Munchkinism and Godless Settings/Worlds

[Thorkhammer]

The PhB p.40 is very clear about the relationship of the cleric to the source of his powers. Players that balk at following the religious doctrine of their cleric's chosen pantheon and god while expecting to be granted whatever spells they desire to go out and loot treasure for their own gain are, clearly, teetering on the edge of oblivion, IMO.

The "difference" between the adventurer-cleric and the NPC is not so much when one reads the lengthy and very clear paragraph on the above mentioned page. At least when it comes to practicing what one professes, and gaining the benefits therefrom.

1E is not the godless realm of Holmes, BX or Mentzer (BECM-). With an entire hardback book devoted to deities and demigods, it is clear that "Advanced" is of a different mindset.

Yet, across the boards/forums that I travel, I find so many folks commenting that, though they play/run 1E games, they do not have to deal with deities at all. Well, for fighter types, even magic users and surely for thieves, I can see some logic in that; especially if one intends to be very neutral and agnostic (?).

For clerics/druids?
I just don't see this as the case at all. And my gut feeling is that, DMs that do not hold a tight rein on clerics and the source of their powers, are-- invertly-- BX, Holmes players at heart. But just don't want to give up all the goodies associated with 1E.

That's fine.

Homebrewing has become so rampant that, we have succeeded in transmorphing things to mulligan stew. Only, the ingredients are not shared from house to house, so one does not know exactly if they're going to like visiting the Joneses, when the Mrs. dumps tons of garlic in her stew. (A little awkward, but you get the drift)

So, in godless worlds where clerics still get all their power without behooving to anyone, aren't they really just a case of watered down fighters, but with some kick ass spells? Or, worse, walking medlabs dragged along for their CLW, CSW, CCW...?

I am digressing. Big shock, eh?

Your thoughts....(and keep them clean! )

[geneweigel]

its religion as a bad thing for one, I find that is a huge barrier for many religious people as well as the atheists. The religious person feels its a transgression and the "whatever" atheist thinks its weird. I've even had open minded seeming cleric players make the "god" seem daffy to give them a sense of being inoffensive. Frankly, I'm the endless gods DM with variants with the same name leading some players to get flustered when they can't deal with a manageable universe of black versus white in a simple mythology. Heck, you could play a cleric of the Greater God of genital warts and I wouldn't blink an eye... alright but I might shift in my chair...

[Philotomy Jurament]

In my campaign, DungeonDork plays a cleric of the Fabulous Thunderbird.

[francisca]

In my campaign, DungeonDork plays a cleric of the Fabulous Thunderbird.

I think thats "Tough Enough".

[Ragnorakk]

I'll admit that when players are really into fleshing out their character's god, gods, religion, beliefs, and/or their interpretation of their alignment, I cannot help but immediately cringe. I never really thought about the fact that Holmes really didn't go into much about clerics & gods, and that is where I got my start, so maybe that does inform my later development... though I do remember that my first character (when I was ~9 years old) was a cleric pretty much ONLY because I was fascinated by the idea of playing a character 'in contact' with a god/the gods.

My recent gaming group has fallen apart, so I haven't been doing any playing for the last few months, but the way I'd settled on question of gods & clerics & such for the 'setting' was that demon princes & arch devils were worshiped as gods by evil-types, druids were shamanistic/deistic/shinto-type/ancestor-spirit guys, and good clerics revered saints - historical figures that embodied their beliefs and may or may not have 'ascended' to greater-than-human status. It was intentionally vague, and also, admittedly, an attempt to 'short-circuit' the issue of a character developing 'personal relationship' with their deities.

Being IRL a comfortable agnostic, I tend to make my D&D worlds the same - the gods may or may not exist, certain and definite confirmation or refutation is beyond the score of the PC's.

[Juju EyeBall]

In my campaign, DungeonDork plays a cleric of the Fabulous Thunderbird.

Don't forget North's Cleric of Nugent from Matt's game. That was hilarious.

\m/ (>_<) \m/

[Flambeaux]

For low-level dungeon crawling I just don't see any point to quibbling about deities or religions. If they add flavor, great.

But what do I know? I prefer BECMI or OD&D.

I have given thought to the metaphysical underpinnings of my own homebrew world (still nameless after all these years). But I find fantasy religion boring and artificial and my players have never cared.

[Juju EyeBall]

at low levels the gods aren't too concerned with the pcs anyway. not in my world.

[Philotomy Jurament]

For what it's worth, the DMG (pg. 38) clarifies that deities aren't directly involved in granting low level cleric spells.

• 1st and 2nd level cleric spells are enabled by the cleric's religious instruction and background in his faith: no outside agency must be called upon. (Which could even imply that clerics of a "false religion" could still cast 1st and 2nd level spells.)
• 3rd through 5th level spells are obtained through the aid of supernatural servants of the cleric's god. (This offers some interesting possibilities, too, like "rebel angels" surreptitiously working their own agenda when delivering spells.)
• 6th and 7th level spells are granted by direct communication from the deity itself.

The DMG flat-out says that "lesser clerics, then, draw only upon their education, training, and experience to gain spells, just as higher clerics do when they renew their first and second level spells. In order to gain third, fourth, and fifth level spells, however, higher clerics must reach intermediaries of their respective deities in order to have these powers bestowed upon them from the plane of their deity. When clerics become very great, they must petition their deity personally in order to receive the powerful words which enable the casting of sixth and seventh level cleric spells. It is obvious, therefore, that clerics wishing to use third or higher level spells must be in good standing."

Some DMs may see the DMG's rules as an expansion or clarification of what the PH says (much like the DMG expands upon and gives more details for handling things like initiative or weapon factors). Others may see it as a contradiction of the PH.

[T. Foster]

In an AD&D game I think it's important for the GM to establish very early (before play starts or very shortly thereafter) who the main PC-worshippable deities are and the characteristics of their priesthoods and how that impacts an adventuring PC cleric. The way the game's cosmology is set up this is simply too important and central an issue to be relegated to the offstage background as usually happens in OD&D/Classic games. I'm not a fan of letting the players make up their own deities in AD&D games, because they'll pretty much invariably either make it a joke or the "super-badass" god. IMO GMs do this (under the guise of "involving the players in the creation of the campaign-world") because they're either too lazy or too intimidated of the implications of creating "religions" and fearful of offending someone. But in an AD&D context those excuses don't cut it -- do the work and give your world a pantheon -- TSR provided a nice big hardback book full of examples, plus a bunch more for the World of Greyhawk (plus JG's Unknown Gods, Mayfair's Monsters of Myth & Legend, whatever you can pick up from fiction -- Lord Dunsany's Gods of Pegana, Terry Pratchett's Discworld gods, etc.) so it's not that hard. As for offending real-world sensibilities, as far as I'm concerned Gary Gygax was way more religious IRL than anyone I'm likely to play with, and he didn't have any problem with the implications, so neither should anyone else.

[geneweigel]

Alright, I can't agree with pantheon for the world. Thats too FR over GH for me! Players must make their own gods or you're getting into the shrunken vistas of bad TSR IMO.

[T. Foster]

Alright, I can't agree with pantheon for the world. Thats too FR over GH for me! Players must make their own gods or you're getting into the shrunken vistas of bad TSR IMO.

But doesn't it grate to see the players invariably create joke-deities based on Elvis, Chuck Norris, Mr. Spock, Ronnie James Dio, etc.? I love the idea of a huge pantheon of gods and godlings a la the gods in Lankhmar, Pratchett's small gods, the Gods of Pegana, JG's Unknown Gods, etc. and think that's what Gary had in mind and that the limited universal pantheons of the FR and Dragonlance are bland and stifling, but when the players make up their own gods they're never interesting and flavorful stuff like that, they're always just lame pop-culture jokes. Which is fine for a casual (dare I say it) "beer & pretzels" type game, but seems tonally dissonant in a campaign-world which has otherwise been carefully crafted to be fairly serious and internally-consistent.

Put another way, in an AD&D game whatever gods the PCs are worshipping are, as the campaign develops, likely going to become directly involved in the action sooner or later as the PCs perform missions and Quests on behalf of the church, seek the god's direct intervention via Communes and Gates and such, travel to his home plane, etc. Do you really want to undermine that whole aspect of the game and reduce it to a lame joke because some player thought it was funny to make his 1st level cleric a worshipper of Chuck Norris?

[Flambeaux]

Put another way, in an AD&D game whatever gods the PCs are worshipping are, as the campaign develops, likely going to become directly involved in the action sooner or later as the PCs perform missions and Quests on behalf of the church, seek the god's direct intervention via Communes and Gates and such, travel to his home plane, etc. Do you really want to undermine that whole aspect of the game and reduce it to a lame joke because some player thought it was funny to make his 1st level cleric a worshipper of Chuck Norris?

Trent, that presumes a longevity of campaign that I've never witnessed or experienced. Consequently, it's not a question I've ever considered.

[geneweigel]

Put another way, in an AD&D game whatever gods the PCs are worshipping are, as the campaign develops, likely going to become directly involved in the action sooner or later as the PCs perform missions and Quests on behalf of the church, seek the god's direct intervention via Communes and Gates and such, travel to his home plane, etc. Do you really want to undermine that whole aspect of the game and reduce it to a lame joke because some player thought it was funny to make his 1st level cleric a worshipper of Chuck Norris?

Its very convincing and believable and I see where you're coming from but I refuse to do that. I look at "Chuck Norris" as a challenge and I want players with imagination so I'm willing to have "Tony the Tiger" and "Homer" and "Mannus, Mowus and Jackus" kind of humor if I'm eventually going to be amused by someone really trying to get "S&S" feel. Meanwhile, I've overloaded with so many of "my feel" takes on gods that it makes the universe vast and full of new danger potential.

[Thorkhammer]

gene--

It sounds to me like you prefer to run a Homebrew AD&D(or whatever) to a BtB AD&D.

Nothing wrong with that. I support your choice and right to do so.

But in that light, you're missing the issue, as the discussion is about something very BtB, in a Forum called By The Book AD&D.

Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding your point. If so, I apologize.