Elven Clerics

[Scott]

I can't remember the board, or the thread, but some time ago, I mentioned that elven clerics in Greyhawk could use swords. Some people asked me where I got the information from. I thought it was in a Dragon article, but I couldn't find it. Well, I found the reference in the Glossography. On p. 4 in the Elves, Knights section, "Elven clerics can and do wield all forms of edged and piercing weapons."
I can't remember who asked, but in case you're reading, there you go.
Scott

[Falconer]

I take this at face value in my games, even though it could be argued that they are multi-classed Cleric/Fighters; and even though this is before Elven Clerics were allowable for PCs. There is no just plain no basis in history, legend, or mythology for enforcing "blunt only" for Elves, and Gary's published statement seems pretty clear and straight-forward. Regards.

[dcas]

But is there a basis in history, legend, or mythology for permitting Elven clerics in the first place??

Personally, I'm coming around to the opinion that limiting clerics to blunt weapons is just a game mechanic. If clerics are supposed to represent military orders like the Templars or the Hospitallers then limiting them to blunt weapons seems strange. At the same time they should not be permitted to use missile weapons, in accordance with the decree of the Second Lateran Council. If clerics are supposed to represent those in Holy Orders, it seems strange that they would be adventuring anyway.

[Scott]

If you don't have a detailed pantheon, and just use generic clerics, then the rule works fine. Otherwise, clerics should be handled on a case by cases basis based on the character of the god. Which is why in another thread I asked if a cleric of Hieroneous should be allowed to use a battle axe. It makes sense to me.
Scott

[GT]

Well, as for adventuresome clerics--what about Friar Tuck or Archbishop Turpin? As to blunt weapons, it is a game mechanic but I enforce it--it never really mattered. I just said: "You wanna play a cleric? This is how it is..." ^__^

[Merkholz]

Sometimes it is more beneficial to have weapon limitations - imagine the rivalry between the fighters when they find that long sword+2, the cleric can just claim the mace+2 without opposition.

M

[Scott]

I like having wapon restrictions, I just think that blunt weapons for all clerics is too generic. Each different cult could have it's own prefered weapons. It would add a lot of flavor to that aspect of the game, and give the players a reason to try weapons that they usually don't try.
Scott

[dcas]

GT said:

Well, as for adventuresome clerics--what about Friar Tuck or Archbishop Turpin? As to blunt weapons, it is a game mechanic but I enforce it--it never really mattered. I just said: "You wanna play a cleric? This is how it is..." ^__^

I don't mind the fact that it is a game mechanic. And of course there is 'adventure' in the life of a cleric -- consider St. Francis of Assisi marching across lines in the Crusades to meet with Saladin's nephew Malik, and offering to throw himself into a furnace to prove the truth of Christianity! Nevertheless, that is not most people's idea of 'adventure' in a D&D context.

[mistere29]

I don't see anything "generic" about the blunt only rule. This is after all 1st ed. Class ablities are based on archtypes, not individual backgrounds. Profession is the key.

Think about it this way. Just because the oracle at delphi served Apollo dosen't mean she carrys around a bow. And just because a Trojan soldier asks Apollo to guide his arrow doesnt mean he is a cleric.

To bad gary never got around to adding more priest subclasses. His mystic/savant looked a heck of alot better than specialty clerics.

[mistere29]

Falconer said:

I take this at face value in my games, even though it could be argued that they are multi-classed Cleric/Fighters; and even though this is before Elven Clerics were allowable for PCs. There is no just plain no basis in history, legend, or mythology for enforcing "blunt only" for Elves, and Gary's published statement seems pretty clear and straight-forward. Regards.

Yeah, and gary said, in the phb, that clericism was largely a human pursit, so it's obvious that he was thinking of humans when he wrote the blunt only rule.

[geneweigel]

The Last Post On This Heironeous Thread About Ehlonna's Faith

[geneweigel]

Here it is (where the swords came up) and it does apply to this conversation, I suppose:

It is written that all clerics have available
to them all of the spells listed, and druids
likewise have the same benefit with respect
to theirs. Are these words graven on stone?
Yes and no.
The rules state that the entire array is at
the beck and call of the cleric/druid player
character in order to make it abundantly
clear to all that these character types do not
need to have spell books which contain the
“known” spells. Clerics and druids are
granted their spells from pursuit of their
calling and by the deity (or its servants) to
whom they adhere. With fundamentals
taken care of, we can now get down to the
“no” part of the “yes and no” answer to
the query “Are the rules graven on stone?”<br>The experienced Dungeon Master will
certainly freely admit that he or she takes
any and all liberties with the rules which are
useful in making the campaign more inter-
esting, challenging, exciting, imaginative,
thought-provoking, or simply more coher-
ent with respect to its overall scheme. Those
Learned Readers familiar with my Grey-
hawk campaign will have noted that most of
the clerics of the deities of that “world”<br>(Oerth, of course!) gain various special
spells or abilities from their calling. In fact,
certain powers, spells, and abilities were
purposely omitted from the rules manu-
script because my campaign is still alive,
and the “secrets” of the most cryptic sects
are not “general” knowledge. With that
example in mind, consider this:
If material can be added to the repertoire
of the cleric (and, by default, its druidic
sub-class), then why should it be forbidden
to remove things from it? Within reason,
there is no such prohibition — but permis-
sion is not explicitly granted, for to allow
carte blanche to the inexperienced or care-
less is giving license to put the campaign
into the proverbial toilet and pull the
plunger. If there is clear justification which
can be logically explained, then there is, in
fact, every reason to disallow spells, materi-
als, or other powers to clerics. This denial
can be permanent or temporary, depending
on the reason it exists. A few examples:
— A deity of the sun dislikes spells that
cause darkness.There are many ways to justify withholding
of spells and/or powers. There are similar
reasons to eventually grant them, or new ones. The important points to remember
are these: 1) Do it for a reason. 2) Retain
balance. 3) Make it logical. 4) Be reason-
able. 5) Explain it to campaign participants,
revealing information according to the
schedule you have established — not neces-
sarily when they demand it, i.e., don’t let
participants throw the Book in your face!
Follow through this explication:
A secluded sect of the followers of the
deity Ehlonna of the Forests erred griev-
ously at some time in the past. Its clerical
and druidic members misled the people,
caused them to do evil things, and used fire
to harm life and the beloved woodlands as
well. Most of the wrongdoers were slain,
but some survived and were repentant.
Mercifully, Ehlonna forgave them, but each
and every one of these formerly unfaithful,
as well as those who came after them, would
be prohibited from ever again using spells
(or magic items) that cause destructive fire
or things associated with it.
Furthermore, clerics are permitted only
staves as weapons; druids are allowed only
staves and slings, and no druid is allowed to
use his shapechange ability to assume the
form of a carnivorous beast.
There is now a small Shrine of Ehlonna,
as well as a Sacred Grove nearby. Here the
descendants of the transgressors reside,
shepherding the neighboring farmers and
woodsfolk, human and demi-human alike.
However, all those trained here are not
permitted the following spells: cause (any
sort of) wounds, curse, protection from
good (any), putrefy food & drink, cause
blindness, cause disease, bestow curse,
poison, dispel good, flame strike, slay liv-
ing, harm, wither, energy drain, destruc-
tion, fire trap, produce flame, produce fire,
wall of fire, conjure fire elemental, fire
seeds, chariot of Sustarre, finger of death,
fire storm. As was mentioned before,
weapons are limited, and druid members of
the group cannot take the form of any car-
nivore. These prohibitions seriously weaken
both orders of followers, and no deity would
so jeopardize its followers without some
counterbalance.
After faithfully serving and reaching 2nd
level, clerics are granted their choice of
“knowing” any permitted druid spell of 1st
level, and vice versa. This continues
through 4th level. At 5th level each gains a
druid/cleric spell of 2nd level, and this
continues through 7th level. At 8th level the
granting of turd-level spells commences; at
11th level, 4th-level spells; and at 14th level,
5th-level spells commence and continue
through 16th level. Clerics of 9th level are
able to assume animal form (a non-
carnivorous mammal only) once per day,
just as if they were a druid. Druids of
above-average wisdom are allowed bonus
spells, just as if they were a cleric, i.e., 14
wisdom allows one bonus 1st level spell, 15
wisdom a second 1st level spell, etc.
Beyond this, Ehlonna has created a spe-
cial order for clerics who have been totally
true to their alignment in general and to her
in particular. At turd level, such clerics are
specially granted the longsword as a usable
weapon, and at 5th level they are granted
the longbow. Any deviation from alignment
or service causes these weapons to be per-
manently revoked. The animal form per-
mitted to such special clerics includes
creatures of greater mass than normally
possible for a druid, including (but not
limited to) buffalo, stag, and Irish deer.
A similar special order of druids also
exists. These druids must remain neutral in
alignment, but must always discourage that
which promotes bane and encourage that
which promotes weal. Faithful turd-level
druids of this order are granted permission
to wear elfin chainmail (bestowed by Ehlon-
na’s agents in ceremonial proceedings) and
to wield both hand axes and battle axes. At
5th level the use of both light and heavy
crossbows is bestowed. The weight limit of
creature form assumed is also far greater
than that for normal druids, it being 200
pounds per level of experience. Thus, one
of these special druids of 10th level could
become a creature of up to one ton in
weight. Furthermore, although carnivorous
form cannot be assumed, omnivorous form
— a wild boar, for example — is allowed.
Taking this a step further, assume that the
campaign will promote participants to begin
play in this area, and the DM will encour-
age clerics and druids. Building upon the
“history” of transgression and redemption,
the DM will have a special set of circum-
stances and a mission for all those who
serve. If, after long and arduous struggle,
her faithful triumph, Ehlonna might well
remove the strictures (and their offsetting
benefits) upon the clerics and druids. The
sin forgiven, the enemy defeated and the
need for special orders gone, all returns to
the natural way of things (as per the PH,
DMG, etc.).
Now when you hear someone, DM or
player, mentioning something about “un-
known” cleric spells or similar difficulties,
don’t panic. It could well be a cleverly
planned campaign where difference and the
unexpected are desirable — and who can
fault that?! Perhaps you might wish to try it
in your own campaign, too. A cautionary
word is necessary, however, for there is a
problem with such variations. Unless the
full and complete details of the differences
are known to other DMs, they might well
not wish to have clerics or druids of such
nature participating in their games. This is
their right, and skepticism on their part is
justified. Players of these clerics and druids
must be forewarned that such characters
might be “one-campaign-only” adventurers
who are not welcome elsewhere.

[mistere29]

I've read that before and I wasn't impressed with it in the first place, to be quite frank. I got the impression that gary was giving in to his critics again. Why should the cleric and druid get to shuffle around archtypical powers and no one else can.

He says it is from his campaign, but why would he want to keep it secret? Was it orginally desinged for npc clerics (line the elven clerics form WoG)? Hextor's priests in particular would make nasty opponents. Of course, with all the high powerd crap from UA, maybe gary wanted to up clercis in real 2e as well.

[Scott]

mistere29 said:

I've read that before and I wasn't impressed with it in the first place, to be quite frank. I got the impression that gary was giving in to his critics again. Why should the cleric and druid get to shuffle around archtypical powers and no one else can.

Because in a polytheistic world with depth, you have to customize your priests. Having every priest of every faith bound by the same restrictions is lame. In the PH, the generic cleric works fine to introduce the class, but when you read the descriptions of the gods and their clerics in the Greyhawk guide/glossography, you will find many instances of clerics with weapon/armor restrictions that differ from the PH cleric. It adds depth and flavor to the campaign world.
[quote}He says it is from his campaign, but why would he want to keep it secret? Was it orginally desinged for npc clerics (line the elven clerics form WoG)? Hextor's priests in particular would make nasty opponents. Of course, with all the high powerd crap from UA, maybe gary wanted to up clercis in real 2e as well. [/quote]
If you know Gary's history, then you would know keeping secrets, or changing material, is not out of character at all. The writers of the Rogues Gallery had to make up the material for Gary's characters because he wouldn't let them look at his sheets or tell them anything about his characters. The stats for the characters in Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure were changed because Gary still didn't want to give out his character's information. Much of the material in the Greyhawk setting was changed because Gary didn't want his player's to be able to buy it and figure everything out. In the upcoming CZ adventure, Gary has changed things from his original version. The Enigma of Greyhawk, will still be an enigma. Gary's campaign was always about customization; he never restricted his game to by-the-book. At GenCon a few years ago I asked Rob Kuntz about PCs he's had other than Robilar. The first one he mentioned was an elf paladin. The rule books introduce the concepts, but setting specific material supercedes the basic material.
Scott

[mistere29]

I think the whole polytheistic cleric vs. monotheistic cleric argument is bunk. D&D campaigns are not polytheistic. They might have many gods but for some reason people in D&D worship one god exclusively and ignore the others. Where did that idea come from? The phb assumed clerics could worship more than one deity. I think serten, as stated up in MFA, worships boccob and zazyg.

Polytheistic religions are not that different form monotheistic religions. You still have a head of the pantheon and servant creatures. That’s not too different from the father/son/holy spirit, choirs of angles, patron saints, ect of Christianity. Even some polytheistic religions have a common enemy of the gods. (the Norse Giants)

As far as depth in the campaign, I don’t see why every world detail needs to be reflected in character creation rules. Do warrior and thief types have different abilities depending on where they grew up? Do mages have different spell list depending on where they study. I always wondered why gamers (not necessarily anyone here though) seem to think that only the clerics needed to have customized powers but the other classes didn’t. Maybe they never liked the class in the first place.

Gary had eleven paladins? I’m not surprised. By the time UA came out there where so many changes made and sub-races available class restrictions hardly even mattered any more.

[Scott]

mistere29 said:

I think the whole polytheistic cleric vs. monotheistic cleric argument is bunk. D&D campaigns are not polytheistic. They might have many gods but for some reason people in D&D worship one god exclusively and ignore the others. Where did that idea come from? The phb assumed clerics could worship more than one deity. I think serten, as stated up in MFA, worships boccob and zazyg.

The idea comes from history. Clerics aren't the teeming masses of the world likely to utter a prayer to whatever god seems most apropriate for a given situation, they are the servants of divine powers. They can be dedicated to a pantheon, or a specific god, just like in real world history, but most priests in polytheistic societies were dedicated to a single god. Serten worshipped Pholtus alone. Riggby worshipped Boccob, with a lesser devotion to Zagyg. Zagyg is the sole servant of boccob, so this does not seem like it is an issue.

Polytheistic religions are not that different form monotheistic religions. You still have a head of the pantheon and servant creatures. That’s not too different from the father/son/holy spirit, choirs of angles, patron saints, ect of Christianity. Even some polytheistic religions have a common enemy of the gods. (the Norse Giants)

As far as depth in the campaign, I don’t see why every world detail needs to be reflected in character creation rules. Do warrior and thief types have different abilities depending on where they grew up? Do mages have different spell list depending on where they study. I always wondered why gamers (not necessarily anyone here though) seem to think that only the clerics needed to have customized powers but the other classes didn’t. Maybe they never liked the class in the first place.

Gary had eleven paladins? I’m not surprised. By the time UA came out there where so many changes made and sub-races available class restrictions hardly even mattered any more.

If you're happy with such a shallow set up, then go to town. I think it's lame. Clerics are the class that are most comonly discussed for customization for a reason. It's the obvious thing to do. You're a cleric of St. Cuthbert? Here's a mace. Next. You're a cleric of the god of fire? Here's a mace. Next. You're a cleric of the god of the oceans? Your god probably uses a trident, but here's a mace. Next. You're a cleric of Hieroneous, a god that onle wears chain mail and is known for exclusively using a battle axe? You can only wear chain mail, but here's a mace. Next. Your a cleric of the god of swords? Here's a mace. Next.
Yes, it would be correct to assume fighters, thieves, etc. from different parts of the world would be different. It's called flavor. I don't know why you think 'bland' is the ideal set up for an interesting campaign.
You keep bringing up the UA like everything before that was 'right'. Gary's campaign was never restriced to the PH rules. Rob's elven paladin was around before the PH was even published. Most of the gaming that occured in EGG's campaign happened before 1980.
Scott

[geneweigel]

Actually, clerics dedicated to a singular god were not unknown in the religions of the ancient world.

At the uppermost tier in the Roman religion you had these guys called flamens. Check it out here: Flamen - Wikipedia.

Everybody is geared around alignment in D&D which is difficult to get around but that doesn't stop polytheism.

Polytheism largely gets ignored for these "Conan vs. Subotai" (My god is better than yours) player arguements about gods.

I swear some cleric players get so far into their deities sphere of control they forget to breathe.



Can a lawful evil character give a tithe to a neutral good deity?

"I don't know our homebrew doesn't use tithes."

You bet your ass he can!

And he will.

[Falconer]

Lord Robilar (LE) pays some homage to Odin (CG? NG?). Regards.

[mistere29]

Scott said:

The idea comes from history. Clerics aren't the teeming masses of the world likely to utter a prayer to whatever god seems most appropriate for a given situation,
Scott

Um actually they were. Even after pagans converted to Christianity they still continued their same traditions. Did you every wonder why we decorate evergreen trees at Christmas. The idea certainly didn't come from the desert.

In some cases they couldn't even be bothered to change their temples. Ok that statue of Venus is now Mary, Apollo is now Christ, etc.

I'm not saying that there aren't priests dedicated to a one God, but does that mean we have to let players be one? Not necessarily. After all demi-human clerics were strictly NPC’s (at least at first). Besides, clerics are adventures first and foremost; they are not going to find a temple to their patron everywhere they go.

It’s just a matter a preference, but I like the way Gary portrayed religion in one of his LA essays. Even though LA is polytheistic (with real world pantheons), he portrays the clergy in LA much like the medieval church, using the God, saints, servants model. I like that better than the butt loads of cults spread everywhere that a lot of D&D campaigns go.

As for UA, again it just preference but I think D&D jumped the shark around that time. Maybe Gary was using that stuff along, but from a practical standpoint UA is where I draw the line.

[mistere29]

Scott said:

Yes, it would be correct to assume fighters, thieves, etc. from different parts of the world would be different. It's called flavor. I don't know why you think 'bland' is the ideal set up for an interesting campaign.

The point I was trying to make is that are DMs rushing to make customiaztion rules every time they add a new feature to thier world, or do they allow the detial to come out during roleplaying?