8]

Hey there,

I'm just after other people's opinions on this since it's something that's bothered me for a while. The first time I had a go at DMing a D&D (3.5) game, one of my friends was playing a cleric. As an atheist IRL, he wanted to worship an "ideal" instead of a God, as is allowed by the PHB. I found the idea of a priest without a god completely ridiculous, but allowed it for the sake of everyone having a good time.

But still, it seems stupid to me. The concern isn't over the game mechanics and where divine power comes from; it's simply that you can't be a priest without having a god, or gods.

In future campaigns I'm considering a houserule that a cleric must worship a god, not an abstract ideal. It's possible that I might include churches in the game world that worship several gods, so that a cleric can simply be a member of a church without needing to choose a single god.

Thoughts?

[Longcat]

What setting are you guys playing?

In Greyhawk (aka the Core setting), you get to worhip ideals instead of gods, since gods aren't the only source of divine energy.

In Forgotten Realms, every divine spellcaster has to choose a diety. In fact, everyone needs to, since the setting punishes you for not doing so.

In Eberron, certain faiths allow you to worship an entire pantheon, and AFAIR, you get to pick your domains accordingly.

[Lysander]

You can think of the "ideal" as something like The Force, a vast mindless all-powerful energy that is spoke of with reverence. Worshipping an ideal like "happiness" is a little silly, but if it's something more profound it doesn't necessarily need a deity overseeing it.

You could also take the view that objects in nature themselves are magical and worth worshiping. A cleric of the sun can worship the sun itself, without there needing to be a humanoid figure managing it. You can pick whether the sun is considered sentient or not.

[SparkMandriller]

I doubt it's really gonna help. He'll just pick a god and then forget about them. Not like you can force him to act devoted or anything.

[dsmiles]

I'm a big fan of the Faerunian clerics. You must have a god, as all divine power stems from them. It's not a broken system, if that's what you're asking.

[jmbrown]

I doubt it's really gonna help. He'll just pick a god and then forget about them. Not like you can force him to act devoted or anything.

You can if you refuse him spells which a DM should do if a cleric isn't acting according to the tenants of his faith. Everyone always cries "unfair!" when the DM restricts player choice but the major part of the cleric's powers come from worship of a divine being. RAW says a cleric specifically prays for his spells which his deity grants him and if you don't revere that deity the DM has every right to say "Lol, no. Convert or make amends 'cause this god hates you."

As far as philosophy goes, traditional D&D fluff states that some kind of power grants spells. A cleric should be able to revere a philosophy, however, the fluff of a cleric maintains that they're part of an organization. If a cleric makes up his own philosophy which only he follows, he shouldn't get any spells regardless because his belief isn't powerful enough. If multiple people follow the same tenants (say, 100 or so) then their collective belief should be enough to grant divine power.

[Grumman]

I feel the same way the OP does. The way I see magic in D&D is that it's all just arcane magic to start with, but deities use their Epic-level Imbue with Spell Ability to grant some of their magic to their followers.


You can think of the "ideal" as something like The Force, a vast mindless all-powerful energy that is spoke of with reverence. Worshipping an ideal like "happiness" is a little silly, but if it's something more profound it doesn't necessarily need a deity overseeing it.

You could also take the view that objects in nature themselves are magical and worth worshiping. A cleric of the sun can worship the sun itself, without there needing to be a humanoid figure managing it. You can pick whether the sun is considered sentient or not.
The problem with this view is that it does not provide a mechanism for the ideal to grant power to the cleric.

[Tyndmyr]

Alternative option, point him in the direction of Ur-Priest. It satisfies both his desire to not follow a diety, and yet the fluff fits nicely with dieties granting power.

Seriously though, there's nothing wrong with worshipping an ideal in most settings. It could be something as simple as equality or justice or what have you.

[Telonius]

Deities gain power based on the number of followers they have (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0080.html). If his "cause" has followers, I don't see why it couldn't have powers as well.

Faiths of Eberron has some examples of things that are more philosophy-like than actual religions, but still qualify for Clerics.

[OracleofWuffing]

One thing I've wondered about is if godless clerics can use spells that require divine focuses.

I mean, I think it's implied that they can, but I mean, what is their holy symbol? (aside from happiness being a warm kitty, naturally.) And it's just opening the door and asking people to make Clerics who worship the ideal of Not Having a Holy Symbol. At least, for me, it does. :smalltongue:

[Foryn Gilnith]

The thing about worshipping an ideal is that it's awfully restrictive. Compared to theism, you need a lot more devotion. You don't get to have a whole holy book full of nuance - this single idea dominates your worldview so thoroughly that you can derive power from it.

Or this could just be how my previous DMs interpreted it. Ur-Priest would be good, but it's always Evil for some reason.

EDIT: Godless clerics use a sun symbol if they turn undead, and a skull symbol if they don't turn undead. See the equipment section. Or they could just not cast any spell that requires a divine focus.

[Bibliomancer]

The thing about worshipping an ideal is that it's awfully restrictive. Compared to theism, you need a lot more devotion. You don't get to have a whole holy book full of nuance - this single idea dominates your worldview so thoroughly that you can derive power from it.

Or this could just be how my previous DMs interpreted it. Ur-Priest would be good, but it's always Evil for some reason.

EDIT: Godless clerics use a sun symbol if they turn undead, and a skull symbol if they don't turn undead. See the equipment section. Or they could just not cast any spell that requires a divine focus.

A passable solution to this would be to only give one domain to clerics who worship an ideal, and have only one alignment (NG for happiness) that can tap into that power source. This would giv them the option to do so, while still explaining why clerics of true gods are so much more common. Note that this solution does not apply in Eberron, since none of the gods (except for the Silver Flame) intervene in the world and people are a bit unclear on hte topic of "gods" anyways.

[Curmudgeon]

Just go with the rules, I say. Worshiping an ideal already has drawbacks, such as not being able to use the War domain or Visage of the Deity spell. If someone in real life is more comfortable with an ideal, and the rules support that, why rock the boat?

[Vizzerdrix]

Cleric =/= Priest.

Priest =/= Cleric.

The idea of a cleric worshiping an ideal is no more strange than a druid worshiping nature.

[SparkMandriller]

You can if you refuse him spells which a DM should do if a cleric isn't acting according to the tenants of his faith. Everyone always cries "unfair!" when the DM restricts player choice but the major part of the cleric's powers come from worship of a divine being. RAW says a cleric specifically prays for his spells which his deity grants him and if you don't revere that deity the DM has every right to say "Lol, no. Convert or make amends 'cause this god hates you."

So now he acts just like he did, but adds "also I think Kord is awesome" to the end of everything he says. What are you gonna do, keep a little notebook of the things he's done to please his god each day? Y'know, drop name of god, 1 point, beat up monster, 3 points, call cleric of other religion stupid, 3 points, and he's not allowed to get spells unless he makes 10 points per day?

I mean, maybe he'll be amenable to the idea, but if he's not, I doubt you're gonna get anything but the absolute minimum effort required to get spells. And a guy who's not really too happy, you'll get that too. Doesn't seem like a great trade to me.

[OracleofWuffing]

EDIT: Godless clerics use a sun symbol if they turn undead, and a skull symbol if they don't turn undead. See the equipment section. Or they could just not cast any spell that requires a divine focus.
Ah, I see, this information is correct. The relevent information is excluded from the SRD, but it is in the PHB.

Which means that goodly clerics who worship the darkness need a sun symbol. That's fine with me. :smallbiggrin:

[Artanis]

Faiths of Eberron has some examples of things that are more philosophy-like than actual religions, but still qualify for Clerics.

I was just thinking that. There's at least one "deity" in Eberron that's just a named, specific "general cause" without an actual God (The Path of Light), and another that probably counts as such (Spirits of the Past). There's also religions that worship the Underdark, a possessed bonfire, some quasi-undead, various meanings of the word "blood", and an impending robot apocalypse.


So...yeah, Eberron has no problem whatsoever with not worshiping traditional deities :smallwink:

[Kyeudo]

One thing I've wondered about is if godless clerics can use spells that require divine focuses.

I mean, I think it's implied that they can, but I mean, what is their holy symbol? (aside from happiness being a warm kitty, naturally.) And it's just opening the door and asking people to make Clerics who worship the ideal of Not Having a Holy Symbol. At least, for me, it does. :smalltongue:

Actually, the PHB defines the 'generic' good and evil holy symbols to be a sun and a skull respectively.

In Forgotten Realms, the idea of a godless cleric is ridiculous, but that is because the setting's fluff makes it very explicit that practically everyone and their dog recieves visions and miracles from their diety.

In Eberron, godless clerics are common. This is because gods in the setting are not explicitly in existance. They are believed to exist. A few religions do worship entities that it is possible to meet, but those entities are either obviously not gods or are debatably not gods (Blood of Vol, Church of the Silver Flame, Undying Court, etc.) One of the big faiths, the Path of Light, does not have a diety, but is a philosophy about being generaly good. Further, not all priests are clerics. Clerics in Eberron need a high level of devotion to whatever they revere, be it a god, pantheon, or concept, to channel divine energy. (Side note: the ability for anyone highly devoted to become a cleric is known about in the setting. During the Last War, there was a military project to train Clerics of Patriotism)

In Greyhawk and most settings in general, things are more muddled. The gods explicitly exist, because there are people who have met and spoken with them, but there also exist people who have not and so don't necessarily believe in the gods. If you decide to fluff it that godless clerics are granted their spells by some god of a related concept, sort of like a worshipper who does not know the name of his god, or that there exists some source of divine power other than the gods, then godless clerics are very possible. If the gods only give spells to clerics who explicitly worship them and there is no alternate source, then godless clerics wouldn't make sense.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Godless clerics don't disbelieve the gods. Even the Athar, whose whole shtick is basically "We're atheists, sort of", don't disbelieve the gods. A godless cleric just thinks the gods not worthy of attention. Ideals are more pure, with less anthropic vices. Or something like that.

[Tyndmyr]

The thing about worshipping an ideal is that it's awfully restrictive. Compared to theism, you need a lot more devotion. You don't get to have a whole holy book full of nuance - this single idea dominates your worldview so thoroughly that you can derive power from it.


I don't think that's RAW. At least, Ive never seen it. I was always under the impression that either an ideal or a god required a pretty solid, and similar, level of devotion.

[Fhaolan]

The 'get power from philosophy' allows a lot of different things. It allows clerics to be priests of an entire pantheon, rather than a single god. Or campaign worlds were gods *aren't* anthropomoric representations of specific concepts. For example: "I'm a priest of the Volcano", "Oh, you have a god of volcanos in your religion, then?", "No, I'm talking about that volcano there.", "Ah, so there's a god living in that volcano?", "You're being rather dense. That volcano, that you can see, physically. That big thing with the smoke coming out of the top. That's what we worship."

[jmbrown]

So now he acts just like he did, but adds "also I think Kord is awesome" to the end of everything he says. What are you gonna do, keep a little notebook of the things he's done to please his god each day? Y'know, drop name of god, 1 point, beat up monster, 3 points, call cleric of other religion stupid, 3 points, and he's not allowed to get spells unless he makes 10 points per day?

I mean, maybe he'll be amenable to the idea, but if he's not, I doubt you're gonna get anything but the absolute minimum effort required to get spells. And a guy who's not really too happy, you'll get that too. Doesn't seem like a great trade to me.

Yes, as DM you should keep track of how he behaves because, as a cleric, he acts for his god. As a cleric of Kord he should be relatively good in alignment. He shouldn't run from battle unless absolutely necessary (and even then he should be the last to run), he should prefer a straight fight using melee over ranged spells, and he should never back down from a physical challenge.

The prayer aspect of clerics is handled in the time of day they choose to pray for their spells but you should still note their performance. A cleric of Kord should reward strength and shun weakness. They should donate to the poor in hopes their new windfall makes them stronger. They should tithe to their church or hold fund raising physical competitions in their down time. They should never tolerate those who use authority to bully the weak.

If someone falters in their duties (and I mean consistently) then the DM should warn them. If they continue, the DM has every right to revoke their powers. I know this seems like a lot of extra work but spellcasters have restrictions like this for a reason. A cleric is the mouth and hand of their deity. If their cleric forsakes them then the deity should forsake the cleric.

I say this because clerics are exemplary of their deity. They can hang out with their fellow party members, but in their off-time between adventures they should be doing whatever they can to further the cause of their church. A cleric shouldn't be in the bar all day every day drinking with his fighter and rogue buddies when there are matters of the church to attend to (unless, of course, you worship a deity who says "drink to your heart's content").

[SparkMandriller]

I still can't see the cleric putting out any more than the very minimum effort, though. And being unhappy about it, which I doubt is gonna help the situation any.

[paddyfool]

If what the player wants to do is fun for them, and does not detract from the fun experienced by you and the rest of the party, rock on.

[jmbrown]

I still can't see the cleric putting out any more than the very minimum effort, though. And being unhappy about it, which I doubt is gonna help the situation any.

Then decide what's more important for you; the roleplaying aspect or the mechanical aspect. If it's the former then tell him up front that you expect him to act in Kord's tenants and if he doesn't you reserve all right to snatch his powers away. If it's the latter then simply don't worry about it. He's a cleric of Kord, he has to pray for 1 hour each day regardless, all other material is hand waved away.

Shoot, if it's the latter then you shouldn't have any problem with him being an agnostic cleric (I don't want to say atheist because in most D&D worlds the gods are very 100% real and will remind you of that fact rather quickly).

[Baron Malkar]

Um...

FOR SCIENCE!!!!!

:smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Elder Evils has a little bit of backstory as to how mortals got to know that it was possible to draw divine power from otehr things than actual deities.

The most commonly mentioned divine sources seems to be The Planes. For example, a cleric whose patron is one of the various demonic, or devilish (or celestial, for that matter) patrons, does not, in fact, draw power from that patron, but from the plane that patron resides in.

So, a "cleric of no deity" is like these- except they don't need the patron, but can access the power directly.

Even Faerun allows clerics of, for example, dead gods (Lost Empires of Faerun, Power of Faerun)- but the souls of these clerics are assumed to count as "The Faithless" after death. Or of dragon ascendants- 0th level quasi-deities, but with a feat from Dragons of Faerun, you can draw divine power from a dragon ascendant like Tchazzar.

[Kylarra]

Yes, as DM you should keep track of how he behaves because, as a cleric, he acts for his god. As a cleric of Kord he should be relatively good in alignment. He shouldn't run from battle unless absolutely necessary (and even then he should be the last to run), he should prefer a straight fight using melee over ranged spells, and he should never back down from a physical challenge.

The prayer aspect of clerics is handled in the time of day they choose to pray for their spells but you should still note their performance. A cleric of Kord should reward strength and shun weakness. They should donate to the poor in hopes their new windfall makes them stronger. They should tithe to their church or hold fund raising physical competitions in their down time. They should never tolerate those who use authority to bully the weak.

If someone falters in their duties (and I mean consistently) then the DM should warn them. If they continue, the DM has every right to revoke their powers. I know this seems like a lot of extra work but spellcasters have restrictions like this for a reason. A cleric is the mouth and hand of their deity. If their cleric forsakes them then the deity should forsake the cleric.

I say this because clerics are exemplary of their deity. They can hang out with their fellow party members, but in their off-time between adventures they should be doing whatever they can to further the cause of their church. A cleric shouldn't be in the bar all day every day drinking with his fighter and rogue buddies when there are matters of the church to attend to (unless, of course, you worship a deity who says "drink to your heart's content").Of course if you plan on doing all that and enforcing a code of conduct that's more stringent than that of a paladin, you should definitely tell your player ahead of time, rather than springing it on them randomly. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

Most campaign-specific books suggest clerics have a code of conduct, of sorts, as their deity's dogma- but in general, it does seem that DMs tend not to enforce it as heavily as the Paladin's Code is often enforced.

[soir8]

The problem with this view is that it does not provide a mechanism for the ideal to grant power to the cleric.

As I said, it's not the mechanics that are the issue. I just find the idea stupid that you can be a cleric without having any god or gods. It defeats the whole point of being a cleric.

The setting is one I've made up, but it uses the core D&D pantheon.

And if someone plays a cleric and has a god or a church, they won't be able to ignore it. I'll be incorporating it into the game.

What I really want to know is how people feel about the idea of godless clerics, so I can judge how to tackle the issue.

[Dienekes]

Personally I thought the idea was ridiculous and dictated that everyone needed to either pray to a god or a pantheon in my group.

There were no complaints, mostly because the atheist players had no intention of playing a cleric.

[Tyndmyr]

I should point out that there's a difference between being godless, and being dedicated to a specific god.

A cleric of a specific god may well believe in the existance of others. May even respect and praise others...but you're dedicated to the worship of the one. In this respect, being able to dedicate yourself to an ideal or pantheon actually makes more sense.

After all, why wouldn't it be possible to worship all god's in a pantheon equally? Why should monotheism have a lock on fun divine powers in a game that explicitly endorses pantheism?

[hamishspence]

Its canonical- but should maybe be a bit unusual.

Clerics devoted solely to "an ideal" should, I think, be quite rare. Maybe someone who thinks the gods do not sufficiently further the ideal in question, so he reveres the ideal rather than the few gods who tend to stand for that ideal.

Or a cleric who just hasn't found the god of his ideals.

In Book 3 of the Dark Elf trilogy of Drizzt books, when Drizzt explains to Mooshie "To follow a god is folly- I will follow my heart instead" Mooshie explains that he is revering a specific god- he just doesn't know it.

Similarly, while Cadderly is a cleric, in the Cleric Quintet of books by the same author, he does not entirely believe that the gods are real- until part-way through book 3.

[soir8]

I should point out that there's a difference between being godless, and being dedicated to a specific god.

A cleric of a specific god may well believe in the existance of others. May even respect and praise others...but you're dedicated to the worship of the one. In this respect, being able to dedicate yourself to an ideal or pantheon actually makes more sense.

After all, why wouldn't it be possible to worship all god's in a pantheon equally? Why should monotheism have a lock on fun divine powers in a game that explicitly endorses pantheism?


This idea I'm fine with. I wouldn't have a problem with a cleric worshipping a pantheon of gods, as it makes sense. Gaining divine power from belief in an abstract philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't.

[jmbrown]

As I said, it's not the mechanics that are the issue. I just find the idea stupid that you can be a priest without having any god or gods. It defeats the whole point of being a priest.

The setting is one I've made up, but it uses the core D&D pantheon.

And if someone plays a cleric and has a god or a church, they won't be able to ignore it. I'll be incorporating it into the game.

What I really want to know is how people feel about the idea of godless clerics, so I can judge how to tackle the issue.

Clerics/priests, by definition, are members of a religious organization. Organization being the key term. While I don't personally encourage godless clerics in games where gods exist, Dungeons and Dragons historically has put power in faith. For example, if the PC is a member of The Church of Righteousness which holds The Sacred Seven Virtues as their highest tenant then the DM should work with that. Maybe their domains are Good and Strength and they draw their divine power from Celestia.

As a DM I believe roleplaying should match mechanics. When the mechanics don't match the fluff the DM should modify one or the other. Even if the player wants to reject a deity he should still be a member of an organization because that's part of the cleric's fluff.

[hamishspence]

On possible resolution (given how many settings, including Faerun allow this under certain circumstances.):

All mortals have an ability to touch the planes (Outer, Inner, Material, etc) and draw power from them. Mortals with a strong belief in something (themselves, ideals, gods) activate this ability, and these are divine casters of all kinds.

The gods tend to monopolize mortals with strong belief, their agents seeking them out and encouraging them to become clerics.

However, a few develop it without becoming followers of specific gods.

This seems to fit with the Elder Evils story, and the fact that one of the evil druid characters in Champions of Ruin, can wield druidic divine power without revering any nature god- and is teaching his followers how to, as well.

Similarly, a cleric of a dead god may literally be his own organization, with nobody else as "fellow participants"

[Kylarra]

Most campaign-specific books suggest clerics have a code of conduct, of sorts, as their deity's dogma- but in general, it does seem that DMs tend not to enforce it as heavily as the Paladin's Code is often enforced.Yes, I realize that they have a code of conduct of sorts, but the proposed CoC in this case was far more stringent than any paladin's code, to the point of dictating what they do in their off time.

[hamishspence]

yes- "Associating with evildoers" is not usually considered to cover offtime by most DMs- a paladin who has to share his hometown with evil (but law-abiding) beings has to swallow his distaste and put up with it.

In the same way, clerics should be devoted, but not that devoted, mostly.

[jmbrown]

Of course if you plan on doing all that and enforcing a code of conduct that's more stringent than that of a paladin, you should definitely tell your player ahead of time, rather than springing it on them randomly. :smallwink:

Devotion means devotion. It doesn't mean you can add in your own opinions or modify things to suit your tastes. Most NPCs revere a deity but you're not most NPCs. You have the power to channel powers because your deity is so pleased with your performance he allows you to draw power from him.

My point is that I hate leech clerics. A leech cleric is someone who claims to be a cleric and does absolutely nothing to further the goals of their deity. If I was a god and some jerk claimed to worship me but all he did was offer 1 hour out of the day to suck my powers, I would cut him off flat and simple.

D&D is a roleplaying game and people should roleplay their characters. When I roleplay clerics I specifically tell the party during our off-time "If you need me, I'll be at the church holding sermons/mass/public relations/community service." As a cleric character I donate at the very least 10% of my earnings to my church because I come from the edition where Paladins and Clerics mechanically had to give up wealth. The idea of a cleric that produces the bare minimum absolutely irks me because clerics aren't typical worshipers, they're spellcasters.

[Ecalsneerg]

I've got a question. Even if the DM disagrees with clerics of a cause, why can't he just roll with it if his player is having fun?

[jmbrown]

I've got a question. Even if the DM disagrees with clerics of a cause, why can't he just roll with it if his player is having fun?

Because it might not fit in with the world or other mechanics. The DM is a player too and I think some people forget that the DM can be turned off by aspects the players want. This is why you tell players what you expect up front. "No godless clerics, sorry." If the player doesn't like it then oh, well. He doesn't have to play in your game.

[hamishspence]

Deities gain extra power from the numbers of worshippers they have, in most settings- which is why a deity revered by millions is a greater deity, and a deity revered by only a few, is usually a demigod.

But do they lose power each time they "grant spells" to their worshippers? Or is this only for exceptional things like Miracle?

The impression I got from Deities and Demigods, was that granting spells was something the deity barely noticed.

A DM can certainly "rule 0" away godless clerics though- if its absolutely imperative that no player in his game play one.

[Ecalsneerg]

Because it might not fit in with the world or other mechanics. The DM is a player too and I think some people forget that the DM can be turned off by aspects the players want. This is why you tell players what you expect up front. "No godless clerics, sorry." If the player doesn't like it then oh, well. He doesn't have to play in your game.

Yeah, but the player is a player too. He just wants his cleric to worship an ideal, not a deity. The DM gets to design the whole frickin' setting, can't he concede one point?

Also, if you're homebrewing a setting, wouldn't it make more sense to design for your group's tastes, not just your own?

[Tyndmyr]

This idea I'm fine with. I wouldn't have a problem with a cleric worshipping a pantheon of gods, as it makes sense. Gaining divine power from belief in an abstract philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't.

Why not? Are there not likely a number of gods who support this ideal? Is it any different than worshipping a pantheon, really?

[Altaria87]

This idea I'm fine with. I wouldn't have a problem with a cleric worshipping a pantheon of gods, as it makes sense. Gaining divine power from belief in an abstract philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't.
What about Druids then (someone mentioned this earlier) they gain their power from Nature, their fluff even states they may follow a Nature Deity, but they gain their spells from nature, and lose them if they cease to revere nature, how is that so different from a Cleric who draws his power from the pure essence of Justice or whatever?

[Zaydos]

Personally I agree that the idea of a godless cleric tends to rub me the wrong way. The idea that gods get their power from an ideal works in some campaigns, but it depends upon the fluff of the campaign.

My last two campaigns:
The Three Worlds:
Druids had to revere Gaia, or at least respect her. Unlike clerics they got much of their power from the understanding of nature's ways and did not need to actively pray to Gaia although she was the source of their powers and they knew it.

Wizards/Sorcerers/all Arcane Casters: Tapped into the power of Thoth, god of magic, via knowledge and understanding. While he could through force of will cut them off this would represent an active use of his power. Last time he did this he was comatose and injured and did it to the entire world and still some dragons and a rare few others could use arcane magic.

Clerics explicitly got their power from a specific god. Thoth and Gaia (two of the elder gods) were about the only source of free-flowing magic and those who got their power from understanding of this force weren't clerics but covered above. Those who got strength from faith and service of their gods were actively blessed with it. A few gods banded together to form pantheons (mostly lawful deities and/or immediate family), in which case you could worship the pantheon as a whole but still got your domains from one deity in it.

Shamans got their power primarily from the gods of one pantheon (the oriental one) which included semi-divine spirits. You could get powers from these spirits but they were limited to relatively low level spells, even demigods couldn't grant 9th level spells except to their high priest if even that.

Archivists: Thankfully never came up.

Favored Soul: As cleric, but the god selected them specially.

Shugenja: Thankfully never came up.

Spirit Shaman: Would have had a connection to Gaia and the lesser semi-divine spirits.

Chikyuu:
You can worship anything. Your own schizophrenic mind? Okay. A common garden snail? Okay. The concept that there are no gods? Sure. The world is crazy, if you tried you could probably play a sorcerer who got his power by worshipping bees. And yes I did say sorcerer. All that is required is that you role-play it.

So I'd say you're the DM, it's your world, if you don't want it don't have it. I've done both and I prefer the gods are gods and they grant your spells and your epic spells won't kill Thoth he thinks them out of existence and strips you of your magic (although there was a type of magic he couldn't do that too, but even if you were the best there was with it you couldn't beat him, he might say "please leave without a fight" because the fight would destroy a few planets but you would lose). Then again I've done worlds where a person who had the gods talking to him on a regular basis said, "Yup, most of them are completely imaginary. Doesn't mean they can't kill you just as dead."

[Kylarra]

Devotion means devotion. It doesn't mean you can add in your own opinions or modify things to suit your tastes. Most NPCs revere a deity but you're not most NPCs. You have the power to channel powers because your deity is so pleased with your performance he allows you to draw power from him.

My point is that I hate leech clerics. A leech cleric is someone who claims to be a cleric and does absolutely nothing to further the goals of their deity. If I was a god and some jerk claimed to worship me but all he did was offer 1 hour out of the day to suck my powers, I would cut him off flat and simple.

D&D is a roleplaying game and people should roleplay their characters. When I roleplay clerics I specifically tell the party during our off-time "If you need me, I'll be at the church holding sermons/mass/public relations/community service." As a cleric character I donate at the very least 10% of my earnings to my church because I come from the edition where Paladins and Clerics mechanically had to give up wealth. The idea of a cleric that produces the bare minimum absolutely irks me because clerics aren't typical worshipers, they're spellcasters.I'm glad for you. I really am, but I ask that you realize that not everyone shares your fanaticism/prejudices in regards to clerics. Straitjacket CoC makes for no more interesting characters than straitjacket alignment, imo.

Also, was it in OD&D/1e that clerics had to tithe 10%? I don't recall it from 2e.

[Toliudar]

It is no more necessary to connect a clerics to a specific deity are no more necessary than rangers, druids or paladins - all are divine casters, so if one group can tap into the life force of the universe, so can the others. I have absolutely no problem with clerics that worship concepts, philosophies or "the force", as long as they are reasonably consistent in their own code of behaviour. These clerics are not "priests", but could be described as hermits, philosophers, mystics...whatever turns your player's crank. For me, the major downside of such a choice is that they're missing out on being part of a power and faith structure within a setting, rather than grounding their characters in it.

[jmbrown]

Deities gain extra power from the numbers of worshippers they have, in most settings- which is why a deity revered by millions is a greater deity, and a deity revered by only a few, is usually a demigod.

But do they lose power each time they "grant spells" to their worshippers? Or is this only for exceptional things like Miracle?

The impression I got from Deities and Demigods, was that granting spells was something the deity barely noticed.

A DM can certainly "rule 0" away godless clerics though- if its absolutely imperative that no player in his game play one.

And a question for you: What constitutes reverence? People claim to worship deities all the time for social reasons, not actual belief. The clerics who worship solely for their own personal agenda, not their deities, should be stamped out.


Yeah, but the player is a player too. He just wants his cleric to worship an ideal, not a deity. The DM gets to design the whole frickin' setting, can't he concede one point?


If it means having to change the entirety of the fluff then yes. I wouldn't care in a generic setting where we make stuff up on the fly.


I'm glad for you. I really am, but I ask that you realize that not everyone shares your fanaticism/prejudices in regards to clerics. Straitjacket CoC makes for no more interesting characters than straitjacket alignment, imo.

Also, was it in OD&D/1e that clerics had to tithe 10%? I don't recall it from 2e.

Alignment doesn't grant you powers. Code of conduct directly represents your choice of worship and gives you power. Some people don't like that and I respect it but I tell people who play clerics up front: You are the eyes and ears of your god. Piss off your god and you're just a fighter with medium BAB until you convert to something you actually care about. If they don't like it they don't have to play.

I can't recall off the top of my head with 1E, but 2E does make clerics give up all their gold except two or three gp after buying their equipment. AD&D in general stresses that clerics should be exemplars of their faith and deviation shouldn't be tolerated. This is in accordance to Gary Gygax being a big proponent on deities in fantasy games and I agree with him. A divine being isn't going to support someone who doesn't support him.

[JonestheSpy]

There's actually plenty of real life examples of Holy Men - i.e. clerics - without gods, especiallly in Eastern religions. Try pointing your players toward doing a bit of research in that direction for inspiration and character concept.

[ZeroNumerous]

I have a question for the OP: How is the concept of a cleric without a god ridiculous? Gods have to start somewhere, and the worship of an idea that eventually grows into a god makes quite a bit of sense.

[Tyndmyr]

That's your opinion. That's great.

I see no reason why it's desirable to push that opinion upon others, though. If the guy wants to devote himself to an ideal or set of ideals, nothing wrong with that. Sure, he should follow the ideals of this code, same as a cleric devoted to a god should follow the ideals of that god.

TBH, unless characters are at the level where they are dealing directly with gods, it's unlikely to be significant to the plot anyhow.

[Grumman]

There's actually plenty of real life examples of Holy Men - i.e. clerics - without gods, especiallly in Eastern religions. Try pointing your players toward doing a bit of research in that direction for inspiration and character concept.
How many of them can cast divine spells? :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

How many of them can cast divine spells? :smalltongue:

Exactly the same amount of them as monotheists who can cast divine spells! :smalltongue:


In seriousness, everyone has preferences...but I have difficulty imagining a setting where such a thing is truly impossible.

[hamishspence]

This is in accordance to Gary Gygax being a big proponent on deities in fantasy games and I agree with him. A divine being isn't going to support someone who doesn't support him.

D&D has changed quite a bit since Gygax first wrote it.

If PHB is to be taken literally, the "core setting" has the concept of clerics of an ideal, or paladins of an ideal, such as "justice" and so, for it not to be possible, is a case of the DM rewriting the setting.

[Altaria87]

How many of them can cast divine spells? :smalltongue:
The same number as the number of Priests that can.
Edit: Ninja'd

[ZeroNumerous]

A divine being isn't going to support someone who doesn't support him.

Not entirely accurate.

Zygag(Gygax' self-insert god) supports things out of boredom, madness or even for a good joke. Boccob supports no one, yet people who pray to him get spells. Ao cares even less than Boccob, yet a cleric of Ao gets spells too. Lolth demands worship in very specific and particular ways, yet her worshipers get the same level of magical power as any of the above gods.

A divine being may, or may not, support someone. But not all of them demand worship, tithes or even attention.

EDIT:
In seriousness, everyone has preferences...but I have difficulty imagining a setting where such a thing is truly impossible.

Faerun won't let clerics be faithless. In fact, they have a giant wall where the souls of the Faithless are stuck and slowly consumed, for decades or potentially centuries, in an agonizingly slow and painful manner.

[Kylarra]

Alignment doesn't grant you powers. Code of conduct directly represents your choice of worship and gives you power. Some people don't like that and I respect it but I tell people who play clerics up front: You are the eyes and ears of your god. Piss off your god and you're just a fighter with medium BAB until you convert to something you actually care about. If they don't like it they don't have to play.Eh, if clerics are just paladins raised to 11*, it's time to break out ye ol' phylactery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/WondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness).


I can't recall off the top of my head with 1E, but 2E does make clerics give up all their gold except two or three gp after buying their equipment. AD&D in general stresses that clerics should be exemplars of their faith and deviation shouldn't be tolerated. This is in accordance to Gary Gygax being a big proponent on deities in fantasy games and I agree with him. A divine being isn't going to support someone who doesn't support him.This made me curious so I looked it up. In my 2e PHB, it says absolutely nothing about clerics needing to tithe. It makes a vague mention about "not abusing their powers", but really, nothing about a code of conduct controlling their entire lives and personality. Unlike paladins who do have an extensive list of restrictions explicitly written out for them.

*The irony does not escape me.

[Arbitrarious]

I don't mind godless clerics but I make them do the same things a godded cleric do. Pick 3 things you must do and 3 things you can never do. These are your personal dogma. Even gods can have factions in their churches after all.

To put in perspective. Deities may have several elements in their portfolio and same might even be shared. Doesn't that mean these elements are distinct from the actual deity? I don't see a problem taking a portfolio element and revering it directly. Look at Ardents, Druids, etc for concept worshipers. Isn't their a divine casting class that worships Spheres of Annihilation? That sure ain't a god. There are the elemental divine casters from OA. Divine =/= Deity.

If it screws the game world up that's one thing. If it is something that you simply dislike that's another. You know he's not doing it to upset you, rather he feels uncomfortable with deity worship. You should find a middle ground that you can both be happy with.

[Telonius]

The clerics who worship solely for their own personal agenda, not their deities, should be stamped out.

I think Hextor would always be running low on Clerics if that were the case.

[Zevox]

I've never really liked the concept of Clerics without deities either, though my objection stems more from the game mechanic of spellcasting than the OP's. It makes no sense to me that characters can pull magic out of thin air just by believing in something. Which is one reason why I liked the Forgotten Realms (pre-4e) - there, all divine magic comes from deities. No Clerics getting magic from ideals, no Druids getting magic from nature, just actual divine magic coming from actual divine entities.

Honestly, the only way I would be willing to work Clerics and the like without deities is to have their magic function essentially the same as arcane magic, just with Clerics focusing more on learning healing and support spells, and have the setting be one where there is no way to prove the existence of deities (or where deities simply don't exist, period).


Ao cares even less than Boccob, yet a cleric of Ao gets spells too.
Er, no, at least not unless they changed that in 4e. In 3.5 and before at least though, Ao ignored the mortal world completely. There was conflicting lore on whether he wiped mortal memory of his one brief appearance within it at the end of the Time of Troubles and thus no mortals even knew he existed, or whether he didn't and thus there were small groups who did worship him, but even in the latter case those groups did not get magic for doing so, because Ao ignored them.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

Technically, it's a god in disguise, in the case of that Faerun cult worshipping spheres.

Tiamat, in this case.

Agreed with Divine not equalling deity, even in Faerun (the aforementioned clerics of fiends don't get The Wall, even though what they worship is not a god) On the minus side, their fate might actually be worse.

In 3.0 Faerun, yes, divine power came from deities, but by 3.5, exceptions were starting to appear- clerics of fiends, clerics of dead gods, clerics of quasi-deity dragons (quasi-deities normally can't grant spells), druids of nature rather than specific gods, and so on.

[Tyndmyr]

I've never really liked the concept of Clerics without deities either, though my objection stems more from the game mechanic of spellcasting than the OP's. It makes no sense to me that characters can pull magic out of thin air just by believing in something.

Man, you guys must HATE arcane spellcasting. Pulling magic out of thin air for four editions now, belief not required.

[robotrobot2]

I usually rule in my campaigns that divine power comes from the outer planes themselves. (Or inner planes in the case of neutral clerics) What a deity is effectively doing when a cleric casts a spell is taking a little bit of that divine power and sending it off to you. Clerics of an ideal are just doing the same thing but skipping the intermediary. In DnD in general, divine magic is often portrayed as magic dealing with positive and negative energy. The source doesn't matter nearly as much as the actual effect. When a cleric casts darkness the same thing happens as when a wizard casts darkness.

[hamishspence]

Well, there is that one Neutral Outer plane- the Outlands.

Though I would agree that Clerics of an Ideal, with an element-based domain, would draw power from the Inner Planes especially.

I wonder- would a cleric with the Madness domain draw power from the most Outer of all Planes- the Far Realm?

It would be fair to say Eberron took Cleric of an Ideal as a concept and ran with it- half the faiths in Faiths of Eberron are not of a divine being in that sense.

And some divine beings got demoted in Eberron to archfiends, like Tiamat.

[Tiki Snakes]

As I said, it's not the mechanics that are the issue. I just find the idea stupid that you can be a cleric without having any god or gods. It defeats the whole point of being a cleric.

The setting is one I've made up, but it uses the core D&D pantheon.

And if someone plays a cleric and has a god or a church, they won't be able to ignore it. I'll be incorporating it into the game.

What I really want to know is how people feel about the idea of godless clerics, so I can judge how to tackle the issue.

I like the idea, personally, but for odd reasons.

Because just because you don't explicitely worship a God doesn't mean that a God isn't listening, or benefiting from your devotion.
I understand in faerun Gods can basically physically steal portfolio's, and in most setting worship relates to power....

So you have the Self Proclaimed Cleric of the Mountain called Monkey, (An enormous volcano, as above), and he worships the volcano itself, and gains spells as per normal for a cleric of an ideal. He picks, I don't know, the domains of 'Hilarious Apes' and 'Burning Stuff'. Some god closest to, or posessing of those domains picks him up, pockets his 'Faith Credits', and supplies the spells. If he's lucky, the Deity or Extra-Planar Entity even remotely resembles his own morality and belief system, but as he's not specified the Deity he's requesting stuff from nor sending stuff to properly, he's basically free for anyone to poach.

Shouldn't be hard to turn such a context into either hilarious secrets, occaisional flavour, or even full on plot-hooks.

[Zevox]

Man, you guys must HATE arcane spellcasting. Pulling magic out of thin air for four editions now, belief not required.
That's just the thing - there are other explanations for their spellcasting, not merely "belief." In the Forgotten Realms, there is (or was - damn you 4e!) the Weave. In other settings, I think there was some sort of "raw magic is all around you" explanation that was functionally similar to the Realms concept of the Weave, though I'm not as familiar with that.

For divine spellcasting, though, the explanation has always differed, with their magic coming either from their deity, or from "belief" in an ideal (or from "nature," for Druids and Rangers). I simply find the explanations for divine magic outside of deities to make no sense whatsoever.

Zevox

[jmbrown]

That's your opinion. That's great.

I see no reason why it's desirable to push that opinion upon others, though. If the guy wants to devote himself to an ideal or set of ideals, nothing wrong with that. Sure, he should follow the ideals of this code, same as a cleric devoted to a god should follow the ideals of that god.

TBH, unless characters are at the level where they are dealing directly with gods, it's unlikely to be significant to the plot anyhow.

I'm not forcing my opinions on anyone. I haven't told anyone in this topic "This is how things should be done, ignore everything else." In my games I tell people "If your deity is displeased you lose your spells." Simple as that. The DM has final say. If the player doesn't like it he has every right to not play.


I think Hextor would always be running low on Clerics if that were the case.


Clerics of Hextor still revere and spread the will of Hextor. Orcs who worship Gruumsh spread destruction and death in the name of Gruumsh. Evil clerics still very much respect/believe in their deity and their deity grants them powers because they're faithful and spread their faith even if said faith comes through tyranny or destruction.

Now if someone became a cleric of Hextor simply to have access to his domains but didn't actually care about ruling with an iron fist or abusing people for your own gain, Hextor would deny them powers. Hextor isn't getting anything out of the deal, why should his cleric?


Man, you guys must HATE arcane spellcasting. Pulling magic out of thin air for four editions now, belief not required.


Arcane spellcasting has its own restrictions what with the cost of writing new spells and having to keep a big ass spellbook around (especially if you enforce the 100 page limit per book forcing people to carry multiple tomes). Cleric knows everything at the level he can cast and simply ask for it. I say clerics rightfully should have more restrictions.

[hamishspence]

"drawing power from the planes" makes no sense?

It certainly has support- BoVD makes it clear clerics of fiends draw power from the plane, not the fiend.

And Planar Handbook also mentions that clerics can draw power from the outer planes, by taking "planar domains" as can clerics "devoted to an alignment".

[Kaiser Omnik]

By devoting their lives to an ideal, clerics may channel power from the physical manifestations of those ideals, which, in the Great Wheel cosmology, are planes.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

It's not like they bend reality simply by willing it...oh wait, psionic characters do that. :smallwink:

EDIT: Food for thought... Paladins have a lot of restrictions and yet, in 3.5, they are not more powerful than other classes...far from it. We usually roll with it because of tradition.

When I DM, I don't care if the cleric believes in a god or an ideal, as long as the character is really faithful and there is some sort of organization involved...unless there exist lone mystic-types, like in Al-Qadim. If a player want to play a cleric only for the power, without actually playing the roll of one...then I say no. Still, priest =/ cleric, and I will allow all types of backgrounds.

[Telonius]

Clerics of Hextor still revere and spread the will of Hextor. Orcs who worship Gruumsh spread destruction and death in the name of Gruumsh. Evil clerics still very much respect/believe in their deity and their deity grants them powers because they're faithful and spread their faith even if said faith comes through tyranny or destruction.

Now if someone became a cleric of Hextor simply to have access to his domains but didn't actually care about ruling with an iron fist or abusing people for your own gain, Hextor would deny them powers. Hextor isn't getting anything out of the deal, why should his cleric?


I think Hextor would still grant him powers as long as he actually went out and did the tyrannizing and converting to worship - regardless of whether or not he actually cared about Hextor or was devoted to him. Wouldn't that be just about the ideal worshiper of Hextor, after all? Somebody who loved tyranny for tyranny's sake (not necessarily for Hextor's sake).

[hamishspence]

It's not like they bend reality simply by willing it...oh wait, psionic characters do that. :smallwink:

That could be "the power within" with all beings having a certain inate energy, that only those with a certain talent, can tap.

A bit like The Blood of Vol in that respect, except they draw power from "the blood within, for the blood is the life"

whereas psionicists draw powers from "the body" or "the mind" depending on the edition.

[Zaydos]

I think Hextor would still grant him powers as long as he actually went out and did the tyrannizing and converting to worship - regardless of whether or not he actually cared about Hextor or was devoted to him. Wouldn't that be just about the ideal worshiper of Hextor, after all? Somebody who loved tyranny for tyranny's sake (not necessarily for Hextor's sake).

Yeah that seems pretty ideal for Hextor. Heck you're supposed to want to be on top and use your superiors for your own ends. So yeah Hextor wants someone willing to seek out his power simply for the power. Other deities though... well Pelor doesn't although Vecna might.

[Kaiser Omnik]

That could be "the power within" with all beings having a certain inate energy, that only those with a certain talent, can tap.

A bit like The Blood of Vol in that respect, except they draw power from "the blood within, for the blood is the life"

whereas psionicists draw powers from "the body" or "the mind" depending on the edition.

Oh I definitely agree. But it seems that people who don't like how clerics get their power should really hate psions...or worse, wilders. :smallbiggrin:

That's why I think the concept of power sources (which are somewhat implied in 3rd edition) can be good. Mystical pacts, worship, study of the arcane, discipline of the mind - all different paths to power.

[jmbrown]

I think Hextor would still grant him powers as long as he actually went out and did the tyrannizing and converting to worship - regardless of whether or not he actually cared about Hextor or was devoted to him. Wouldn't that be just about the ideal worshiper of Hextor, after all? Somebody who loved tyranny for tyranny's sake (not necessarily for Hextor's sake).

But he still worships Hextor. He has to pray to Hextor each day to request spells and Hextor grants them. He spreads the will of Hextor and while he might not share "love" for the deity or even respect him, it's clear the cleric reveres him or else he wouldn't pray in the first place.

Even in the case of Boccob, the god claims the domain of magic and knowledge. He doesn't personally care about his worshipers but he grants spells to those who pursue the cause of knowledge.

My definition of a "leech cleric" is someone who does absolutely nothing to further their deities cause. They're a cleric simply because they like the mechanic of being a cleric and nothing roleplay wise.

[hamishspence]

Its not uncommon in some settings for another god to grant the powers, without the victim knowing it.

A "corrupt cleric" might lose their powers, but have another deity step in without them knowing it, who does approve of the things the cleric does.

"Furthering the deity's cause" does not have to be overt, or even with the knowledge of the cleric in question.

Heroes of Horror has a young man unknowingly become a cleric of the God of Spite, with bad things happening to those who have wronged him- yet he doesn't know he's the cause. At least, at first.

The notion of a person being a cleric and not knowing it is an interesting one.

[Kaiser Omnik]

Its not uncommon in some settings for another god to grant the powers, without the victim knowing it.

A "corrupt cleric" might lose their powers, but have another deity step in without them knowing it, who does approve of the things the cleric does.

"Furthering the deity's cause" does not have to be overt, or even with the knowledge of the cleric in question.

Heroes of Horror has a young man unknowingly become a cleric of the God of Spite, with bad things happening to those who have wronged him- yet he doesn't know he's the cause. At least, at first.

The notion of a person being a cleric and not knowing it is an interesting one.

That's the kind of backgrounds that I appreciate very much. After all, gods can have prophets, chosen and all sort of things instead of traditional "clerics" (or priests, if you will).

[JonestheSpy]

How many of them can cast divine spells?


Exactly the same amount of them as monotheists who can cast divine spells! :smalltongue:


Comparisons between real life/fantasy holy folks aside, there are actually plenty of stories about Buddhist, Taoist/etc. holy men/enlightened ones/etc. performing miracles, just as there are about about monotheists and polytheists doing the same sort of thing with help from their god/s.

That's why I suggested the OP steer his player into doing a bit of digging in that direction, not the serious teachings of any religion or philosophy but the stories surrounding them.

[oxybe]

I don't see the problem with godless clerics.

a cleric is not necessarily a priest and a priest not necessarily a cleric. a "cleric" could very well be someone who was given a gift from a deity (even if he doesn't know which, heck it could be a new one) or simply knows how to tap into some greater force, like a plane. a cleric could be a man so driven by his ideals that he can now shape the world and people towards it. a cleric could simply be the name of a class that encompasses a group of thematically similar mechanics.

gods are one way a cleric could gain their power, but i don't think it should be the only way.

[jmbrown]

Its not uncommon in some settings for another god to grant the powers, without the victim knowing it.

A "corrupt cleric" might lose their powers, but have another deity step in without them knowing it, who does approve of the things the cleric does.

"Furthering the deity's cause" does not have to be overt, or even with the knowledge of the cleric in question.

Heroes of Horror has a young man unknowingly become a cleric of the God of Spite, with bad things happening to those who have wronged him- yet he doesn't know he's the cause. At least, at first.

The notion of a person being a cleric and not knowing it is an interesting one.

But the deity in question will still select the cleric whose actions closely reflect their own. The important thing to note here is that clerics still pray and request spells. They might not know who answers but the fact remains that someone or something says "Yes, I will give you what you ask for."

[Fenlun]

I don't see the problem with godless clerics.

Ditto.

I enjoy the idea that a guy can believe in the greater good without having to submit to the rules and traditions of a specific deity in order to help people.:smallconfused:

[lord_khaine]

I also like the idea of the godless cleric, i see them as being a bit like sorceress and psions, being able to tap into a source of power, where in this case he gets the power from the source of creation or destruction.

[Fenlun]

I also like the idea of the godless cleric, i see them as being a bit like sorceress and psions, being able to tap into a source of power, where in this case he gets the power from the source of creation or destruction.

*Homebrews "Divine Sorcerer"*

[Kaiser Omnik]

Aren't Dragonlance's mystics like that?

[hamishspence]

In "For Hate's Sake" the young man does start worshipping, but he doesn't realize he's become a cleric until quite a bit later-

"Though he was not conscious of it, be had become a cleric of Cas, and his heartfelt desires were being transformed into spells"

Suggesting that the normal PC rules, where you know you have spells, and which spells, were being waived- maybe even the normal spellcasting rules- with an angry thought doing the job, instead of words, gestures, and symbol.

Still, the concept was interesting.

Once he learned he had the power, he started letting chances to take revenge go by, and then Cas sent an agent (a bane wraith) to start taking these revenges. But Cas did not strip him of his powers.

[Zaydos]

Aren't Dragonlance's mystics like that?

I think so, also aren't they Dragonlance's answer to godless clerics? I think they only get one domain, though... to the books!

[Fhaolan]

I tend to play priests who aren't Clerics. Like recently I decided to use the Divine Bard variant from UA. The character is a minor priest who's been sent on walkabouts by his superiors in a nomadic desert tribe, mainly because resources are low and it was decided that he's the most expendable member of the tribe currently.

His religion is a blend of ancestor worship and elemental/terrain animus spirtuality. They basically see everything on a smaller scale. This oasis right here has a spirit that needs to be appeased/worshiped. The rain is from the spirits inhabiting those specific clouds. The idea of super-spirits ('Gods') with overwhelming portfolios has occured, but is considered rather irrelevant when running from great-great-uncle Isses' sandstorm right this minute...

So... If I understand the position of some of the posters on this thread (which I fully admit I'm probably wrong), this religion could never produce full Clerics, because it does not deal with Gods per se.

Taking that idea further, I can see that such a relgion would likely not survive long in some campaign settings as the Gods would take aggressive and immediate action to eliminate it. Afterall, it's removing a source of worship from the limited pool the Gods draw their power from, therefore it is an abomination that needs to be destroyed.

[Pigkappa]

I see no reason why it's desirable to push that opinion upon others, though. If the guy wants to devote himself to an ideal or set of ideals, nothing wrong with that.

Since he is the DM, and the DM makes the rules, there's something wrong with using game options the master doesn't like.

A sort of compromise is probably the best way to solve the problem. For example, you let him be a cleric without a god and just worship an ideal, but decide that in your campaign clerics without deities still gain their powers from gods - if a NG Cleric is devoted to Nature, his spells will be granted by Boccob, Ehlonna and similar deities. His domains must be chosen by the list of a god that's one-step from his alignment (that is, a cleric can't just state to be devoted to travelling and magic to choose Travel and Magic as domains). If he casts Miracle, a God which shares his alignment and ideals will grant the effect, if appropriate. If he changes his alignment, the gods who were supporting him get angry and he needs to atone to find new ones.
This way you can also avoid cleric devoted to stupid ideals. You can be devoted to crosswords, but no god will grant you power and spells for that.


What I really want to know is how people feel about the idea of godless clerics, so I can judge how to tackle the issue.

Someone already said that a cleric is not a priest. That's an important issue. They don't necessarily need to adhere to (useless) traditions to change the world in the way their gods want. I'm also uncomfortable with super-powerful deities who can alter reality but never do that; my characters aren't usually atheists because that makes little sense in D&D (it is usually known for sure that gods exist...), but they rarely worship a god.

[Zaydos]

I actually favor animistic religion in D&D over ideals. I've allowed ideals before, but normally that just jars with the gods in my campaign being the nigh omnipotent creators who are only limited by the fact that they have agreed to play by the rules. Personally I say it matters mostly for fluff. If the gods are how they were in the 2e Planescape, or even Spelljammer, then the cleric of an ideal makes perfect sense. I prefer a more omnipotent deity in my campaigns and it's one way to give that feel. Even then you can get animistic priests that draw their power from lesser spirits between man and god. These could be druids, spirit shamans, divine bards (that seems like cool fluff for a mix between divine bard and savage bard actually) and it helps differentiate these classes fluff-wise from cleric.

[Tyndmyr]

Since he is the DM, and the DM makes the rules, there's something wrong with using game options the master doesn't like.


I don't see why this is any more wrong than using game options the player's don't like.

All of them are just people, playing a game, and need to come to an agreement. If you can't come up with a valid reason for WHY you don't like something(say, balance, for example), then expecting everyone to adhere to your personal preferences when they differ is a bit odd.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Where do Archivists fit into all of this?

[JonestheSpy]

Where do Archivists fit into all of this?

They're really, really devoted to the Dewey Decimal System.

[Optimystik]

I've never really liked the concept of Clerics without deities either, though my objection stems more from the game mechanic of spellcasting than the OP's. It makes no sense to me that characters can pull magic out of thin air just by believing in something. Which is one reason why I liked the Forgotten Realms (pre-4e) - there, all divine magic comes from deities. No Clerics getting magic from ideals, no Druids getting magic from nature, just actual divine magic coming from actual divine entities.

But that leads to the obvious question - where do the gods get THEIR power?

"Their worshippers" Faerun says, then directly contradicts this with gods being able to siphon worship by impersonation each other (Auril does this,) dead gods that can grant power (Moander, Myrkul, Amaunator) gods coming to power first and getting worshipers later (Finder Wyvernspur, Lathander)...

The "ideal" system makes more sense than you think.

[jmbrown]

In "For Hate's Sake" the young man does start worshipping, but he doesn't realize he's become a cleric until quite a bit later-

"Though he was not conscious of it, be had become a cleric of Cas, and his heartfelt desires were being transformed into spells"

Suggesting that the normal PC rules, where you know you have spells, and which spells, were being waived- maybe even the normal spellcasting rules- with an angry thought doing the job, instead of words, gestures, and symbol.

Still, the concept was interesting.

Once he learned he had the power, he started letting chances to take revenge go by, and then Cas sent an agent (a bane wraith) to start taking these revenges. But Cas did not strip him of his powers.

But was he still of an alignment related to Cas and did he carry out Cas' tenants? People have shortcomings, but he's still a powerful cleric who specifically asks Cas to grant him spells.

With the idea that deities can answer any mortal's call you can have situations where people worship ideals. As someone else pointed out, Drizzt was agnostic at first but it wasn't until later that he realized his beliefs were in direct relation to another deity whom he began to revere. A cleric who reveres the idea of absolute strength could realistically be given powers by Kord. The cleric may not revere Kord, but Kord understands that the cleric is (unknowingly or simply doesn't care) spreading his will.

[Jack_Banzai]

This is not a new thing. Not at all. Way back in 2e (remember 2e?) there were rules for Godless priests in the old brown handbooks. I played a Cleric who worshipped the Divinity of Man. It all worked out - we called him the "not-priest".

As for 4e or 3.5, there's no reason it can't work - but if you are bound and determined to punish your player (thanks a lot, by the way, sounds like a real fun campaign), you can always rule that the character receives no Domain benefits since their non-God has no particular office.

[jmbrown]

This is not a new thing. Not at all. Way back in 2e (remember 2e?) there were rules for Godless priests in the old brown handbooks. I played a Cleric who worshipped the Divinity of Man. It all worked out - we called him the "not-priest".

As for 4e or 3.5, there's no reason it can't work - but if you are bound and determined to punish your player (thanks a lot, by the way, sounds like a real fun campaign), you can always rule that the character receives no Domain benefits since their non-God has no particular office.

Brown? Shoot, the rules for worshiping mythoi were default! 2E dropped the notion of god initially (probably to avoid the demonic reputation of 1E) so you could have Cleric of Agriculture and whatnot.

[Jack_Banzai]

Brown? Shoot, the rules for worshiping mythoi were default! 2E dropped the notion of god initially (probably to avoid the demonic reputation of 1E) so you could have Cleric of Agriculture and whatnot.

Good point!

[jmbrown]

Now that I think about it, this topic has sort of changed my opinion on 3E clerics. Bring back the 2E cleric by reviving the concept of mythoi. They were essentially 3E's domains except that clerics revered the concept and drew power from their faith.

This allowed clerics of various alignment to revere a specific idea. Take a cleric of love. A good cleric of love could help struggling couples heal relationships. A neutral cleric of love could teach people to succumb to the blind passion of their emotions so long as both parties consented. An evil cleric of love could teach the pleasures of the flesh unchecked by morality or social standards (if it feels good, do it).

This allowed for a wider variety of clerics who ultimately all worship the same concept.

[Ravens_cry]

I rather like the idea of godless clerics, as long as one remembers that there is no classes 'in-game' A cleric could be a member of a certain church, certainly. But they could also be a hermit in a cave, a tender of a grove of trees they consider sacred, or a messianic wanderer. Sure, most clerics will likely be members of 'organized religions', worshipping a specific God or Pantheon. But an in-game priest could be as likely be a druid, an expert, bard, or aristocrat as a cleric.

Oh, I can understand the edginess around Godless Clerics. A munchkin could easily say " I revere Blat and Blit, for domains Blit and Blat."
But I like how it opens options and raises questions in game. Where do spells come from? Is it really from the Gods if the same power can be had by one who reveres an ideal, even ones not 'covered' by other deities? What a wonderful opportunity for a test of faith, what roleplay there could be! These questions can only be answered by the players of a specific game, as they work together to create a world spanning story, and the world to go with it.

[Tawmis]

I am with the idea that Clerics should follow a god/gods/goddess/goddesses.

While I absolutely love Star Wars (since someone mentioned the "ideal" could be like The Force) - Clerics to me have always been priests. And priests to me, have always been men of faith. Faith, which I have always believed comes from a God/Goddess type.

If someone wants to follow an "ideal" (or even something like "The Force" to use the Star Wars analogy someone previously mentioned) - I'd then tell them to be a Mage/Wizard/etc. Because to me, Magic to a Priest is a power granted by their respected Gods. For someone who wants to use an "ideal" to draw their power from; would be working with something more mysterious like Magic.

[Swok]

would be working with something more mysterious like Magic.

I was unaware Divine Magic was not Magic.

[Optimystik]

I was unaware Divine Magic was not Magic.

It is, just not REAL Magic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0650.html) :smalltongue:

[Foryn Gilnith]

In the sentence, Magic was capitalized. I can't help but think that Magic (or Magice, if you're feeling old-school) is distinct from magic in some arcane (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arcane) way.

[Stormlock]

I love the concept of a godless cleric facing off against a god's cleric. Both of good alignment, but one revering freedom while the other reveres order, at odds over a harsh ruler or the like. How epic would it be to defeat a holy man backed up by a god simply with the strength and faith of your ideal?

If you need to fluff it, say divine magic comes from a character's soul; those are already specified to exist. Only clerics can make use of it because burning up your very soul to manifest spells takes willpower only outright faith can grant.

[hiryuu]

This idea I'm fine with. I wouldn't have a problem with a cleric worshipping a pantheon of gods, as it makes sense. Gaining divine power from belief in an abstract philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't.

Buddhism.

Followers of the eightfold path were supposedly able to create food, fly, and transform themselves into shimmering pillars of light that could streak across the sky, and it's a real-life religion without gods.

[Zaydos]

Oh I know that there's a lot of eastern stories with faith and wisdom giving you magical powers. I don't think anybody has said otherwise. I love myths, occidental or oriental, I read 33 chapters of the Monkey Goes West (the translation only translated those) because I do. One of the main characters is a buddhist priest, and the Boddhisatva of mercy keeps coming in and teaching him magical tricks or more often ordering Son Wukong to do them for him. If I was making a game based on China I'd make Taoists wizards (or wu jens) as they were known for using arcane arts and Buddhists clerics (or shamans) because that's what fits them.

That said I assume the default is occidental, or mostly occidental. I have had settings where the rules of magic changed when you went to the Orient (The Great Desert, DM handwaving) nobody paid enough attention to the fluff to notice. Otherwise, though, I set it up with occident in mind. I like the idea, traditional in fantasy, that the difference is that clerics get their power from some sentient force beyond them, while wizards get it from the nebulous magical field that permeates all things.

Flavor wise I use the source of power to differentiate classes since they do exist in game to some extent people with power from source A and ability set Y are class Q. Archivists would make this difficult since they go against the normal divine source and my technique would probably be to say archivists must worship a god of magic or knowledge or are similar to ur-priests and siphon energy from the gods.

As to the source of gods' power? Well most detailed is my 2nd to last campaign setting the Three Worlds. In it there are three types of deities:

Elder Gods: These are the first beings, who are absolutes. Thoth God of Magic who is the same as arcane magic and technically every wizard is manipulating his energy to cast spells. Gaia goddess of nature and the world who is physically the multiple worlds you stood on (not necessarily the other planets in the solar system, it had relativistic space travel and counterminuous primes) and who is ultimately the source of power for all druids. Kronos elder god of time whose is literally time and to kill him would freeze all time eternally.

The Gods: The children of the elder gods, or grandchildren. The gods are immensely powerful but to kill the god of war doesn't destroy all war. They get their power from their nature. Hades is god of death (although there might have been an elder god of death if so he had no priests) and has powers related to death but he is not death and without him death would still happen. You kill each and every one of his worshippers? He loses maybe 2~3 divine ranks. He's now an intermediate deity and really pissed. The gods were immune to everything* unless another god used his power to negate their immunity.
*There was one trick usuable by an NPC who died 10,000 years before the campaign that theoretically had the power to kill a greater deity... destroy your soul entirely but could kill a greater deity. There was another trick that could render a demigod vulnerable temporarily.

Ascended Mortals: Mortals whose actions caused Fate, or destiny, or merely the pure force of reality to be bound into them and chosen by a god to be granted a divine spark that would move them towards godhood. This spark takes millennia to grow (normally) but once it finishes they are a weak god. They are still a god due to the pure divinity placed within them and their own innate power.

I will admit the fluff did allow certain quasi-deity spirits to serve as clerical patrons for low level clerics and an unknowned yugoloth of some sort was able to grant 4~5th level spells. In the first case the spirits are really weak gods (below demigod) who are technically vulnerable to mortals. In the second the creature is slowly on its way to godhood and might have had a deal with one or more gods.

This is a descent step away from the normal campaign where gods draw their power from their worshippers though.

My next campaign as stated previously in this thread you could be a cleric of anything as long as you believed in it (this included yourself, or if you were a mystic theurge and wanted to your familiar).

[Devils_Advocate]

The problem with this view is that it does not provide a mechanism for the ideal to grant power to the cleric.
The mechanism is the power of belief. The power of belief to alter the cosmos goes back at least to Planescape. It's really not any more hand-wavy than "deities' Epic-level Imbue with Spell Ability that they use to grant magic to their followers".


Cleric =/= Priest.

Priest =/= Cleric.
This.


The idea of a cleric worshiping an ideal is no more strange than a druid worshiping nature.
I'm not sure that "worshiping" an ideal makes sense, but honestly I'm not clear on what "worship" is. But anyway, I don't think that worship should necessarily be required. "Devotion", maybe?


Most campaign-specific books suggest clerics have a code of conduct, of sorts, as their deity's dogma- but in general, it does seem that DMs tend not to enforce it as heavily as the Paladin's Code is often enforced.
LOL at clerics of Chaotic Neutral deities having to be Chaotic and also having to obey a code of conduct dictated by an authority.

Actually, I assume that Chaotic characters tend to worship whatever deities support things that they like, making it more of a partnership than a master/servant deal. I mean, when you revere Erythnul, killing lots of things and taking their stuff isn't so much "what your god demands" as "what you would have done anyway".


It defeats the whole point of being a cleric.
What is the point of being a cleric, in your view? Do you think that all clerics have the same motivation for being clerics?


This idea I'm fine with. I wouldn't have a problem with a cleric worshipping a pantheon of gods, as it makes sense. Gaining divine power from belief in an abstract philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't.

It makes no sense to me that characters can pull magic out of thin air just by believing in something.
How is it any more nonsensical than divine magic being granted by deities? Especially given that deities gain power from belief? Having a cleric's belief grant him spells directly just cuts out the middle man.

"Now, I know what you're thinking. 'The gods wouldn't be there if they weren't a necessary part of the process.' Friend, that's what they want you to think."
- a member of the Athar attempting to explain things to a skeptical Indep


My definition of a "leech cleric" is someone who does absolutely nothing to further their deities cause. They're a cleric simply because they like the mechanic of being a cleric and nothing roleplay wise.
Well, I think that most people here would agree that that's bad. But saying that clerics should never take time off because leech clerics are bad is kinda like saying that because absolute zero and the vacuum of space are bad for Earthly life, the heat and pressure at the heart of the sun would have to be excellent conditions.

Sometimes two opposite extremes can have the same high-level effect, like "killing things extremely dead" or "making a game unpleasant".

[hiryuu]

That said I assume the default is occidental, or mostly occidental. I have had settings where the rules of magic changed when you went to the Orient (The Great Desert, DM handwaving) nobody paid enough attention to the fluff to notice. Otherwise, though, I set it up with occident in mind. I like the idea, traditional in fantasy, that the difference is that clerics get their power from some sentient force beyond them, while wizards get it from the nebulous magical field that permeates all things.

Welcome to Rome, where we have a cult devoted to the Emperor, an entire religion based upon the inherent mystical potential of all things called "numina," and the idea that divinity resides in the self as opposed to en external force, granted to us by the power of merely being sentient, and a series of mythological structures not based on worship of gods, but of ceremony.

[hamishspence]

LOL at clerics of Chaotic Neutral deities having to be Chaotic and also having to obey a code of conduct dictated by an authority.


Depends on what the deity "stands for"- there is more to a deity than just its alignment- there is a set of concepts the deity furthers, and expects the followers to further as well.

CN deities of Faerun include Shaundakul and Tempus- and they both have dogmas, and rules for their clerics to follow.

Different rules than lawful deities, but still rules- and they tend to get touchy when their followers break them.

Tempus is a CN deity of war- but he has a rule against abusing followers of the deity of peace, and their shrines or temples (since he feels war has little meaning without peace to define it)- and clerics of him, who break his rules, can expect to feel his wrath.

[Roderick_BR]

He was not a priest. He was a cleric :smallamused:

Jokes aside, the idea of godless clerics is that they are more "divine wizards", tapping into power from the planes through his faith and his training, than worshipping a specific deity and receiving his power directly from him.
The idea of worshiping a pantheon sounds interesting. The DM should demand a special a behavior from a cleric that does it, though, receiving orders from the whole pantheon, instead of a single deity's.

Also, remember that even a godless cleric needs to choose some sort of code of conduct based on the ideal, and breaking that makes him lose his spells, just like breaking a single deity's rules.
For example, someone that chooses war and travel, should travel to distant places looking for new wars happening around.

[pres_man]

I personally have no problem with deityless clerics. Real world spirituality is so varied that a fantasy cleric who doesn't worship a specific deity or group of deities seems pretty tame to me.

What does bother me is a person who is atheist in RL, who doesn't want to play a character who worships a deity in a game. That is like a Christian who doesn't want to play a character who worships Kord because they are a Christian. In game and out of game religious beliefs should have nothing to do with each other. If you can play a game with dragons and elves and bat poo -> fireballs, but can't get into a fantasy deity, I just don't understand that thought process.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Do you know if there's a straight causal link? He wants to worship an ideal IC, and he is an atheist OOC. So? I don't like playing Kordian clerics IC, and I'm a theist OOC. No connection.

[pres_man]

Do you know if there's a straight causal link? He wants to worship an ideal IC, and he is an atheist OOC. So? I don't like playing Kordian clerics IC, and I'm a theist OOC. No connection.

You tell me.


As an atheist IRL, he wanted to worship an "ideal" instead of a God, as is allowed by the PHB.

[Foryn Gilnith]

That could be a fluke of wording, or an inference of causality by the OP where there was none.

[pres_man]

That could be a fluke of wording, or an inference of causality by the OP where there was none.

Possibly. Of course if you go back to my post you notice that I say, "What does bother me is a person ...". My statement still holds for the general case, even if ultimately this specific situation proves to not be an issue. Because I wasn't merely discussing this specific issue, but the idea in general.

[Tyndmyr]

For those who, despite all evidence to the contrary, insist that all divine magic MUST come from the Gods, Ur-priest gives you all the fluff you need for non-god worshipping clerics. Use that instead.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I personally have no problem with deityless clerics. Real world spirituality is so varied that a fantasy cleric who doesn't worship a specific deity or group of deities seems pretty tame to me.

What does bother me is a person who is atheist in RL, who doesn't want to play a character who worships a deity in a game. That is like a Christian who doesn't want to play a character who worships Kord because they are a Christian. In game and out of game religious beliefs should have nothing to do with each other. If you can play a game with dragons and elves and bat poo -> fireballs, but can't get into a fantasy deity, I just don't understand that thought process.Some people have lines they don't want to cross, even in fantasy. If you don't worship the Greek gods because Zeus was a rapist, Ares a murderer, and Aphrodite a slut, and you think worship of them is a step backwards for humanity, then you may not want to give them that honor in D&D either.

[pres_man]

Some people have lines they don't want to cross, even in fantasy. If you don't worship the Greek gods because Zeus was a rapist, Ares a murderer, and Aphrodite a slut, and you think worship of them is a step backwards for humanity, then you may not want to give them that honor in D&D either.

On the other hand, if they were rewritten so those aspects were not included in the game. Then it is silly to get hung up on them in the game.

[hamishspence]

They may have been Disneyfied a little in Deities and Demigods, but not that much. Hera is still jealous. Zeus is still adulterous. Apollo still uses plagues on mortals. Etc.

Forgotten Realms Campaign setting points out that the alignments of the deities are generalizations- Good deities are capable of moments of cruelty, Evil ones of occasional benevolence.

It really depends what the personality traits of the cleric in question are- they may be semi-devoted but have moral standards higher than the deities in question. Especially if its a case of one-step rule- cleric is LG, deity is LN, or something similar.

[Tyndmyr]

On the other hand, if they were rewritten so those aspects were not included in the game. Then it is silly to get hung up on them in the game.

I don't really care *why* the guy doesn't want to get into that aspect of play. For me, imaginary gods are no big deal. If they are for him, it seems like a silly thing to ruin his fun over.

I've got one wizard that actually donates to the local temple pretty routinely. Does he have to be pious? No. But I see nothing wrong with a wizard who believes his power is god granted. Neither do I see anything wrong with a cleric who believes his isn't.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

On the other hand, if they were rewritten so those aspects were not included in the game. Then it is silly to get hung up on them in the game.I was using an example to avoid getting into Real-world religion. There are issues that are inherent to the idea of Gods that some people may view as important enough to refuse to worship any deities, even in a game.

And that's as close as I'm willing to come on this forum, if you want to continue the discussion, please PM me.

[hamishspence]

In Faerun 3.0-3.5, such a wizard would be more that half-right, since his power can't be used if a certain deity decides to strip him of it.

[Signmaker]

There are many Gods whose names have been lost to history, waiting for the proper devotee to seek their forms and rekindle old spiritual powers...

Ideals->Gods->Problem Solved.


Just one method, I'm sure there have been and will be many more that can guide your decision.

[Tyndmyr]

In Faerun 3.0-3.5, such a wizard would be more that half-right, since his power can't be used if a certain deity decides to strip him of it.

Faerun is an exception, though. Neither the wizard's setting, nor this cleric's setting happens to be Faerun, though(Greyhawk and homebrew, respectively), so I see no particular reason why the DM has to force him down this path.

[hamishspence]

True- a wizard who believes his power is "gods-granted" would be a bit unusual in Greyhawk. Though there is the "being beyond the gods" or "overdeity" concept- The Serpent- which Vecna believes is the source of arcane magic.

Just because the character believes (or doesn't believe) doesn't mean they have to be right.

You could have a "reluctant cleric" who believes they are Reaching To The Planes, but in fact draws power from a being, even if they think it is an ideal.

Or, you could have gods as "ideals made manifest"- whenever mortals come up with a strong ideal in any number, a new god grows to reflect that ideal.

So the player and the DM can negotiate something they are both happy with.

[Fhaolan]

Or you could completely eliminate the anthropomorphism of gods entirely. Just because there is an entity that is worshiped as a God doesn't mean it is exactly the way that religion portrays it. Zeus, for instance, may be a hyper-intellegent morphic resonance field that exists throughout the multiverse and has a particular affinity to energy events (like lighting). When it deigns to acknowledge the mortal world, it manifests itself as a big male human with a white beard. It allows mortals to tap into it's divine energy when they align their own morphic signature through ceremony and mental disciple that these mortals have formalized into a specific religion in an effort to make it a repeatable event. Why it choses to allow this? Only it knows, and as it is truely alien in mindset, it cannot be predicted or understood by any mortal. Zeus isn't even it's real name, as it doesn't use a communication form that a mortal would recognize when dealing with other deific entities, so it will respond to anything that fits the morphic signature.

If you get creative and throw enough pseudo-technical terms into it, you can make up excuses for *anything*. :smallbiggrin:

[soir8]

I don't really care *why* the guy doesn't want to get into that aspect of play. For me, imaginary gods are no big deal. If they are for him, it seems like a silly thing to ruin his fun over.

I've got one wizard that actually donates to the local temple pretty routinely. Does he have to be pious? No. But I see nothing wrong with a wizard who believes his power is god granted. Neither do I see anything wrong with a cleric who believes his isn't.


Since it keeps coming up, I like to think that my campaigns are good enough to still be enjoyable even if a player doesn't like one of the rules. If I decide to enforce this houserule, seriously, it isn't gonna ruin the whole thing for this player.

Another way of looking at the "you've created the entire campaign and gameworld, you can concede one rule for this guy" argument is "you've gone to the effort of creating this entire campaign and gameworld, nobody's gonna tell you what rules to play it by."

[Xenogears]

Since it keeps coming up, I like to think that my campaigns are good enough to still be enjoyable even if a player doesn't like one of the rules. If I decide to enforce this houserule, seriously, it isn't gonna ruin the whole thing for this player.

Another way of looking at the "you've created the entire campaign and gameworld, you can concede one rule for this guy" argument is "you've gone to the effort of creating this entire campaign and gameworld, nobody's gonna tell you what rules to play it by."

But the only thing the players get to create is their own characters. They should be allowed to do that more or less freely. If the idea doesn't fit with your campaign have the character be an anomaly. No one else who worships an ideal gains power except him. Maybe he is being given power by a god and doesn't know it, maybe his belief in the ideal is just stronger than anyone elses, maybe due to some freak magical field present when he was born he can tap directly into the same power source the gods use to give people magic. There a billion ways to make his idea fit into any campaign without significantly altering the campaign and to not do so because you feel that since you made the world he should be forced to alter his character in a way he is not, for whatever reason, comfortable with is not terribly fair to your players.

[Tyndmyr]

Since it keeps coming up, I like to think that my campaigns are good enough to still be enjoyable even if a player doesn't like one of the rules. If I decide to enforce this houserule, seriously, it isn't gonna ruin the whole thing for this player.

So...what's the point of coming here and asking us then, if you're just going to ignore the nearly unanimous advice that it's completely normal, and there are a multitude of ways to fluff it?