RPGCentric » Blog Archive » Clerics have lost their faith in D&D

Clerics have lost their faith in D&D

I’ve decided to create another post for this month’s Blog Carnival.

When I started playing 3E, one of the things that immediately stuck out in my mind was the fact that clerics did not have to pick a god to worship. Instead, they were given the option of simply following a moral path or to be devoted to a specific ideal instead. The metagamer in me understands this reasoning because it can make the game flow smoother because it removes any chance of the cleric going against the wishes of their god. But the roleplayer in me always cried foul. I mean, we’re talking about a cleric here; an ordained member of the clergy. A person who has given their body and soul over to the god they have chosen to worship in order to bring themselves, and the people around them, closer to said god. So I did a little research and found an interesting trend. As the editions have progressed, the cleric seems to have lost its faith.

In 1E (AD&D), here’s how the PHB defines what a cleric should be.

The cleric is dedicated to a deity, or deities, and at the same time a skilled combatant at arms. (AD&D PHB, page 20, para 3, line 4)

Clerical spells, including the druidic, are bestowed by the gods, so that the cleric need but pray for a few hours and the desired verbal and somatic spell components will be placed properly in his or her mind. (AD&D PHB, page 40, para 4, line 1)

So in 1E, you had to pick a god lest you be without spells. And no one wanted that. 2E continued this line of thinking when it came to clerics.

The cleric receives his spells as insight directly from his deity (the deity does not need to make a personal appearance to grant the spells the cleric prays for) as a sign of and reward or his faith, so he must take care not to abuse his power lest it be taken away as punishment. (2E PHB, page 33, para 3)

So, again, clerics must choose a god to worship. But a funny thing happened in 3E.

Choose a deity for your cleric. …You may also choose for your cleric to have no deity. (3/3.5E PHB, page 32, para 6)

Instead, they meditate or pray for their spells, receiving them through their own strength of faith or as divine inspiration. (3/3.5E PHB, page 32, para 5, line 2)

So in 3E, it was decided that clerics no longer had to choose a god but, instead, could just rely on their inner strength and devotion to their cause. This trend continued in 4E.

All clerics choose a specific faith to which they devote themselves. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity—for example, Moradin, Pelor, or Erathis. Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of deities or even philosophies. (4E PHB, page 61, para 5)

So if you look at the progression of D&D throughout the years, from edition to edition, clerics have moved away from having to rely on gods to being able to rely on themselves alone. The question is why? I have a couple of theories on the matter.

Theory 1: Hasbro, or just the designers of 3E, didn’t want to embroil themselves in another “Christian Controversy.”

Throughout the 1980′s D&D was put through the wringer with everyone and their brother making claims that D&D was satanic and contained “real spells.” So, to either appease these people or to simply leave themselves an out, it was decided that the option to not choose a god be put in. This would, hopefully, lessen the impact on people who were extremely faithful and felt off-put in being forced to “worship” a god other than their own, even in a fantasy setting.

Theory 2: Religion has become less important to society at large so it was decided to make it less important in the game as well.

Our society has shifted away from traditional religious teachings lately. This is not a judgment at all, just an observation. Because of this, the designers possibly wanted to reflect this in-game, thereby allowing someone who was uncomfortable with being forced to choose a god play the cleric they wanted without having to do so.

Theory 3: For purely metagame purposes.

It makes cleric character creation, initial and long-term, faster and less limiting to not have to choose a god. You simply have more choices available to you.

Honestly, I don’t know which one, if any, of the theories are correct. If I had to guess, given the nature of 3E and 4E, I’d probably go with theory number three.

What I do know is that the gods are less important to clerics in newer editions than they were in older editions and, truthfully, that saddens me. I’ve always seen, and played, the cleric as a champion of their faith; one who was willing to stand up for their beliefs in the face of inevitable turmoil. A strong character, inside and out, who was eternally devoted to the god they believed in. But that’s just me.

So what do you think? Why do you think that choosing a god is no longer important to clerics in D&D?

Share With Others:

Posted in: 3.5, 3E, 4E, Advice, RPG

13 Responses to “Clerics have lost their faith in D&D”

Bonemaster November 10th, 2008 at 2:47 PM

While, Theory 1 and 3 are the most likely. There are examples of religions without a formal deity in the real world and the 3.x ed rules simply tried to make those types of religions an option.

I don’t think Theory 2 is a factor at all.

Bonemaster´s last blog post..Creating an RPG Wiki (or things to consider before you start)

Tauaru November 10th, 2008 at 3:42 PM

I don’t really think that a Cleric needs to be without a god. The rules just allow it. I ran an awesome cleric who’s ‘god’ was the ‘summoned community’ meaning everything. He was Chaotic Neutral but was not at all about luck or trickery. Olidammara was not the god for him so I made one up. I have always felt that it being unecessary to pick a god meant that one was able to make up a more personalized cleric. It also opened up atheist clerics which is kind of interesting as well. I have a buddy who is playing a cleric of Wee Jas and enjoying it greatly. I think that theory 3 is primary, and it worked. I love playing clerics now, I couldn’t stand the in 1st or 2nd.

jonathan November 10th, 2008 at 3:48 PM

I’ve also been collecting old Dragon articles that address this very issue (the erosion of clerical rites and devotions), I was planning on making it my contribution to this month’s carnival. When i do.. i’ll make sure I link back here as well.

As to the post… Excellent summary! I think the metagame issue (theory #3) is most likely the reason. However, I still firmly believe that the DM should make a player come up with the ethos for their cleric prior to the beginning of play and use it as a tool for better roleplaying. The more a player adheres to their cleric’s ethos the better; whether that be a god’s religion, a philosophy or a godless religion, like Toaism, doesn’t matter. The point of religion, from a game design point of view, is to encourage roleplaying, tension, and conflict (resolution). Otherwise, the cleric might as well be a sorcerer or wizard who heals people. Am I right?

jonathan´s last blog post..THE CRS’TCHEN Debacle…

reveal November 10th, 2008 at 4:23 PM

@Bonemaster – I see your point but the only religions I know of through history that have had “holy warriors” who actually fought for their religion all have gods of some sort.

@Tauaru – If a player doesn’t want to choose a god from the book, I’m all for them making up one for themselves.

@jonathan – Oops! Didn’t mean to swipe your idea. Considering in 4E, wizards can heal people if they take the right feat, that’s not far off.

Wyatt November 10th, 2008 at 7:47 PM

I think it’s more #3 than anything else. Fluff choices like your deity are being made more and more into fluff, while before they had a tangible effect. Look at the 3e Paladin, for example. If he lost his faith, he also became a Fighter without bonus feats until he regained it. In 4e, his spells turn black and whispy (…hell they don’t even have to, that’s a DMG suggestion) and his church might get butthurt if the DM cares enough to persecute him for it – but none of his character design choices are really affected. I don’t think it really has anything to do with ideology or society, just the ease of the game.

Wyatt´s last blog post..Religion In Eden (RPG Blog Carnival)

Seumas November 10th, 2008 at 8:10 PM

Thanks for an insightful post. I think #1 is not really a factor. The Christian opposition to D&D has long died down, except for some fringe elements. I think #3 is somewhat a factor – that is it makes the game more generic and adaptable, and this seems to be a tendency.

However, I do think #2 is quite accurate, though I would frame it differently – society tends more towards pluralism, relativism, and a post-modern understanding of faith. Thus, note how the editions shift from spells being granted by divine beings as a reward for faith, to being expressions of the character’s inner faith/devotion. That practically makes the divinity irrelevant to the character’s spellcasting. In fact, heretics and believers in non-existent gods could equally receive spells under such a system. Not that that is a problem, but it does reflect a shift in thinking, that is not just about metagaming theory.

Dead Orcs November 11th, 2008 at 12:10 PM

I doubt that reason #1 or #2 has anything to do with it. I suspect it’s close to reason #3. I actually think that the “vague” faith option is more available now, as it simplifies the task for game designers. When you are forced to choose a specific deity, the designer is then required to come up with game rules that support that deity (either in the form of “crunch” or “fluff”) for clerics to fight. To save money on game-design budgets, you simply have a writer “fluff-out” religion, and provide rules for a general case scenario, instead.

I think what you’ll see more of in the future, is deity information going purely to the realm of “fluff”, while the “crunch” is applied to ALL clerics regardless of faith.

A bit of a rambling post, hope that made sense

Scott November 13th, 2008 at 2:13 AM

It’s not such a direct path as all that, though. In the original D&D, clerics were simply a “midway” class between the other two, having some of the characteristics of the fighter and some of the wizard. There was no overt mention of gods or religion until one of the supplements (I want to say #4). Originally, clerics simply had spells as class functions, and they memorized them by studying spell books, like wizards did.

Also, 1e had the option of following a number of gods rather than a single specific one, and 2e introduced the idea of following a force or philosophy in the Complete Priest’s Handbook — that idea was only carried over into core 3e. (2e also featured various variants, like the Dark Sun clerics, who gained power from an element.)

It’s possible that the cleric is indeed intentionally being revised to minimize faith-related elements, but it’s not nearly as clear-cut as this article suggests.

Scott´s last blog post..Hanging in the Balance

The Recursion King November 15th, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Clerics without a god would not be allowed in my campaign.

If you want to do magic with a deity, you\’re a mage and not a cleric- plain and simple. Clerics are militant spreaders of their faith; think crusaders with the ability to perform miracles. \’nuff said.

The Recursion King´s last blog post..Banning magic weapons and armour

ROUNDUP - RPG Bloggers Network Carnival - Religion - The Dice Bag | The Dice Bag December 2nd, 2008 at 4:56 AM

[...] at RPGCentric has taken a look at how Clerics have changed through the various versions of [...]

Arimmus January 6th, 2009 at 6:52 AM

Well, I do believe that 3.x and 4.x suck anyways purely on the basis of roleplaying. In 2.x you could create your own spells, other things, The Clerics seem to be more of a band aid in 3.x and 4.x they are THE Band aid. The newer versions of D&D remove the role playing completely. Hell I would go as fr as to say that 4.x is WoW.

oldNewTimer January 9th, 2009 at 3:25 PM

For me, the only importance in having clerics worship deities depends upon two factors: 1. Whether deities and demigods take part in the world the DM has crafted. That is to say, whether or not their existence has any relevance on the campaign. 2. Whether your players are interested in role playing such devotion. This impacts even those classes where faith isn’t a core component. Even a rogue may pay tribute to some deity, no?

If there is a pantheon of gods, then characters should be able to draw upon them all, not just one of twelve. And while there may certainly be entities that hold one of those higher than the rest, they can still “practice” the teachings of them all.

2¢

oldNewTimer January 9th, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Arimmus,

I’m not really sure what you’re saying regarding clerics in 4e. Every class has healing surges, every class can use a second wind. While clerics certainly remain healers, their powers seem more focused on smiting their foes. (Heck, Warlords can trigger healing surges, are they just Band-Aids too?)

I keep hearing people complain that 4e removed the role-playing. HOW? I haven’t played a session yet with any less role-playing than any other version of D&D I’ve played. The only similarities I find with “WoW” is that combat becomes more about collective group strategy where every class can contribute.

You lament not being able to create your own spells… Well, if you were a player at my table you wouldn’t have been creating your own spells to begin with, unless you were working with me. That hasn’t changed under 4e. You’re still not doing anything without your DMs blessing.

The core rules are just a guide that the DM uses, they’re not set in stone.