Knights & Knaves Alehouse

JRT wrote:Probably his most recent take on the Clerics was represented in Living Fantasy, where he states that most RPGs (including D&D) de-emphasized the cleric or priest where they were very important to a fantasy society.

I look at the cleric and priests or spiritual leaders in a society as two separate concepts. That is, in my game, priests and holy men need not be clerics (or even have class and level at all). In my game, clerics are just a special category of priest (the kind that are most likely to be adventurers). Given that, even a campaign that de-emphasized or eliminated the cleric as a PC class wouldn't necessarily de-emphasize spiritual/religious leaders in the fantasy society.

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

JRT wrote:Probably his most recent take on the Clerics was represented in Living Fantasy, where he states that most RPGs (including D&D) de-emphasized the cleric or priest where they were very important to a fantasy society.

I look at the cleric and priests or spiritual leaders in a society as two separate concepts. That is, in my game, priests and holy men need not be clerics (or even have class and level at all). In my game, clerics are just a special category of priest (the kind that are most likely to be adventurers). Given that, even a campaign that de-emphasized or eliminated the cleric as a PC class wouldn't necessarily de-emphasize spiritual/religious leaders in the fantasy society.

I tend to divide it into 4 categories of clerics: 1. PC adventurers (who tend to only focus on casting spells and that don't share alot about their beliefs "on the job"), 2. NPC adventurers these clerics may talk religion to the group as part of their character that brings flavor to the game (and may tie in) 3. NPC Clerics who are helpful (usually located in a temple or church) that just hang out to cast spells usually for pay and 4. Monster Clerics (def. spouting some sort of religion if your around one long enough) usually evil and deadly. Though not always (plenty of N, CN, LN clerics up to no good). Of course the PCs are always free to make good aligned clerics monsters as well.

JRT wrote: So I find it funny that there's a movement among some to eliminate the cleric and/or thief from the games, considering how central both ended up becoming in D&D as we know it.

What "movement" are you talking about? We're some guys chewing the fat on a messageboard. It isn't like we're petitioning WotC to retcon the two classes out of existence.

I wasn't targeting this thread when I mentioned a movement, rather a trend on the bloggers to start from OD&D and eliminate classes.

JRT wrote:…a trend on the bloggers to start from OD&D and eliminate classes.

Ah, you mean people starting from OD&D and actually playing it, imagining the hell out of it, making it their own, and such? I suppose you mean those taking it to heart that material introduced in the supplements, "…all of it is, of course, optional, for the premise of the whole game system is flexibility and personalization within the broad framework of the rules," as Gary says in the introduction to Blackmoor. Or those who heed his advice in the afterward in the little brown books: "We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing [to us] for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"

I find it funny that commenters on the outside looking in run the full spectrum, from "those guys are stuck in a stagnant and fetishistic attempt to recreate the past" through "those guys are trying to eliminate or change key elements of D&D as it we know it." Or maybe it's "those are guys are trying to recreate the past but aren't getting it right."

I don't know. I don't necessarily agree with or like every change or addition or elimination that some blogger proposes. And sometimes I like to play a very traditional D&D game (say, if I'm running the D series in Greyhawk). But I don't really see anything odd about gamers starting with the basics of D&D and personalizing it, deciding how they would like it to be and making it just that way.

FWIW, though, I do agree that wild re-interpretations of D&D aren't really the focus of this site.

Heh, I've been talking about removing thieves and clerics for 20 years but I haven't removed them.

The last game a few months ago from the video I had both represented.

The public game of 2006, as I recall had two clerics and a thief.

I'm just not fond of them as "party members" because of the behaviors. However, if you play one of these classes I won't let you forget it.

JRT wrote:I wasn't targeting this thread when I mentioned a movement, rather a trend on the bloggers to start from OD&D and eliminate classes.

Heaven help me, but I have to agree with JRT on this one. Ever since I joined the on-line D&D community, I can't name a single D&D forum I've visited that hasn't discussed the elimination of thieves and clerics on multiple occasions. Comes up on blogs too. I don't say it's a big movement, but yeah, it's not just some isolated thing.

geneweigel wrote:Heh, I've been talking about removing thieves and clerics for 20 years but I haven't removed them.

The last game a few months ago from the video I had both represented.

The public game of 2006, as I recall had two clerics and a thief.

I'm just not fond of them as "party members" because of the behaviors. However, if you play one of these classes I won't let you forget it.

That's probably because most gamers are a bunch of losers and have no friggin' idea how to play a fighter, let alone a cleric or thief.

True hobbyists can play any race & class w/o being Mr Asshat.

geneweigel wrote:Heh, I've been talking about removing thieves and clerics for 20 years but I haven't removed them.

My current AD&D game includes both a Thief and a Cleric. My OD&D game has a Cleric (but he's a cleric that honors the Fabulous Thunderbird, which is cool in and of itself)—no one has asked to play a Thief. (Although we do have a dwarf.)

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

geneweigel wrote:Heh, I've been talking about removing thieves and clerics for 20 years but I haven't removed them.

My current AD&D game includes both a Thief and a Cleric. My OD&D game has a Cleric (but he's a cleric that honors the Fabulous Thunderbird, which is cool in and of itself)—no one has asked to play a Thief. (Although we do have a dwarf.)

Hah! I'll see your Fabulous Thunderbird and raise you a Great Googamooga!

TheRedPriest wrote:Heaven help me, but I have to agree with JRT on this one. Ever since I joined the on-line D&D community, I can't name a single D&D forum I've visited that hasn't discussed the elimination of thieves and clerics on multiple occasions. Comes up on blogs too. I don't say it's a big movement, but yeah, it's not just some isolated thing.

Oh, I agree that it's not an uncommon thing to discuss (or maybe even do). But I don't find it odd or funny or ironic in light of some real or imagined back to basics or old-school ethos.

TheRedPriest wrote:Hah! I'll see your Fabulous Thunderbird and raise you a Great Googamooga!

Wrap it up; I'll take it.

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

TheRedPriest wrote:Hah! I'll see your Fabulous Thunderbird and raise you a Great Googamooga!

Wrap it up; I'll take it.

That actually belongs, not to a PC, but to a CHP I cooked up.

Great Googamooga can't you hear me talkin' to you?
It's just a ball of confusion!
That's what the world is today.
Hey, hey!

I like the Anthrax version.