Does Arcane Disciple require roleplay?

[magicalmagicman]

Clerics have strict roleplay requirements, which can be fun for some, but not me. That's why I don't play clerics.

I've avoided Arcane Disciple because I assumed you'd worship your chosen deity like a cleric, but now I'm seeing evidence to the contrary.

There is no mention of ex-arcane disciples, there is no mention of losing the benefits of this feat. There is also no mention of anything about roleplaying.

So my question is, does Arcane Disciple require roleplay like a cleric? Or is it like a wizard studying and finding the secrets of cleric domains and adding it to his arsenal?

[Coidzor]

Clerics have relatively loose roleplay restrictions, generally, unless you choose the wrong deity or the DM is a stickler for making them strict as paladins or stricter. Don't turn on your deity and have a character whose character is in keeping with their deity's ethos and interests. Which is easy for clerics of powers of acquisition or battle or smiting the unrighteous or corrupting the innocent, as dictated by what sort of game you're playing.

As a Wizard with Arcane Disciple you would want to be a worshiper of the deity, yes, but you're not as beholden to them as a cleric and certainly don't have to roleplay things as strictly as a Paladin. You wouldn't want to deliberately piss them off, though, without an alternate patron to go to, because of rule 0.

[Psyren]

You need to match that deity's alignment as that is a prerequisite of the feat. If you ever fail to do so, you'll lose access to it until you rectify the situation, just like any other feat you stopped qualifying for.

Note that this is simultaneously stricter and less strict than what a cleric has to do. It's less strict in the sense that as written, all you have to worry about is alignment - not following the deity's dogma, observing holy days, praying at a specific time to get your spells back etc. But it's stricter in the sense that you need to match their alignment exactly - the "one step rule" doesn't apply to you. A Lawful Neutral cleric could get spells from Asmodeus, but for a wizard with this feat to do the same, he must be Lawful Evil.

[tadkins]

Clerics have strict roleplay requirements, which can be fun for some, but not me. That's why I don't play clerics.



I feel the exact same way.

I love the mechanics of the cleric class and could use it for a number of concepts. I just strongly dislike the RP implications.

[Morcleon]

I feel the exact same way.

I love the mechanics of the cleric class and could use it for a number of concepts. I just strongly dislike the RP implications.

You can always be a cleric of an ideal and just do whatever fluff you want.

[SethoMarkus]

You can always be a cleric of an ideal and just do whatever fluff you want.

This. I've never seen a DM enforce the fluff of a cleric in a game before, it's always been the player's choice. I'm just curious, does the same issue arise with Barbarians or Monks for the OP?

[magicalmagicman]

This. I've never seen a DM enforce the fluff of a cleric in a game before, it's always been the player's choice. I'm just curious, does the same issue arise with Barbarians or Monks for the OP?

Yes, it does.

Deityless clerics are fine, but we do venture occasionally to forgotten realms, and that's when you are screwed as a deityless cleric, and the roleplay comes crashing in. Again, I don't mind the roleplay, it's a good thing, but my character values freedom very, very highly. Even a slight daily routine requirement would make him go crazy.

[Morcleon]

Yes, it does.

Deityless clerics are fine, but we do venture occasionally to forgotten realms, and that's when you are screwed as a deityless cleric, and the roleplay comes crashing in. Again, I don't mind the roleplay, it's a good thing, but my character values freedom very, very highly. Even a slight daily routine requirement would make him go crazy.

Become an epic level cleric of an ideal, then destroy the Wall of the Faithless and the corrupt deity system that requires it? :smalltongue:

[Deophaun]

Deityless clerics are fine, but we do venture occasionally to forgotten realms, and that's when you are screwed as a deityless cleric, and the roleplay comes crashing in.
Then the solution is to not go to FR. Let Elminster do his own laundry for once.

Even a slight daily routine requirement would make him go crazy.
Well, you're screwed via RAW in that case:

A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells.

[Tiri]

You can always be a cleric of an ideal and just do whatever fluff you want.

No, you can't. The feat specifies 'alignment matches your deity's alignment' as a requirement. I suppose you could just make up a deity with whatever ideals you want and worship that, though.

[Psyren]

No, you can't. The feat specifies 'alignment matches your deity's alignment' as a requirement. I suppose you could just make up a deity with whatever ideals you want and worship that, though.

That's for Arcane Disciple. I think he was talking about the side conversation about whether clerics should be held to a standard as strict as paladins.

[tadkins]

You can always be a cleric of an ideal and just do whatever fluff you want.

I questioned this before though, do most DMs allow that? The ones I know wouldn't.

Had an idea for a character a while back; a dwarven frost champion. Basically just wanted to be a warrior blessed with ice powers, in full plate, just using spells like Divine Power as a "pump up" and beating down things while using that Obscuring Snow trick for survivability.

All that without being tied down to a specific deity or alignment.

The mechanics all fit perfectly, just the fluff as written does not. xD


Become an epic level cleric of an ideal, then destroy the Wall of the Faithless and the corrupt deity system that requires it? :smalltongue:

Wow, yes, yes! If I ever play a FR game, this will be my goal. :) I hate the FR system for precisely that reason.

[Troacctid]

I questioned this before though, do most DMs allow that? The ones I know wouldn't.
In the default setting, it's explicitly permitted by the rules (although IIRC it's not allowed in the Forgotten Realms). It doesn't necessarily mean you can do whatever you want though—you couldn't take the Evil domain on a non-Evil character, for instance, and you'd still have to come up with an ideal for which the domains you want make sense. ("I worship the ideal of Justice! That's why I have the Travel and Transformation domains!" Yeah, no.)

[tadkins]

In the default setting, it's explicitly permitted by the rules (although IIRC it's not allowed in the Forgotten Realms). It doesn't necessarily mean you can do whatever you want though—you couldn't take the Evil domain on a non-Evil character, for instance, and you'd still have to come up with an ideal for which the domains you want make sense. ("I worship the ideal of Justice! That's why I have the Travel and Transformation domains!" Yeah, no.)

Understandable. In the above example my second domain would probably be Dwarf or something. 'Cause he's a champion of his people and his mountain home.

No existing dwarven deities give a combination of the Cold and Dwarf domains anyhow.

[Morcleon]

I questioned this before though, do most DMs allow that? The ones I know wouldn't.

Had an idea for a character a while back; a dwarven frost champion. Basically just wanted to be a warrior blessed with ice powers, in full plate, just using spells like Divine Power as a "pump up" and beating down things while using that Obscuring Snow trick for survivability.

All that without being tied down to a specific deity or alignment.

The mechanics all fit perfectly, just the fluff as written does not. xD

I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. So long as the player plays to whatever the theme chosen is, it's just a way to get different domains without having to use an existing deity, which can be very limiting.


Wow, yes, yes! If I ever play a FR game, this will be my goal. :) I hate the FR system for precisely that reason.

Mhm. The Wall is the primary reason why I don't play FR games. Unless it's explicitly stated that I will have the opportunity to destroy the Wall at some point, there's no point in me playing at all. :smalltongue:

[tadkins]

Mhm. The Wall is the primary reason why I don't play FR games. Unless it's explicitly stated that I will have the opportunity to destroy the Wall at some point, there's no point in me playing at all. :smalltongue:

It might be my heavy MMO influence, but gods are for killing and dropping loot. xD

[Coidzor]

Yes, it does.

Deityless clerics are fine, but we do venture occasionally to forgotten realms, and that's when you are screwed as a deityless cleric, and the roleplay comes crashing in. Again, I don't mind the roleplay, it's a good thing, but my character values freedom very, very highly. Even a slight daily routine requirement would make him go crazy.

You realize powers like Mask and Erthynul and Cyric and Olidammara have pretty loose requirements and no such thing as a daily routine beyond the minimum requirement of trying to prepare spells at about the same time each day, right? :smallconfused:

Even the Sea Witch and Talos are pretty much "just be the kind of selfish bastard who would worship this reprobate in the first place."

Heck, even LOLth mostly requires that you pay her lip service and be a scheming bastard, just don't try to replace her or ascend to deific power yourself.



Alternatively, apply social engineering to the DM.

[Bohandas]

You realize powers like Mask and Erthynul and Cyric and Olidammara have pretty loose requirements and no such thing as a daily routine beyond the minimum requirement of trying to prepare spells at about the same time each day, right? :smallconfused:

Don't forget Boccob, who's notorious for not caring what you do (as long as you don't interfere with the free use of magic)

[magicalmagicman]

Don't forget Boccob, who's notorious for not caring what you do (as long as you don't interfere with the free use of magic)

See. that's a restriction. What if I want to interfere with free use of magic? What then? D:

[Coidzor]

See. that's a restriction. What if I want to interfere with free use of magic? What then? D:

Then see the bit about social engineering.

And the bit about deciding to react differently. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) Or just, y'know, making characters that fit into games more readily instead of always bringing cloud cuckoolanders to the table.

You would likely be well served by comparing your definition of "strict" with more common definitions.

[tadkins]

Don't forget Boccob, who's notorious for not caring what you do (as long as you don't interfere with the free use of magic)

You'd think Boccob would have every domain. 'Cause he's the lord of all magic, right? xD

[Bohandas]

You'd think Boccob would have every domain. 'Cause he's the lord of all magic, right? xD
The biggest problem with Boccob's domains is that he offers the standard version of the magic domain, the 9th level spell of which is Mordenkainen's Dysjunction, a spell whose effect is the nearest thing to blasphemy a boccob-centered belief system has. Personally I think it should be changed to Wish

[tadkins]

The biggest problem with Boccob's domains is that he offers the standard version of the magic domain, the 9th level spell of which is Mordenkainen's Dysjunction, a spell whose effect is the nearest thing to blasphemy a boccob-centered belief system has. Personally I think it should be changed to Wish

That's a really good point.

"I am a worshipper of magic...now watch me destroy magic!"

Having Wish there would make an already great domain even better.

[Coidzor]

The biggest problem with Boccob's domains is that he offers the standard version of the magic domain, the 9th level spell of which is Mordenkainen's Dysjunction, a spell whose effect is the nearest thing to blasphemy a boccob-centered belief system has. Personally I think it should be changed to Wish

Or a special version that doesn't destroy magic items, that'd be quite nice as well.

[Psyren]

Disjunction is the ultimate form of supremacy over magic. You can strip away any buffs (or curses) on a target without a check, depower any problematic items, and even (potentially) depower problematic artifacts. Such actions might be necessary for the good of magic as a whole. In similar fashion, Boccob (and Azuth) encourage wizardry, but won't hesitate to strip a wizard of his powers entirely if he seeks to abuse his gifts. It wouldn't be his go-to or preferred approach, but if necessary, he can do it.


Or a special version that doesn't destroy magic items, that'd be quite nice as well.

In PF they are simply suppressed unless you focus the spell's magic onto one item at a time, so you could always port in that version if destroying magic items doesn't sit well with you.

[Bohandas]

Zagyg's Vitiation
Abjuration
Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: No

All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are discombobulated. All spells and spell-like effects within the area of effect are randomly moved to other applicable targets.

Each permanent magic item in the spell's area must make a successful Will save or be warped into a different and/or less effective item:

All items that fail their save gain one effect from Arms & Equipment Guide Table 6–5: Cursed Item Common Curses.

All charged, spell-completion, spell-trigger, command word, or otherwise activatable items that fail their save gain a chance to trigger a wild surge upon activation, as if their effect were a spell being cast on the plane of Limbo

All magical weapons and armor that fail their save have up to 1d4 enhancement levels worth of special abilities and/or enhancement bonus replaced with an equal number of levels of randomly determined abilities.

All intelligent items that fail their save are rendered permanently mad; The madness can only be removed with limited Wish, Wish, Miracle, Break Enchantment, or Total Repair

Apply all applicable effects.

An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher.

[Melcar]

I feel the exact same way.

I love the mechanics of the cleric class and could use it for a number of concepts. I just strongly dislike the RP implications.

Which ones are these? Can you describe the RP requirements?

[Kelb_Panthera]

See. that's a restriction. What if I want to interfere with free use of magic? What then? D:

Then pick a different god. There are so many deities available that it shouldn't be difficult to find one whose guidelines and prohibitions fit your desired behavior.

In this case, Vecna would be my first guess for a better fit. Hoard magic, keep your own council, and don't be a goody-goody should be sufficient for a lay-follower. A cleric would also be expected to undermine governments and seek to hoard temporal power as best he can. I doubt he'd fit your needs for arcane disciple (don't see you doing LE) but not a bad fit otherwise.

If you dig art, you could go with Lirr (CD), a deity whose listing is freakin' tiny. It basically amounts to, "Patronize the arts, that is all." The deity herself is CG so that might be iffy for arcane disciple too (you CN goof, you :smalltongue:)

If eventually becoming a shambling mockery of life appeals, Velsharoon's church is relatively small and new, so expectations are minimal. Spam a few undead here and there, make sure that your notes on undead creation and unlife are sent to the church once in a while and you're good to go. NE for arcane disciple shouldn't be difficult to match.

Or, ya know, just don't try to curtail the general spread and use of magic and stick to Boccob. Is it really so onerous a restriction that you don't use any temporal power you acquire to inhibit the study of magic? Must you -really- steal and keep any magical breakthroughs to yourself rather than allowing them to spread? It's a pitifully minimal restriction for which I really don't see the problem.


I questioned this before though, do most DMs allow that? The ones I know wouldn't.

I can't speak for others but I do, after a fashion.

Here's the catch; clerics generally gain their power through a mutually beneficial system where their faith in their deity and their deity's godhood allow for an (relatively) easy connection between the would-be cleric and the divine power of reality to form. Serving the deity's ends, generally with the motivation that you believe in the ideas that the deity's church espouses, allows you access to that power; tit-for-tat.

You -can- bypass the normal access point that deities represent and access the power directly through faith in your ideas but the connection is more tenuous. Any crisis of faith is enough to break that connection and unless you've spread your faith which such vim and vigor as for there to be other clerics capable of rattling off 5th level spells who share your faith, that lost connection can't be restored for a lack of anyone suitable to cast atonement on your behalf.

In either case, expect that I -will- hold you to your deity's dogma or to the ideas you've chosen (we'll discuss it before the game) if you want to avoid becoming an ex-cleric. If your idea cleric does fall from grace with no hope to atone, conversion is possible.

That's how I run it anyway.

[tadkins]

Which ones are these? Can you describe the RP requirements?

Being beholden to a deity, being restricted to certain alignments, being forced to spend a deal of your time working and sacrificing for that deity.

Just don't like it. I feel like by playing a cleric with a deity, I'm not playing my own character, but an extension of someone else's. Who's to say Boccob or Ehlonna weren't just the PCs of some guy a long time ago who happened to have connections with the D&D makers and were lucky enough to get them immortalized?


Then pick a different god. There are so many deities available that it shouldn't be difficult to find one whose guidelines and prohibitions fit your desired behavior.

There are plenty of domain/alignment combos that just don't have applicable deities though. Cold/Magic, for instance was one I was looking for a while back.


I can't speak for others but I do, after a fashion.

Here's the catch; clerics generally gain their power through a mutually beneficial system where their faith in their deity and their deity's godhood allow for an (relatively) easy connection between the would-be cleric and the divine power of reality to form. Serving the deity's ends, generally with the motivation that you believe in the ideas that the deity's church espouses, allows you access to that power; tit-for-tat.

You -can- bypass the normal access point that deities represent and access the power directly through faith in your ideas but the connection is more tenuous. Any crisis of faith is enough to break that connection and unless you've spread your faith which such vim and vigor as for there to be other clerics capable of rattling off 5th level spells who share your faith, that lost connection can't be restored for a lack of anyone suitable to cast atonement on your behalf.

In either case, expect that I -will- hold you to your deity's dogma or to the ideas you've chosen (we'll discuss it before the game) if you want to avoid becoming an ex-cleric. If your idea cleric does fall from grace with no hope to atone, conversion is possible.

That's how I run it anyway.

Just about everyone I know wouldn't allow it. One of my best friends would say right off the bat "deity-less clerics are stupid".

I like your approach, it would work as a neat compromise. I'm still not sure if I would go along with it though. The concepts of "faith" and the potential to lose powers because of it is just too much for my tastes. I would tell potential DMs, that I only really want to use the Cleric class for the mechanics. Plate-wearing, combat-capable spellcaster with a different type of list than the Wizards. Let me handle the background, personality, and everything else. Let me have my armored necromancer with Planning/Undeath and not have to worry about deities or faith. xD

I realize that's a lot to ask of most DMs though. Why I've just given up on certain character concepts entirely.

[Anlashok]

Being beholden to a deity, being restricted to certain alignments, being forced to spend a deal of your time working and sacrificing for that deity.

Only one of those is a thing clerics have to actually do though.

And 3.5 has clerics of ideals anyways, which eliminate all those. And by all of those I mean the only one.

[tadkins]

Only one of those is a thing clerics have to actually do though.

And 3.5 has clerics of ideals anyways, which eliminate all those. And by all of those I mean the only one.

You sure? I mean, look at Durkon from the comic. His life basically equals to "Thor, Thor, Thor!"

[Kelb_Panthera]

You sure? I mean, look at Durkon from the comic. His life basically equals to "Thor, Thor, Thor!"

Rich decided to go with the classical, clichéd version of the cleric for the easy story angles. That's far from the only way to play it.

[torrasque666]

You sure? I mean, look at Durkon from the comic. His life basically equals to "Thor, Thor, Thor!"

But that is how Rich has chosen to portray that particular cleric. Malak didn't seem too beholden to a deity. Nor did Redcloak.

[tadkins]

Rich decided to go with the classical, clichéd version of the cleric for the easy story angles. That's far from the only way to play it.


But that is how Rich has chosen to portray that particular cleric. Malak didn't seem too beholden to a deity. Nor did Redcloak.

Fair point. In all honesty, I suppose I'm just scarred from my experiences in regards to religion both in RL and in games.

In my last 3.5 game, I was playing a cleric of St. Cuthbert in a Shackled City game. After one encounter, my DM ended up taking away my powers for a day as "punishment" for simply saying something that wasn't entirely lawful-sounding.

Dunno if I'd want to deal with something like that again. It's wizards or sorcerers from here on out.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fair point. In all honesty, I suppose I'm just scarred from my experiences in regards to religion both in RL and in games.

In my last 3.5 game, I was playing a cleric of St. Cuthbert in a Shackled City game. After one encounter, my DM ended up taking away my powers for a day as "punishment" for simply saying something that wasn't entirely lawful-sounding.

Dunno if I'd want to deal with something like that again. It's wizards or sorcerers from here on out.

Ugh. Why do d-bag DM's and worse paladins have to ruin it for the rest of us. Alignment is about a -pattern- of behavior, not any single event (barring truly heavy stuff) and only the paladin has the restriction of falling after a single evil act, not a chaotic or non-good act. :sigh:

[tadkins]

Ugh. Why do d-bag DM's and worse paladins have to ruin it for the rest of us. Alignment is about a -pattern- of behavior, not any single event (barring truly heavy stuff) and only the paladin has the restriction of falling after a single evil act, not a chaotic or non-good act. :sigh:

Agreed. Act is the key word there, too. I'm sure the paladin would be fine if all they did was say something, right?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Agreed. Act is the key word there, too. I'm sure the paladin would be fine if all they did was say something, right?

One statement taken individually is fine but what you say gives a window into your thoughts and patterns of thought matter too. Actions matter more, by far, but if you're constantly talking chaotic behaviour and not doing any better than neutral in actions you'll get a warning that alignment shift is inbound and you might want to seek an atonement. Think of a confession cleansing your soul type of thing.

If, on the other hand, you're constantly upholding order and your first recourse when wronged is to drag the offender to the proper authorities, you can talk all the "politics sucks" type of stuff you want without worrying about it.

Same goes for the good/evil axis. If you're running mostly mercenary adventures (sandbox DM) and talking a bunch of "if we just do <insert evil act here> this would be so much easier" kind of stuff, you get a warning. As a paladin you're -supposed- to be commited to fighting evil and upholding good. If you're not doing that -and- you're lamenting that your alignment is getting in the way, it won't be for much longer but you'll have a new problem.

[tadkins]

One statement taken individually is fine but what you say gives a window into your thoughts and patterns of thought matter too. Actions matter more, by far, but if you're constantly talking chaotic behaviour and not doing any better than neutral in actions you'll get a warning that alignment shift is inbound and you might want to seek an atonement. Think of a confession cleansing your soul type of thing.

If, on the other hand, you're constantly upholding order and your first recourse when wronged is to drag the offender to the proper authorities, you can talk all the "politics sucks" type of stuff you want without worrying about it.

Same goes for the good/evil axis. If you're running mostly mercenary adventures (sandbox DM) and talking a bunch of "if we just do <insert evil act here> this would be so much easier" kind of stuff, you get a warning. As a paladin you're -supposed- to be commited to fighting evil and upholding good. If you're not doing that -and- you're lamenting that your alignment is getting in the way, it won't be for much longer but you'll have a new problem.

I read somewhere (I think it was FC2) that merely thinking or saying bad things doesn't do anything, that you actually have to act on them in order to damn your soul. That's pretty much what I've always gone with.

As for the previous example, the party I played with in that game was my Gnome Cleric of St. Cuthbert (built as a crossbow-wielding inquisitor type character), a Dread Necromancer of Wee Jas, and a Rogue-type character that used ToB mechanics. We had defeated a skeletal T-Rex in some caves near the city, and the DN thought it a good idea to use the bones to fight for us. My cleric said something along the lines of "This place isn't in anyone's jurisdiction, do whatever you want.", and my character immediately lost his powers, saying St. Cuthbert frowned on his words. Normally I could accept such things if it made sense, if I know I grossly violated some sort of terms/alignment, but that seemed like an incredibly shallow reason to me.

I completely agree that playing such a character should have consequences if you act too drastically outside the framework. At the same time though, I'm just happy there are character options that don't have such codes hanging over their heads.

[Eisfalken]

I understand the conversation has progressed, but felt like I needed to address several bad points here.


Just don't like it. I feel like by playing a cleric with a deity, I'm not playing my own character, but an extension of someone else's.

Okay, first point, you the player are attributing something to clerics that is both false and fairly narrow-minded anyway. What you're saying is that you're playing a robot who obeys these strict commands from the gods. That is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER how clerics work.

There are different aspects of a given god, and thus different kinds of clerics who serve the interests of that god. This is where the alignment and domain aspects come in. You might be a Lawful Good paladin of Pelor who seeks to smite the undead. Or a Neutral Good cleric of Pelor who wants to bring the god's healing power to those in need. Or you might be a Chaotic Good favored soul who doesn't really know anything about all that religious mumbo jumbo, but you know that some shard of Pelor's divine power is inside you, so you just do good stuff and don't worry about details. Or you could be a Neutral druid who pays respect to the deity for bringing the power of the sun to the world which gives it life and light.

Guess what? Every single one of those folks are worshipping Pelor. Correctly. Religion in D&D has been badly portrayed by some as being some kind of weird autocratic pantheism, and it is nothing of the sort. Each "church" contains different sects and orders devoted to different principles of their deity.

This said, there are certain settings and individual deities in specific settings that DO fit the behavior you describe. I recall at least one Greyhawk deity who thinks it is the only "true" deity, and thus its followers, who may differ on aspects of that one deity, promote the teaching that all other deities are basically false beings. Forgotten Realms is a weird opposite: those who don't believe in an actual deity, regardless of their philosophy, get somewhat screwed at the end there.

But it is ridiculous to the point of chuckling that you actually think a cleric is some robot who just "does what they're told". Utterly false. Clerics most certainly have free will, and can certainly do something contrary to the god they worship. You clearly missed the spell atonement in the spell list. Go read it over, and you realize that yes, clerics are free to do anything they justify morally... and just as free to get kicked to the curb by their god.

This isn't some ironclad contract you're talking about. Clerics have to freely give their worship, or it don't count. That's kind of the whole point of faith in the first place. Otherwise, gods would literally just create infinite numbers of constructs to do whatever.


Who's to say Boccob or Ehlonna weren't just the PCs of some guy a long time ago who happened to have connections with the D&D makers and were lucky enough to get them immortalized?

Well, if you're actually going to go this route in this debate, actually they aren't. Gygax created a lot of them himself, as gods, back when D&D was basically just something he scribbled in a notebook somewhere in his house. Others were added along the way, but generally speaking there are perhaps only 1-4 gods in any of the several official D&D game settings that were mortal before they were gods. And no evidence or proof of any sort that any player characters were ever made gods for any game for any reason.

This was a loaded question logical fallacy, and contradicted by actual knowledge of the game's author, so we'll let this one go for now...


There are plenty of domain/alignment combos that just don't have applicable deities though. Cold/Magic, for instance was one I was looking for a while back.

Hence the part of the Player's Handbook where clerics of philosophy are allowed. And in point of fact, are not unknown in several official accessory books. Complete Mage's example of an eldritch disciple is common cited as proof that you don't have to worship a Chaotic or Evil deity to get into that prestige class, just that your "philosophy" has to be Chaotic or Evil (presuming that the DM doesn't handwave alignment restrictions the way the official Eberron campaign setting does).


Just about everyone I know wouldn't allow it. One of my best friends would say right off the bat "deity-less clerics are stupid".

Okay, your friend is the stupid one. You're making another logical fallacy where the experience you had with these friends is somehow dogma for the rest of the game.

My advice is: get different gaming buddies and try again. Your friend can say philosophy clerics are "stupid" a million times. It's still his opinion against anyone who says it's not.

Here's a hint: a lot of us who DM don't think it's stupid to play a deity-less cleric. No clue if it's majority or not, but it doesn't actually matter, since Rule Zero exists.


I like your approach, it would work as a neat compromise. I'm still not sure if I would go along with it though. The concepts of "faith" and the potential to lose powers because of it is just too much for my tastes. I would tell potential DMs, that I only really want to use the Cleric class for the mechanics. Plate-wearing, combat-capable spellcaster with a different type of list than the Wizards. Let me handle the background, personality, and everything else. Let me have my armored necromancer with Planning/Undeath and not have to worry about deities or faith. xD

Already done. Know how Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader talked all the time about "the power of the Dark Side"? Almost like it's something they... believe in? Remember "I find your lack of faith disturbing"?

Bang, there's your cleric philosophy of the Dark Side. That's a thing you can do, yes. Palpatine is the cloistered cleric from UA, Vader's a regular cleric. Domains for Palpatine are probably... Domination, Knowledge, and Hatred; Vader's probably got Strength and Hatred. Palpatine uses Divine Metamagic to juice his powers; Vader's using his for other Sacred/Profane feats that boost his combat ability. +1 brilliant eager warning bastard swords all around. Done and done.

Cold and Magic? We could couch that in a number of frameworks. You may be a living embodiment of the concept of Winter, the season of death that destroys the weak and allows the strong to prosper (no, you don't even have to take the Winter domain for this, it's a philosophy so it's based on what the character believes, not some artificial imposition). If you are evil, perhaps you believe in the power of Stygia, the Fifth Hell, and that there is a power there even greater than the archdevils themselves. Or it could be as simple as you believing in the power of Cold itself, that there is both elemental and spiritual power that you are in awe of and seek to harness for yourself.

I can do this crap literally all day long. I can dream up dozens of variations of different things. Undeath/Planning? Sounds a lot like the metaphysics behind ancient cultures like the Egyptians, Mayans, etc. Personally, if I'm doing the whole making-undead thing, I'd do Deathbound/Undeath, but whatever floats your boat.

The secret is, come up with a combo, then just come up with why your character is really, really devoted to those domains. It's not like just going to camp and learning spells for the summer; clerics are engines of passion for something spiritual or metaphysical. THAT'S what puts people off the class most times. They are merely uncomfortable being really passionate about something that, to the player, doesn't exist.


I realize that's a lot to ask of most DMs though. Why I've just given up on certain character concepts entirely.

That's because your DM friend is stupid. They don't have the imagination to conceptualize certain metaphysical aspects of D&D.

You don't have to give up squat. You just need a better DM. Like... anyone around here, probably.


Having read the other posts, I know what your problem is: you had a garbage DM who doesn't do a good job running religion in his game.

What you need is someone willing to work with a player and really hash out the actual role-playing of a cleric.

[tadkins]

I understand the conversation has progressed, but felt like I needed to address several bad points here.

That's a bit mean and insulting. You might not agree with my points, but that doesn't make them necessarily bad. I don't mind debating with someone but can we please not go there?


Okay, first point, you the player are attributing something to clerics that is both false and fairly narrow-minded anyway. What you're saying is that you're playing a robot who obeys these strict commands from the gods. That is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER how clerics work.

There are different aspects of a given god, and thus different kinds of clerics who serve the interests of that god. This is where the alignment and domain aspects come in. You might be a Lawful Good paladin of Pelor who seeks to smite the undead. Or a Neutral Good cleric of Pelor who wants to bring the god's healing power to those in need. Or you might be a Chaotic Good favored soul who doesn't really know anything about all that religious mumbo jumbo, but you know that some shard of Pelor's divine power is inside you, so you just do good stuff and don't worry about details. Or you could be a Neutral druid who pays respect to the deity for bringing the power of the sun to the world which gives it life and light.

Guess what? Every single one of those folks are worshipping Pelor. Correctly. Religion in D&D has been badly portrayed by some as being some kind of weird autocratic pantheism, and it is nothing of the sort. Each "church" contains different sects and orders devoted to different principles of their deity.

This said, there are certain settings and individual deities in specific settings that DO fit the behavior you describe. I recall at least one Greyhawk deity who thinks it is the only "true" deity, and thus its followers, who may differ on aspects of that one deity, promote the teaching that all other deities are basically false beings. Forgotten Realms is a weird opposite: those who don't believe in an actual deity, regardless of their philosophy, get somewhat screwed at the end there.

But it is ridiculous to the point of chuckling that you actually think a cleric is some robot who just "does what they're told". Utterly false. Clerics most certainly have free will, and can certainly do something contrary to the god they worship. You clearly missed the spell atonement in the spell list. Go read it over, and you realize that yes, clerics are free to do anything they justify morally... and just as free to get kicked to the curb by their god.

This isn't some ironclad contract you're talking about. Clerics have to freely give their worship, or it don't count. That's kind of the whole point of faith in the first place. Otherwise, gods would literally just create infinite numbers of constructs to do whatever.

The bolded part makes the rest of this part of the post seem a bit contrary. "You don't have to play an obedient robot to your god's will, but you're gonna get punished for it, so you might as well if you choose this path."

What if I wanted my Lawful Good undead-smiting Pelorite cleric to be open-minded and intelligent? Maybe he realizes that he has to set aside his beef with that lich and join forces in order to deal with an even greater threat. Nope, not allowed! *godsmackdown*


Well, if you're actually going to go this route in this debate, actually they aren't. Gygax created a lot of them himself, as gods, back when D&D was basically just something he scribbled in a notebook somewhere in his house. Others were added along the way, but generally speaking there are perhaps only 1-4 gods in any of the several official D&D game settings that were mortal before they were gods. And no evidence or proof of any sort that any player characters were ever made gods for any game for any reason.

This was a loaded question logical fallacy, and contradicted by actual knowledge of the game's author, so we'll let this one go for now...

Fair enough. Maybe that was a bad example. I still wouldn't put it past a DM to glorify their own characters in this way in their own homebrew worlds, though.


Okay, your friend is the stupid one. You're making another logical fallacy where the experience you had with these friends is somehow dogma for the rest of the game.

My advice is: get different gaming buddies and try again. Your friend can say philosophy clerics are "stupid" a million times. It's still his opinion against anyone who says it's not.

Here's a hint: a lot of us who DM don't think it's stupid to play a deity-less cleric. No clue if it's majority or not, but it doesn't actually matter, since Rule Zero exists.


I know it's allowed, and I know the rulebooks say that it's okay. You're right in that it might just be my experiences though. I've given up on certain concepts because I've been led to believe that they'd be hard to push through with DMs. I'd love to play in a game one day with a DM that can prove me wrong, though. I've still got that dwarven mountain champion idea (Ideal cleric with the Earth/Dwarf domains) ready to go for that day.


Already done. Know how Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader talked all the time about "the power of the Dark Side"? Almost like it's something they... believe in? Remember "I find your lack of faith disturbing"?

Bang, there's your cleric philosophy of the Dark Side. That's a thing you can do, yes. Palpatine is the cloistered cleric from UA, Vader's a regular cleric. Domains for Palpatine are probably... Domination, Knowledge, and Hatred; Vader's probably got Strength and Hatred. Palpatine uses Divine Metamagic to juice his powers; Vader's using his for other Sacred/Profane feats that boost his combat ability. +1 brilliant eager warning bastard swords all around. Done and done.

Cold and Magic? We could couch that in a number of frameworks. You may be a living embodiment of the concept of Winter, the season of death that destroys the weak and allows the strong to prosper (no, you don't even have to take the Winter domain for this, it's a philosophy so it's based on what the character believes, not some artificial imposition). If you are evil, perhaps you believe in the power of Stygia, the Fifth Hell, and that there is a power there even greater than the archdevils themselves. Or it could be as simple as you believing in the power of Cold itself, that there is both elemental and spiritual power that you are in awe of and seek to harness for yourself.

I can do this crap literally all day long. I can dream up dozens of variations of different things. Undeath/Planning? Sounds a lot like the metaphysics behind ancient cultures like the Egyptians, Mayans, etc. Personally, if I'm doing the whole making-undead thing, I'd do Deathbound/Undeath, but whatever floats your boat.

The secret is, come up with a combo, then just come up with why your character is really, really devoted to those domains. It's not like just going to camp and learning spells for the summer; clerics are engines of passion for something spiritual or metaphysical. THAT'S what puts people off the class most times. They are merely uncomfortable being really passionate about something that, to the player, doesn't exist.

I agree with you there. It's fun to come up with ideas and justifications for the weirdest domain combos. The great thing is that it can always be done, even the Undead/Planning thing (which actually I just used as an example of a min-max munchkin choice I see in some recommended cleric op builds). Love your take on the Dark Side, too.

Personally, I'd find it a lot easier to be passionate about an ideal than about a god, though. There just aren't any gods in the game in any game setting that'd make me go "Woo! Yeah! Go team!"


Having read the other posts, I know what your problem is: you had a garbage DM who doesn't do a good job running religion in his game.

What you need is someone willing to work with a player and really hash out the actual role-playing of a cleric.

You wrote a good post there, and have gotten me to reconsider some points, if that means anything. As mentioned, I'd love to have a chance to enact them in an actual game one day.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I read somewhere (I think it was FC2) that merely thinking or saying bad things doesn't do anything, that you actually have to act on them in order to damn your soul. That's pretty much what I've always gone with.

That wasn't my take away from the books of exalted deeds and vile darkness. It may have been an attempt to simplify, given the difficulty inherent in judging a character's mind-set but it's exceedingly clear that intent matters in determining if an act is aligned and in what way.


As for the previous example, the party I played with in that game was my Gnome Cleric of St. Cuthbert (built as a crossbow-wielding inquisitor type character), a Dread Necromancer of Wee Jas, and a Rogue-type character that used ToB mechanics. We had defeated a skeletal T-Rex in some caves near the city, and the DN thought it a good idea to use the bones to fight for us. My cleric said something along the lines of "This place isn't in anyone's jurisdiction, do whatever you want.", and my character immediately lost his powers, saying St. Cuthbert frowned on his words. Normally I could accept such things if it made sense, if I know I grossly violated some sort of terms/alignment, but that seemed like an incredibly shallow reason to me.

Wow, no. Very bad call. That doesn't fit the rules of the game or the dogma of St. Cuthbert. Your cleric was absolutely right that wilderness is -not- under the jurisdiction of any temporal power unless there's a national-level government and nationally mandated laws; something that would be relatively uncommon in a pseudo-medieval setting. Even then, The Law that the cudgel's followers believe in is documented in their holy text, which is called "The Law," something separate from temporal governments in any place that isn't theocratic and dedicated to St. Cuthbert. His dogma demands respect for temporal power structures and calls for his followers to work within those systems as much as possible but when the law and The Law come into conflict, the faithful are expected to side with the latter; the same as the faithful of any other faith.


I completely agree that playing such a character should have consequences if you act too drastically outside the framework. At the same time though, I'm just happy there are character options that don't have such codes hanging over their heads.

Violating the tennets of the faith of a lawful god is definitely frowned upon quite heavily but you'd have to move in their direct opposition to be stripped of power and require an atonement for any single act. Though, again, a pattern of disregarding the churches edicts and rules is a quick road to becoming an ex-cleric. Chaotic gods are -less- strict about such things but it's still expectetd that a cleric will do more than just pay lip-service. If you're not furthering your faith's cause in some way, why is the god granting you power? Why would you expect to keep that power if you started to work against their cause or even just ignored it?

[tadkins]

Wow, no. Very bad call. That doesn't fit the rules of the game or the dogma of St. Cuthbert. Your cleric was absolutely right that wilderness is -not- under the jurisdiction of any temporal power unless there's a national-level government and nationally mandated laws; something that would be relatively uncommon in a pseudo-medieval setting. Even then, The Law that the cudgel's followers believe in is documented in their holy text, which is called "The Law," something separate from temporal governments in any place that isn't theocratic and dedicated to St. Cuthbert. His dogma demands respect for temporal power structures and calls for his followers to work within those systems as much as possible but when the law and The Law come into conflict, the faithful are expected to side with the latter; the same as the faithful of any other faith.



I'm a little confused, was I right or was my DM?

[Anlashok]

Fair point. In all honesty, I suppose I'm just scarred from my experiences in regards to religion both in RL and in games.

In my last 3.5 game, I was playing a cleric of St. Cuthbert in a Shackled City game. After one encounter, my DM ended up taking away my powers for a day as "punishment" for simply saying something that wasn't entirely lawful-sounding.

Dunno if I'd want to deal with something like that again. It's wizards or sorcerers from here on out.
That's not a cleric problem though, that's DM problem. Clerics only lose their powers is they grossly violate their deity's code.

So unless you were talking about vomit while being unlawful you're fine.

[Melcar]

Being beholden to a deity, being restricted to certain alignments, being forced to spend a deal of your time working and sacrificing for that deity.

Untrue. Your DM might force that opun you, and you might feel that that is appropriate rolepalying, but you really dont have to pay any attention to that god unless your DM says so. So you actually dont have to spend any time sacrificing to a deity... nor are you restricted to any alignment. Your alignment just dictake witch gods you can choose. Hence the reason for the enormous amount...

A cleric is only has the gross violation of the gods decree thing... that it. That means that 99,9% of the time its just another character.

You seem to imply the cleric being less free. Thats like saying that a monk has to be a shaolin (kung fu) monk...



What if I wanted my Lawful Good undead-smiting Pelorite cleric to be open-minded and intelligent? Maybe he realizes that he has to set aside his beef with that lich and join forces in order to deal with an even greater threat. Nope, not allowed! *godsmackdown*

Why should this not be allowed? Your god is probably not stupid, and undless you start smiting [good]children, he/she will just be watching to see how this pans out. You said yourself that you were dealing with an even greater threat...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wow, no. Very bad call. That doesn't fit the rules of the game or the dogma of St. Cuthbert. Your cleric was absolutely right that wilderness is -not- under the jurisdiction of any temporal power unless there's a national-level government and nationally mandated laws; something that would be relatively uncommon in a pseudo-medieval setting. Even then, The Law that the cudgel's followers believe in is documented in their holy text, which is called "The Law," something separate from temporal governments in any place that isn't theocratic and dedicated to St. Cuthbert. His dogma demands respect for temporal power structures and calls for his followers to work within those systems as much as possible but when the law and The Law come into conflict, the faithful are expected to side with the latter; the same as the faithful of any other faith.

Ahem.

Unless there was an overarching nation that you were definitely in, as opposed to unclaimed wilderness between or beyond civilizations, then you were unambiguously right.

If... you were definitely inside the borders of a nation then you may, indeed, have been transgressing against your god but not so grossly as to warrant an immediate fall. Even then, only if it's actually illegal to either animate the dead or sieze control of extant undead (wasn't clear which you were doing). It's not a violation of The Law, as far as I know, so it would be a failure to obey the church's dictate to respect and obey the law of the land if such a law was applicable but that's it.

[tadkins]

That's not a cleric problem though, that's DM problem. Clerics only lose their powers is they grossly violate their deity's code.



Supposedly, that should be the case.


Untrue. Your DM might force that opun you, and you might feel that that is appropriate rolepalying, but you really dont have to pay any attention to that god unless your DM says so. So you actually dont have to spend any time sacrificing to a deity... nor are you restricted to any alignment. Your alignment just dictake witch gods you can choose. Hence the reason for the enormous amount...

A cleric is only has the gross violation of the gods decree thing... that it. That means that 99,9% of the time its just another character.

You seem to imply the cleric being less free. Thats like saying that a monk has to be a shaolin (kung fu) monk...

I'd imagine some gods would be like that. I do like Boccob in the fact that he largely doesn't give a crap what you do. Most gods do seem to demand a level of commitment and sacrifice, though.

Alignment is actually a pretty big factor though. I've found some gods were pretty cool, only to find out I couldn't pick them due to alignment issues.

The monk example doesn't necessarily have to be a shaolin monk, but monks are Lawful, so they'd definitely have their own set of codes I would imagine.


Ahem.

Unless there was an overarching nation that you were definitely in, as opposed to unclaimed wilderness between or beyond civilizations, then you were unambiguously right.

If... you were definitely inside the borders of a nation then you may, indeed, have been transgressing against your god but not so grossly as to warrant an immediate fall. Even then, only if it's actually illegal to either animate the dead or sieze control of extant undead (wasn't clear which you were doing). It's not a violation of The Law, as far as I know, so it would be a failure to obey the church's dictate to respect and obey the law of the land if such a law was applicable but that's it.

I got that part, the rest of the post was just a little confusing to me. I apologize, I'm not so smart.