|
Post by Scott on Jan 27, 2005 19:58:45 GMT -5
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
Enchanter
Knight Bachelor
AD&D, Middle-earth, Star Trek TOS
Posts: 330
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 28, 2005 3:44:46 GMT -5
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
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Jan 28, 2005 11:41:05 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 28, 2005 18:07:21 GMT -5
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
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Jan 29, 2005 12:20:49 GMT -5
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..." ^__^
|
|
|
Post by Merkholz on Jan 31, 2005 7:07:31 GMT -5
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
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 31, 2005 7:47:57 GMT -5
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
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Jan 31, 2005 13:34:12 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Jan 31, 2005 14:20:56 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Jan 31, 2005 14:24:52 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jan 31, 2005 19:48:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Jan 31, 2005 19:57:35 GMT -5
Here it is (where the swords came up) and it does apply to this conversation, I suppose:
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Jan 31, 2005 23:16:52 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 1, 2005 0:46:46 GMT -5
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
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Feb 1, 2005 10:34:29 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 1, 2005 18:25:07 GMT -5
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. 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
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Feb 1, 2005 18:47:07 GMT -5
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
Enchanter
Knight Bachelor
AD&D, Middle-earth, Star Trek TOS
Posts: 330
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 1, 2005 20:01:32 GMT -5
Lord Robilar (LE) pays some homage to Odin (CG? NG?). Regards.
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Feb 2, 2005 12:07:29 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Feb 2, 2005 12:19:29 GMT -5
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?
|
|