Philospher-Clerics/Atheist Clerics, Archivists and Divine Magic...your opinions?

[Maho-Tsukai]

While divine magic is innately tied to deities, there is some mention in fluff of characters who may not worship or believe in a god getting divine magic from some kind of ideal or even study of dark knowledge. The philosopher-clerics and archivists both are the sources of this fluff and as a result there is a division between people over the issue of exactly where divine magic comes from, or so I have seen. There are several arguments that I can see, and I will post them below:

Argument A) It comes from higher powers. Higher powers do not need to be gods, though. Good and Evil, as well as powerful beings like archdevils and some dragons(both of which according to wizard's fluff CAN grant divine magic.) and other such higher powers are what divine magic comes from. Anything of sufficient cosmic power can grant divine spells.(Just look at Wearer of Purple, Ocular Adapt, Rainbow Servant ect..)

Argument B) It comes from the Gods. All divine magic comes from deities and only deities. Philospher-clerics and archivists get their magic even if they don't believe because a deity agrees with their ideal or sees them as useful and thus grants them divine magic even if they don't worship them. Archdevils and such can grant divine magic because despite not being real gods they are so powerful they may as well be. Dragons most likely are acting as middlemen between their servants and draconic deities like Bahamut and Tiamat and Beholders, Qoutals ect.. are acting as middlemen for a different deity or set of deities.

Argument C) It comes from belief. A God can grant a cleric his magic and give him knowledge of a spell but it is the cleric's belief in the power of his faith and deity that allows him to cast it, not the deity themselves. Thus, ideal clerics, archivists and clerics of archdevils, Wearers of Purple, Rainbow Servants ect.. all get their magic from belief in the power of whatever they have devoted themselves to as appose to the power itself(though said power certainly can give them knowledge of their magics and spells..such as with a cleric or rainbow servant.)

So, my question is to all of you, which do YOU all think is the most likely answer and if none of them have been listed what do you think it is?

[Talya]

This is an issue for the setting. Forgotten Realms, for example, does not support clerics without a deity -- you must worship an appropriate deity to gain divine magic. Eberron, notsomuch--you're not even sure if the gods exist.

I prefer a definite divine link to divine magic, but this is a question for the setting fluff.

[Telonius]

This is an issue for the setting. Forgotten Realms, for example, does not support clerics without a deity -- you must worship an appropriate deity to gain divine magic. Eberron, notsomuch--you're not even sure if the gods exist.

This is about where I'm at with it. If I'm using a generic or created-by-me setting, then it comes from belief. Gods get increased or decreased power from having more or less followers, after all, so it seems reasonable that "belief" is some sort of cosmic energy that fuels both gods and divine magic.

[hangedman1984]

My take on it:

A divine caster reveres and worships a concept, usually that concept is embodied by a deity, occasionally it's not. The more the divine caster follows and becomes "in tune" with this concept, the more they are able to tap into the power it represents. It's almost like a form of sympathetic magick.

[Gnaeus]

I would say (with no particular RAW justification, but my interpretation based on fluff), that it varies by divine caster.

A cleric or paladin could be A, B, or C, depending on campaign. A druid or ranger could also be A or B (although C seems less likely, just because I can't really see why a druid who had shifted alignment to CG suddenly could not longer maintain a belief in "nature" if nature was not itself a god or higher power).

But an Archivist does not necessarily follow a god or higher power. He is more like a wizard, studying the workings of divine magic. Similarly, a Chameleon with divine focus is likely to not follow any of those things. Chameleons or Archivists don't seem to be particularly focused on a belief system either. I would probably rule that their divine magic was different in source than the core divine casters.

[ILM]

I prefer answer C. The main reason is that I dislike fluff to get in the way of mechanics, and vice-versa. If you force Clerics to get their spells from their god, then you need gods. Not only that, but players end up having to choose domains within a limited selection because some fluff editor over at WotC thought that a God that provided both, say, the Charm and War domains wasn't archetypal enough to make it into the books. Well what if I have the perfect concept for a character along those lines? Can't do it. Ideal clerics allow this, and ruling that they get their powers from their own beliefs makes them fully independent from setting-specific choices. If a player wants his character to worship a god of your pantheon, fine. If not, fine too. As long as the character concept makes sense, I'm okay with that.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

This is an issue for the setting. Forgotten Realms, for example, does not support clerics without a deity -- you must worship an appropriate deity to gain divine magic. Eberron, notsomuch--you're not even sure if the gods exist.

I prefer a definite divine link to divine magic, but this is a question for the setting fluff.

That's not true, actually. The only issue with being a faithless in FR, is, if you die, you get thrown into the wall of the faithless for all eternity.

[visigani]

I think y'all are missing the point.


The gods themselves are merely agents. THEY are not the font of divinity.


Law is the Font of Divine Magic. Chaos is the Font of Arcane Magic.


The "Eternal Struggle" so to speak has never been about Good vs. Evil. How could it be? It's a pretty safe bet that existence came before consciousness and one must, at the least, be conscious in order to understand the moral differences between good and evil.



Consider Divine Magic. It's all based on a hierarchy. Even worshippers of Chaotic deities are themselves self avowed rungs in that hierarchal chain. Miracle requires you get permission from a higher up. The single most valued ability of almost all Clerics is the ability to heal, to restore order to that which has fallen to chaos.


Now consider Arcane magic. Although its practitioners may be laborious in their study of magic and may themselves have a lawful trait Arcane magic is very much a reflection of the individual.

More than any other branch of magic the Arcane twists and warps reality, from Time Stop to Mord's Disjunction, and right on down the line. Arcane magic is almost universally more destructive, and prone to bizarre and chaotic effects.


Representing Law is Ao and his various incarnations throughout the multiverse. Even his self confessed devotion to the 'balance' is really simply a means of maintaining the status quo.

Chaos, at least from what I have heard, is represented by a great Serpent.


So there you have it kids.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Pathfinder has a few interesting takes on these ideas. The idea of philosophy-based clerics is present, and they actually go to the trouble of explaining a few philosophies, like Diabolism (Hell is the model for a perfect society), the Green Faith (basically Golarion's main school of thought for druids), the Prophecies of Kalistrade (enlightenment is achieved through the pursuit of personal wealth) and the Whispering Way (Undeath is the perfect state of being).

Also notable is the Oracle class. While it lists the divinities that are most closely aligned with the various mysteries, the fluff in the Advanced Player's Guide goes out of its way to state that most Oracles don't dedicate themselves to a singular deity the way the average cleric or inquisitor does, but instead pay homage to groups of them (like worshiping the three gods who ascended via the Starstone, or the Pentamic Faith of the Hellknight Order of the Godclaw, which reinterprets five of the Lawful deities as Hellknight-like paragons of unbreakable law). Others contact spirits (which works well with the haunted curse) or groups like the Empyreal Lords (super angels) or groups of demon princes.

Also, with the release of Ultimate Magic, new options for Inquisitors and Clerics have been presented that add a new dimension to it. For the cleric, there is the "Seperatist" archetype, which is used to roleplay a cleric who has moved away from the orthodox views of his/her church, and the Inquisitor has the "Heretic" archetype, which is similar. Now, in addition to having priests who don't necessarily pay homage to the gods, we have worshippers of the gods who have differing ideas of how their patrons are worshipped. I wish they'd had something like this in 3.5 proper.

I think in most settings with divine magic granted by the gods though, it's hard to be an atheist. Eberron's probably the one example I can think of where it's possible, as there's no concrete answer as to whether or not the gods exist. In Forgotten Realms, it's all but a given that the gods exist, since only a few centuries ago they were literally romping around the world making trouble (a whole Time of it, in fact :smallwink: ). In Greyhawk, a true god rules a local nation with an iron fist. In Pathfinder's setting, they have concrete evidence of divine ascension, and the actions of other gods. There's even one whose ascension was so recent that there are living elves who remember where they were when it happened.

[Talya]

That's not true, actually. The only issue with being a faithless in FR, is, if you die, you get thrown into the wall of the faithless for all eternity.

Wrong.

Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, page 22, under "Cleric."

Faerûnian clerics function as described in the Player's Handbook, except that no clerics serve just a cause, philosophy, or abstract source of divine power. The Torilian deities are very real, and events in recent history have forced these divine beings to pay a great deal of attention to their mortal followers. All clerics in Faerûn serve a patrion deity.

Page 23, under "Druid"

Like clerics, the druids of Faerûn receive their spells from a particular patron deity, always a deity of nature or animals.

Page 25, under "Paladin"

All paladins of Faerûn are devoted to a patron deity


Page 26, under "Ranger"

Unlike clerics, druids and paladins, Faerûnian rangers do not have to choose a patron deity until they reach 4th level and acquire divine spells.

The precedent in Forgotten Realms for divine casting is clear - to cast divine spells, you require a patron deity. (Ur-Priest would be a notable exception that would work, based on its fluff.)

[Salbazier]

Eberron, notsomuch--you're not even sure if the gods exist.



Not true. The Silver Flame is real. So is the Undying Court. I'm quite sure there are also manyworshipers of Dragons, Lord of Blades, Rakshasas ect. More like the nature of divinities and how they work was never made clear by the writers. This is OOC-wise. IC-wise, well, the faithfuls are sure in their (own) belief.

[Veyr]

The Silver Flame is real, but what is it? Hard to say. Whether or not it is actually the source of the spells and other powers that their faithful have is deliberately left ambiguous.

[Alchemistmerlin]

This is an issue for the setting. Forgotten Realms, for example, does not support clerics without a deity -- you must worship an appropriate deity to gain divine magic. Eberron, notsomuch--you're not even sure if the gods exist.

I prefer a definite divine link to divine magic, but this is a question for the setting fluff.

That's not strictly true for Forgotten Realms. For much of the Cleric Quintet, Cadderly is effectively an Agnostic Cleric.

Edit: Unless of course this change is in "4th Edition" in which case it isn't really Forgotten Realms at all.

[Talya]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11080295&postcount=10
That's from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (3rd Edition), which was not reprinted for 3.5. (Player's Guide to Faerun updates and supplements it, but does not replace it.) The rules are clear.

Cadderly Bonaduce (reveres to at least some degree) Deneir from the beginning of Cleric Quintet, as I recall.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

*snip*

Just because they receive divine spells from deity X does not mean they necessarily worship deity X.

[Talya]

Just because they receive divine spells from deity X does not mean they necessarily worship deity X.

I already thought of that. That wording is possibly applicable to druids, who in the FRCS are stated that they may not differentiate between "Nature" itself and the nature deity that grants them spells, but clerics and paladins are forced to serve a particular deity.

[Ravens_cry]

Strictly speaking an Atheist would be fairly silly in many if not most D&D settings. It could work in some where the gods are a) nonexistant, see Dark Sun or b) there is uncertainty whether they qualfy as gods, see Eberron. But ina setting where the gods can be historically shown to have not only interfered with mortal events but actually walked among them or was even once a mortal themselves, it feels pretty goofy. Even agnostic in the sense of "Not believing there can be evidence" sense doesn't make much sense in such a setting.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Strictly speaking an Atheist would be fairly silly in many if not most D&D settings. It could work in some where the gods are a) nonexistant, see Dark Sun or b) there is uncertainty whether they qualfy as gods, see Eberron. But ina setting where the gods can be historically shown to have not only interfered with mortal events but actually walked among them or was even once a mortal themselves, it feels pretty goofy. Even agnostic in the sense of "Not believing there can be evidence" sense doesn't make much sense in such a setting.

Then they are less conventional atheists and more of naytheists: they may not claim that supremely powerful beings don't exist, just that they shouldn't be worshiped as deities. Karsus, after all, came pretty close to stealing such power as a mortal, so all that truly is is just that: power.

[Rejakor]

I've played an atheist in DnD. He was of the very firm opinion that clerics were sorcerers who lost their sorcerous powers when they felt that they hadn't acted in their gods' interest. That there were no gods, and that outsiders were just beings from other realities.

He destroyed a divine relic that the party was going to use to save the world from an invading evil god, to prove that there was no evil god, and that 'divine prophecies' were full of crap. After the party beating ten kinds of crap out of him.. the eclipse passed.. and voila, no god. Turns out the party had been tricked, and the divine relic ritual was what was going to open the portal so the god could enter this reality.

Much DM-cursing and re-writing of notes was had that night.

---

Campaign specific. I prefer, even if I ran a game in the forgotten (forgotten for a good reason if you ask me) 'realms' (tiny city states), to think that the DnD 'gods' are powerful outsiders who have tapped into the latent mental/psionic/magical energies of intelligent creatures (mostly humanoids) who can worship them, and by getting them to worship them, get extra powers that they use for their own purposes.

Clerics are just people with untapped magical powers who can't access them. The gods go 'bing, here you go' and open the access-shaft in exchange for the person being a priest for their religion. Archivists are people who can access that on their own, like a wizard does, and Ur-Priests are people who ping the gods with a fake IP and get their channel set to 'open' without the god realizing he's doing it for a fraud.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm usually an A person, with gods getting their magic from their worshipers and Outsiders getting it from their Planes. Thus in a weird way the alignments give magic indirectly to Prime Materials through Outsiders.

[Alchemistmerlin]

Strictly speaking an Atheist would be fairly silly in many if not most D&D settings. It could work in some where the gods are a) nonexistant, see Dark Sun or b) there is uncertainty whether they qualfy as gods, see Eberron. But ina setting where the gods can be historically shown to have not only interfered with mortal events but actually walked among them or was even once a mortal themselves, it feels pretty goofy. Even agnostic in the sense of "Not believing there can be evidence" sense doesn't make much sense in such a setting.


They make far MORE sense in most D&D Settings actually. The gods in most D&D settings are not only real, but quantifiable, solid, study-able, categorize-able, kill-able, and most notably fallible. They are not "above", "Beyond", or even "divine" really. Why worship a being who's only real purpose in being worshiped is that he is more powerful than you?


It doesn't make much sense to worship a god in a world where you can call him a prick and nothing happens. It makes even less sense to do so in a world where you can walk up to him and call him a prick to his face.

And if he smites you for it? He's only proven your point. He's not a God or a great one, he's simply very strong and has a tantrum sometimes. (Also, a good god smiting you for calling him a prick pretty much proves your point about them not being particularly good after all...though you're dead now, so proving your point might not be that great.)


A king is more powerful than you. He can have his armies kill you, he can have your head delivered to him on a plate, he can even bend and shape the world around you at will (with some help of his loyal subjects), but he is not a god. Merely a very powerful man. And very powerful men can bleed.

[Mayhem]

They make far MORE sense in most D&D Settings actually.
+1 :smallamused:

In a generic setting while gods are undisputably real, the existance of wizards and sorcerers prove for a fact that they don't grant power. Since they aren't responsible for the power, what the hel do they do? Nothing, that's what. So why worship them?
Of course that logic is shaky and isn't the truth, but it's a legitimate philosophy.

[Salbazier]

A king is more powerful than you. He can have his armies kill you, he can have your head delivered to him on a plate, he can even bend and shape the world around you at will (with some help of his loyal subjects), but he is not a god. Merely a very powerful man. And very powerful men can bleed.

There are kings that worshipped as god (or close to it) in history you know.

[Amnestic]

They make far MORE sense in most D&D Settings actually. The gods in most D&D settings are not only real, but quantifiable, solid, study-able, categorize-able, kill-able, and most notably fallible. They are not "above", "Beyond", or even "divine" really. Why worship a being who's only real purpose in being worshiped is that he is more powerful than you?


It doesn't make much sense to worship a god in a world where you can call him a prick and nothing happens. It makes even less sense to do so in a world where you can walk up to him and call him a prick to his face.

And if he smites you for it? He's only proven your point. He's not a God or a great one, he's simply very strong and has a tantrum sometimes. (Also, a good god smiting you for calling him a prick pretty much proves your point about them not being particularly good after all...though you're dead now, so proving your point might not be that great.)


A king is more powerful than you. He can have his armies kill you, he can have your head delivered to him on a plate, he can even bend and shape the world around you at will (with some help of his loyal subjects), but he is not a god. Merely a very powerful man. And very powerful men can bleed.

Everything this guy has said here I completely agree with. Atheists make plenty of sense in D&D settings; even Faerun. Atheist Clerics less so (depending on setting), but atheists in general? More than makes sense.

[Coidzor]

While divine magic is innately tied to deities:

Crucial thing you're forgetting here and in the thread title: Druids.


That's not true, actually. The only issue with being a faithless in FR, is, if you die, you get thrown into the wall of the faithless for all eternity.

Not all eternity, the soul is unmade in a most unpleasant way last I checked.

[Luckmann]

It's entirely a question of setting. In context, the exact nature of divine magic in any one setting, such as the sub-argument about Forgotten Realms (in which I fully agree with Talya's interpretation) is ultimately irrelevant.

It's still a question of setting.


[...]

Of course that logic is shaky and isn't the truth, but it's a legitimate philosophy.Anything with a shaky logic cannot also be a legitimate philosophy. :smallannoyed:

[Psyren]

As Talya has stated this is a setting-dependent issue.

If you are assuming the default, SRD setting where deity-less clerics are permitted, then argument C is the best fit.

[Coidzor]

Personally, I go with something along these lines: The "Divine" (I'm vaguely reminded of the time we went over Socrates->Plato->Aristotle in class whenever I use the term "The Divine," so that might've been an influence there) is something separate from deities that they are merely one conduit of X depending upon setting, by which it can be reached, much as there are many ways to gain access to the "Arcane." Druids do it by devotion to and emulation of nature, Archivists do it through scholarly study, Clerics do it by meditation and faith/conviction and personal connections to deities or other foci such as philosophies or even the abstract concepts of Good or Destruction, etc..

So an "Atheist Cleric," such that the individual did not believe anything divine truly existed could not exist, but a cleric who rejected the inherent divinity of the gods and interpreted them as powerful beings tapping into or representing/expressing a form of the divine certainly could.

Indeed, one of my friends is playing an Ex-Cleric Archivist who became disillusioned with the personal deities after progressing from faithful to believing them to be expressions or corruptions of the nature of some kind of pantheistic oversoul of the universe itself to believing that they're all sufficiently old and powerful entities that have gotten in on the secret of being able to tap into said oversoul on their own without any aides and take some of that essence into themselves. I think his current plan is to get enough power to ascend himself and figure out a way to sever all of the gods from their connection to the divine or merge them (back) into it, depending.

[EoNhOeKnOwS]

I don't mean to revive this after so long but it's better than to make a new post.

If your cleric follows an ideal or philosophy do they qualify for some prc that require for example "deity favored weapon" and stuff. Almost every cleric prc had the req to worship a deity, and pretty much none are for evil spell casters ... Like disciple of asmodeus and all sorts of disciples. I don't want to worship or "be overshadowed by some other entity"

[GreyBlack]

So, the answer to this question is going to vary greatly from DM to DM, so I can only answer from my own personal experience and from my personal world setting.

Here, Magic=Magic, the only question is how you, personally, channel that energy. This is based on the class you choose: wizards gain knowledge of how to manipulate these energies through pouring through tomes, bards just kind of pick stuff up and channel it through raw force of will, and so on. Usually, it depends on the primary casting stat. Does your casting come from knowledge of the world around you, your awareness of the world around you, or through you enacting your will upon the world?

To this end, Clerics are more aware of their surroundings. They embrace certain philosophies and become aware of how those miracles act around them. They create a conduit through which the energy flows, enabled by their awareness of their given philosophies. These philosophies, or domains, may or may not be tied directly to one God or another, but they do establish that conduit.

Archivists, on the other hand, cultivate that connection to the divine in a more direct way. Rather than allowing than simply being a conduit for that power, they learn how to develop that conduit through active learning and pouring through theories and tomes, eventually uncovering the secrets for how those philosophies can be made reality.

As such, in this model, you can still have atheist clerics who are separate from your archivist. The question becomes how that conduit is established.

[EoNhOeKnOwS]

That is wonderful thank you so much, that definitely helps.

What about prc requiring "deity favored weapons" etc? Each domain should just have a favored weapon :(

[GreyBlack]

If there's a mechanical need for it? Yes. Otherwise, let the player pick a favored weapon. They have to explain why it embodies their philosophies, but they could pick it.

[Coidzor]

I don't mean to revive this after so long but it's better than to make a new post.

If your cleric follows an ideal or philosophy do they qualify for some prc that require for example "deity favored weapon" and stuff. Almost every cleric prc had the req to worship a deity, and pretty much none are for evil spell casters ... Like disciple of asmodeus and all sorts of disciples. I don't want to worship or "be overshadowed by some other entity"

It's better to make a new thread and link to the old one, actually.

Favored weapons would be determined by the DM or by working with the DM.

[EoNhOeKnOwS]

Thanks, that helps out a lot! And thanks about making a new thread, I'll do that next time :)

[LudicSavant]

While divine magic is innately tied to deities You lost me by the first sentence. This just isn't true in a wide variety of D&D settings, especially when it comes to divine magic from folks who aren't Clerics (such as, say, Druids).

[GreyBlack]

You lost me by the first sentence. This just isn't true in a wide variety of D&D settings, especially when it comes to divine magic from folks who aren't Clerics (such as, say, Druids).

It's patently untrue from the core settings. Otherwise, the Druid and Paladin would be considered a non-divine casters, as neither draw their power specifically from their tie to a specific deity. While they OFTEN worship deities, they aren't tied to it. A druid could easily be an atheist, while a Paladin need only express his devotion to the philosophies of Good and Law. Which, actually, ties neatly into my model.

[LudicSavant]

It's patently untrue from the core settings. Otherwise, the Druid and Paladin would be considered a non-divine casters, as neither draw their power specifically from their tie to a specific deity. While they OFTEN worship deities, they aren't tied to it. A druid could easily be an atheist, while a Paladin need only express his devotion to the philosophies of Good and Law. Which, actually, ties neatly into my model.

Exactly. Divine magic doesn't innately have a damned thing to do with deities unless you're playing in Forgotten Realms or something.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm going to go with Setting-Dependent. In a world like Faerun where you have very flawed gods running around with known and proven contact with followers, having atheist clerics doesn't make sense (and is as Talya said, explicitly banned). You would be able to just ignore the god causing the massacre of the week and go do your own thing. With Ao running around and being a jerk to mortals, it doesn't really make sense with the setting that someone could get around his goals.

However, in a setting like Eberron, where divinity is far more confusing and can't just pop in for tea to clear things up, it makes far more sense that things are murky. Adding in the idea that gods might not be 100% necessary just makes the issue of divinity more unclear, and can add to a setting.

I think trying to say that one approach is the best approach, especially for homebrew settings is like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. Gods can play such an important part of a setting that it would be quite sad to see someone insisting on a certain type of cleric because Greyhawk did it, screw the rules or theme.