The Cleric sucks ... or discuss the Cleric

[raniE]

So, this came up in this thread about how many classes work for you, but the discussion deserves its own thread, and that thread deserves to not be dedicated solely to talking about the Cleric. Anyway, it came up that some posters (me included) really don't like the class design for the D&D Cleric. So, I'll present my reasons for not liking clerics, and others can chime in defending the cleric or further bashing the class.

So first off, the Cleric is just odd as a class, especially in OD&D. This game has three classes. Fighting-Men (which got shortened to Fighter pretty much immediately), Magic-Users and Clerics. Now, the Fighting-Man and Magic-User are pretty basic concepts. One is an archetypal hero, a Conan or Percival or Roland or what have you. The magic user is also fairly obvious. Think of Merlin, Gandalf (although there is that whole no swords thing), Circe or even Dr Fate/Strange. These are fairly broad archetypes. But the Cleric is not. The Cleric isn't a broad archetype, it's a finished character concept. "I'm a priest of a certain religion. I get my magic from my god, and that magic is focused on healing and supporting others, and can be taken away if I don't behave according to my religious tenets. I have also sworn an oath not to shed blood so I won't use any edged weapons in combat, relying on blunt force instead, but I do go about heavily armored and with a mace. Also, I'm very focused on hunting down the living dead, especially the vampire Sir Fang." That's a whole character right there. Give that sucker a name and the name of their deity and you're good to go. Going from two broad concepts to one much more specific is very strange.

Secondly, the Cleric instantly makes the game less good for generic fantasy use. Why? Because while most fantasy stories have some sort of fighters and some sort of magic-users, very few that pre-date D&D have anything resembling the Cleric class in them. It basically only exists in the "D&D genre" of fantasy. This is one of the reasons I don't use a lot of OSR stuff even though I generally like the rules and ideas. The omnipresence of the Cleric, even in stuff that's supposed to be dark fantasy or alternate types of fantasy or more generic and basic than modern D&D is kind of suffocating. And yes, I could just remove the Cleric, but all the healing spells, spells to remove curses and unpetrifying people etc are locked into that class. Can't give anyone else healing, nope, it's got to be some sort of Priest class that does that.

I could probably think of more reasons, but that'll do as a start.

 

[ffilz]

Sorry, in the right venue I like clerics...

Or I play RuneQuest in Glorantha where all PCs are effectively clerics... OK, there are two aspirational roles, religious warrior and religious priest with the possibility of gaining both roles... (I play 1st edition RQ, so no Sorcery). Oh, there's also Shaman, but they're really just yet another version of cleric... :-)

Cold Iron borrowed from RQ so it has cleric cults with different spell lists depending on associations (comparable to runes). I really like this and one of my campaigns was labeled "cleric world" by some because of the popularity of clerics and the number of different playable cults.

I also am exploring Bushido where there are magic users (Shugenja) and priests (Gakusho) which seems to fit the source material reasonably.

I have played or ran games like TFT and Fantasy Hero that didn't have an explicit cleric. I dunno, they actually don't work as well for me. I guess I like divine magic.

 

[Vidgrip]

I agree on every point of the OP. While one could cite one or two "fighting clergymen" from medieval history, those have no connection with either healing or repulsing undead. The cleric class as it exists in D&D and all its derivatives comes from nowhere else but the little brown booklets of OD&D. Sadly, many games following OD&D, which had no logical reason to group those functions together in the same way, chose to do so anyway.

I could, of course, make the argument that clerics have served that game, and hence the hobby, very well for many years. Except that in my experience, few people want to play one, but feel they have to since D&D requires healing magic. Only one class has that in sufficient abundance (at least in the editions I play). Worst of all, that healing is tied to divine magic which drives the D&D setting to require active gods. That is a pretty big setting assumption that is not typical of pre-D&D fantasy literature.

One reason I really like Fantasy AGE is that it sets healing magic as just another school of magic that a wizard can know. Any character might be a clergyman, including a wizard with healing magic or a knight in shining armor. Cleric is still possible as a role, but not required as a class.

 

[K_Peterson]

I haven't liked classes for 30 years, but I still like the cleric. Mainly because a cleric was the first Rpg character I played when I was 10 years old. And there's something still appealing about the class - the role in a party; a kind of semi-leadership position or something.

 

[ffilz]

There are some things I like about Cold Iron in the realms of this discussion. For one thing, there are no class restrictions on weapons and armor. Pretty much all mages use sword and board. Most clerics do to, though some in my campaigns might have used axe or spear, and some might go two handed instead of weapon and shield. Another interesting bit, the magic user spell list contains almost all of the magic necessary to be a "god" for clerics... I never actually utilized that but it's an interesting tidbit. Some of the spells are like 16th level spells and I don't think I ever had higher than 6th level spell casters... Clerics with the right association DO get the best healing spells and at low level, but mages eventually get some healing magic, and it CAN be useful alongside clerical healing. Clerics were popular in Cold Iron, especially my games, because they CAN get some generally useful magic so they can contribute to spell casting in combat beyond just healing. I also allowed them enough fighting skill, and the way their magic works slightly differently makes it quite reasonable for them to wade into melee. Of course some mages would be happy to wade into melee also. Cold Iron also gives the casters enough spell casting oomf that they can continue to cast magic through a combat unlike low level D&D casters who get a few spells and then they're done for.

 

[TristramEvans]

Here is Old Geezer talking about the origins of the Cleric...

Here is how I heard the story from my friend William Crolley, one of Dave Arneson's original players.

Ahem. I was there.

In CHAINMAIL there were wizards that functioned as artillery.

Then there was Dave Arneson's first miniatures/roleplaying campaign. Some players were 'good guys' and some players were 'bad guys' and Dave was the referee.

One of the 'bad guys' wanted to play a Vampire. He was extremely smart and capable, and as he got more and more experience he got tougher and tougher.

This was the early 70s, so the model for 'vampire' was Christopher Lee in Hammer films. No deep folklore shit.

Well, after a time, nobody could touch Sir Fang. Yes, that was his name.

To fix the threatened end of the game they came up with a character that was, at first, a 'vampire hunter'. Peter Cushing in the same films.

As the rough specs were drawn up, comments about the need for healing and for curing disease came up.

Ta da, the "priest" was born. Changed later to 'cleric'.



The bit about edged weapons was from Gary's reading the old stories about Archbishop Turpin, who wielded a mace because he didn't want to shed blood ("who lives by the sword dies by the sword").

 

[Klibbix!]

Speaking from a B/X perspective (or Labyrinth Lord, which I'm more familiar with), the Cleric is a pretty decent class. I also have problems with it thematically, as I would prefer there to be less separation between Divine and Arcane magic regardless, but in my experience people seem to view it as a bit of a bland choice ('oh, we don't have a Cleric? I guess I can play one').

In my ideal version of D&D there would be no division between Divine and Arcane magic, something that's a little more in line with historical perceptions of magic where the Priests were Magicians themselves, or even that magic is merely rituals to annoy God (or spirits or whatever) into doing something for you. There was some discussion about the Magic In History series elsewhere on these boards, in the "something cool you got" thread, and the one book that I read on Necromancy was discussing how the people who were creating, propagating and using "demonic" grimoires were mainly members of the Clergy themselves (as they would have been literate and already immersed in ritual).

So, I suppose what I mean to say is I also find the Cleric kinda superfluous when you already have the Magician or whatever.

 

[TJS]

I think the big setting problems are threefold.

1) It doesn't have clear antecedents in fantasty fiction (as mentioned in the OP).
2) It implied that the gods exists and that they have an active interest in the world.
3) It kind of suggests that the gods work through their clerics.

The last two have odd consequences. A fantasy story in which the gods are actually active agents in the world is an interesting concept, but it's undermined somewhat by the idea that they work through clerics. Wouldn't it be more interesting if the god of war came down and directly empowered Fighters? Why does this kind of polytheistic mythic deity that is an active agent in the world particularly need a priesthood? You don't really need somewhat to interpret your wishes to everybody else if you can just nip down and tell everyone what you want them to do.

So with clerics you kind of get the worst of two worlds. You don't get the cool stuff in regard to actually having gods active in the world, but you get the downsides in lack of ambiguity and rigid belief systems. The high priest really does know what the god want because it gives him powers.

And of course this particular set-up really fucks with anthropoligcal plausibility. So you have to really stretch and distort when you are trying to use real world cultures or history as inspiriation for your setting.

 

[Ossian]

I agree that clerics are a strange class in a literary sense.

I do think it would be interesting to play a party entirely composed of clerics, each tailored to fill a traditional role. Cleric of a god of war as the fighter, one of thievery, one of magic, and one of healing. Hackmaster has something like 15 different types of Clerics with different spells and abilities, so I think it work quite well with that system.

 

[TJS]

That's the other thing. The cleric just tends to proliferate based on different gods. And in the end you kind of have to ask is there a point having a cleric of the god of thieves when you aleady have a "thief" class?

 

[Simlasa]

I never wanted to play a Cleric till I played DCC... then it kind of clicked for me and it's now one of my preferred classes. D&D Clerics felt bland and vague... and were treated by most groups as 'heal bots'.
But now I see them as being more inspired by old stories with cultists and zealots and evil priests.

 

[Klibbix!]

I never wanted to play a Cleric till I played DCC... then it kind of clicked for me and it's now one of my preferred classes. D&D Clerics felt bland and vague... and were treated by most groups as 'heal bots'.
But now I see them as being more inspired by old stories with cultists and zealots and evil priests.

Yeah the DCC take on Clerics is pretty rad.

 

[Jamfke]

If you're looking at it from a real world perspective then a cleric/fighting priest doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not every priestly order in a fantasy setting has to be the same, however, if the setting isn't monotheistic. The way I used to (and still do) handle the priestly class is to see what deities are available in the world they are being played in. If they are the priests of a god of war, then the weapons and armor restrictions are nil. If the deity is a god of protection, most likely the restrictions are nil as well. The turning undead aspect, if used at all, is also often based upon which deity they are following as well.

I recently re-watched the Brother Cadfael series on Netflix a while back, and there were several instances where characters (priests) would have fit the class. Another series was Knightfall which had some other priestly types (not the Crusaders) that picked up weapons against the baddies. There's also the classic Cleric, Friar Tuck from Robin Hood. He might have been a big inspiration for the class back in the day.

That's the other thing. The cleric just tends to proliferate based on different gods. And in the end you kind of have to ask is there a point having a cleric of the god of thieves when you aleady have a "thief" class?

In this case, the priests could be multi or dual classed Thief-Priests. "Bless you my child. The lord giveth and he taketh away..."

 

[Voros]

Clerics rock

/thread

 

[raniE]

Clerics rock

/thread

 

[raniE]

If you're looking at it from a real world perspective then a cleric/fighting priest doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not every priestly order in a fantasy setting has to be the same, however, if the setting isn't monotheistic. The way I used to (and still do) handle the priestly class is to see what deities are available in the world they are being played in. If they are the priests of a god of war, then the weapons and armor restrictions are nil. If the deity is a god of protection, most likely the restrictions are nil as well. The turning undead aspect, if used at all, is also often based upon which deity they are following as well.

I recently re-watched the Brother Cadfael series on Netflix a while back, and there were several instances where characters (priests) would have fit the class. Another series was Knightfall which had some other priestly types (not the Crusaders) that picked up weapons against the baddies. There's also the classic Cleric, Friar Tuck from Robin Hood. He might have been a big inspiration for the class back in the day.


In this case, the priests could be multi or dual classed Thief-Priests. "Bless you my child. The lord giveth and he taketh away..."

Yeah, but a priest picking up a weapon and fighting can just be a Fighter. As for looking at the available deities, the problem I find there is the one mentioned above that it sort of locks the metaphysics into place. It requires gods that are active in the world, mainly through having agents that they either perform miracles through or who they give a bit of their divine power to. And most of the time, I would prefer to not have that in there. Sometimes, sure. But not as a standard.

It's also interesting that most of the other fantasy games that came out early in the hobbies history did not have anything like the Cleric. Tunnels & Trolls had the Warrior Wizard, which fits the "both magic and combat" bit, but is otherwise totally unlike the Cleric, and there is no difference between then kind of magic they do and what regular wizards do. In The Fantasy Trip there's a skill for being a priest, but that just covers stuff like knowledge about the religion, knowing the rituals, running a temple etc. In RuneQuest the gods are more active and there's a lot more of that kind of thing going on, but in Magic World and the Swedish Drakar och Demoner there's none of that. Yet despite this, people often feel a need to put in a priest type who has special magic and is focused on healing in their own games now. D&D exerts a lot of influence

Oh, and none of this is about whether the Cleric is a good class in any particular iteration of D&D. That's a separate issue, and usually they're quite good.

 

[TristramEvans]

While I have other issues with The Cleric, which I'll probably get into when I have more time after homework, one of the big things for me was that it was a dilution of the concept of Class defining not what you do so much as who you are - as in , it conflated Class with profession, an issue that continued as more Classes proliferated the game.

My ideal version of D&D would, as I mentioned in the ther thread, have two classes - Fighter or Magic User, along with the ability to Dual-Class, meaning you can advance a evel in one or the other. So at 20th level, you could be a very skilled 20th level Fighter, a very powerful 20th level Magic User, or a versatile 10th level fighter/10th level magic user.

The rest of your skills and abilities I'd leave to, well, a skill system.

And maybe have actual professions modelled like "Kits" in AD&D 2nd edition - a template with a pre-picked bundle of Proficiencies.

 

[TristramEvans]

On the other hand, sometimes I like working on a massive, improbable, Fantasy Heartbreaker with a 1000 Classes - all based on Pop Culture Archetypes - Cowboy, Ninja, Knight, Samurai, Cop, Gangster, Gladiator, Barbarian, Amazon, Viking, etc.

 

[Simon Hogwood]

On the other hand, sometimes I like working on a massive, improbable, Fantasy Heartbreaker with a 1000 Classes - all based on Pop Culture Archetypes - Cowboy, Ninja, Knight, Samurai, Cop, Gangster, Gladiator, Barbarian, Amazon, Viking, etc.

I sometimes feel like it would be fun to take lifepaths, old-school level titles, and every possible multiclassing combination and mix them all up into an entire alternate OSR advancement system.

Then I usually go mentally lie down until the feeling passes.

 

[Panzerkraken]

I think the take that Hackmaster 5th edition presents is interesting, in that there's about three times as many Cleric classes as there are non-cleric classes. They include things like Monks, Druids, and a couple weird concepts as well. I think (without looking) that they're up to seven sourcebooks for clerics without a single sourcebook for Fighters.

 

[Voros]

I'd disagree there is no archtype for Clerics, D&D is a huge fantasy mashup and the saints one finds throughout medieval myths and books like The Golden Legend are capable of all kinds of miracles and magical acts in folk tales and other sources: Joan of Arc and St. Francis being probably the most famous. Perhaps only a few are warrior-priests but they are there.

In S&S we have the classic 'Lean Times in Lankhmar' that portrays the importance of religion and priests in the definitive S&S setting although Leiber's typically ironic and witty story treats the manifestation of the divine with ambiguity.

Ever since The Complete Priest in 2e the bog standard Cleric need not be the default anymore than the snoozy 'Magic User' of 1e unless the GM and player prefer it.

 

[VisionStorm]

Pretty much agree with every criticism so far about Clerics as a class concept, so don't have much to add except my "Likes". The class is not really based on any historical or mythological antecedent, doesn't match historical or fantasy conceptions of how "magic" was believed to be like until D&D came along (most mystical traditions IRL that purport to use "magic" have a spiritual component and involve invoking gods and/or spirits), is a mish mash of character roles and abilities that fit an overly specific concept rather than a broad role or archetype, etc.

I'm not against the idea of "Clerics" or priests in an RPG, but I don't like the way they're portrayed in D&D and derivative works, and think that it's limiting and it sort of pigeonholes all "priestly" characters into the same role or function, even if it doesn't match it's religious devotion. As already mentioned, why would a "priest" dedicated to a god of war be some sort of undead banishing healer with blunt weapons, as opposed to a full blown warrior? Priesthood is more a social role or RP element, than a proper adventuring occupation with a predefined narrow set of abilities or focus.

 

[Silverlion]

For me, I like the cleric.

Not just as a healer, but as a fighter, who gets specialized spells for a sacrifice--I see them primarily as a stand-in for clergy who DO talk to potential divinities--the spells may be gifted by uplifted mortals (boddhivista), gods, or just empowered by the person's own faith and belief. However, the problem is the kludge of assuming all clerics are D&D clerics.

Example: holy men of tribal cultures, Taoist Priests, and the like, could be examples of the supernaturally empowered person who also can fight, even the D&D Monk class fits in somewhat to this aesthetic, as many fighting schools of Kung Fu were IIRC tied to Buddhist temples at some moments in time. Note I may need to do more research on the latter. Examples from literature abound from the power of Gawain and Galahad (Knights who had blessings beyond normal straight fight stuff.), Aragorn (yes, he counts as a Ranger in D&D, no ranger, no paladins in early D&D Though it is mentioned that he as a King had the ability to heal. (Very Arthurian and essentially a Paladin or Cleric stand-in he was a member of the "Rangers" but also heir to a throne, which of course ties to the whole Divine right of Kings myths that found its way into rondels and of course Tolkiens works)

In Basic D&D we didn't have Paladins at first (when I started playing) but we had Clerics, who were limited only by weapons that drew blood. This is a darn silly limitation since Turpin wielded a sword CALLED Almace, but it was still a darn sword!

As for Undead turning, aka holding back Sir Fang, that actually ties to Dracula's mythos. In the book, they use Catholic holy wafers laid in coffins to stop him from resting (blessed for sacrament) they also use crucifixes to repel him. So it's OLDER than clerics in D&D and Hammer's interpretation, though there are reasons other games allow anyone of faith to repel vampires.
In addition to this, it is known that blessed/consecrated grounds protected by faith in Christian (and other) folklores sometimes keep the ill-favored (ie usually evil or cursed from approaching. )

Also, many of the magics used by Clerics beyond the game "buff/debuff" sort were gifts many saints, and Christ was said to have (as well as other holy sorts in the East like the bhoddivistas because they were higher on the karmic scale. So to speak. )

For me, a cleric could be a stand-in for any character empowered by following their faith (and taboos if need be added.) While wizards are driven by knowledge, clerics are empowered by belief instead. Which is a fine, fine, line.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'd disagree there is no archtype for Clerics, D&D is a huge fantasy mashup and the saints one finds throughout medieval myths and books like The Golden Legend are capable of all kinds of miracles and magical acts in folk tales and other sources: Joan of Arc and St. Francis being probably the most famous. Perhaps only a few are warrior-priests but they are there.

I think the problem isn't that there are no archetypes for Clerics, but rather the opposite - it tries to represent a dozen or so completely different archetypes.

It's Friar Tuck, and Van Helsing, and the Knights Templar, and Brother Cadfael, and Solomon Kane, and Galadriel and Vampire Hunter D and the Dalai Lama all mashed into one.

 

[Klibbix!]

For me, I like the cleric.

Not just as a healer, but as a fighter, who gets specialized spells for a sacrifice--I see them primarily as a stand-in for clergy who DO talk to potential divinities--the spells may be gifted by uplifted mortals (boddhivista), gods, or just empowered by the person's own faith and belief. However, the problem is the kludge of assuming all clerics are D&D clerics.

Example: holy men of tribal cultures, Taoist Priests, and the like, could be examples of the supernaturally empowered person who also can fight, even the D&D Monk class fits in somewhat to this aesthetic, as many fighting schools of Kung Fu were IIRC tied to Buddhist temples at some moments in time. Note I may need to do more research on the latter. Examples from literature abound from the power of Gawain and Galahad (Knights who had blessings beyond normal straight fight stuff.), Aragorn (yes, he counts as a Ranger in D&D, no ranger, no paladins in early D&D Though it is mentioned that he as a King had the ability to heal. (Very Arthurian and essentially a Paladin or Cleric stand-in he was a member of the "Rangers" but also heir to a throne, which of course ties to the whole Divine right of Kings myths that found its way into rondels and of course Tolkiens works)

In Basic D&D we didn't have Paladins at first (when I started playing) but we had Clerics, who were limited only by weapons that drew blood. This is a darn silly limitation since Turpin wielded a sword CALLED Almace, but it was still a darn sword!

As for Undead turning, aka holding back Sir Fang, that actually ties to Dracula's mythos. In the book, they use Catholic holy wafers laid in coffins to stop him from resting (blessed for sacrament) they also use crucifixes to repel him. So it's OLDER than clerics in D&D and Hammer's interpretation, though there are reasons other games allow anyone of faith to repel vampires.
In addition to this, it is known that blessed/consecrated grounds protected by faith in Christian (and other) folklores sometimes keep the ill-favored (ie usually evil or cursed from approaching. )

Also, many of the magics used by Clerics beyond the game "buff/debuff" sort were gifts many saints, and Christ was said to have (as well as other holy sorts in the East like the bhoddivistas because they were higher on the karmic scale. So to speak. )

For me, a cleric could be a stand-in for any character empowered by following their faith (and taboos if need be added.) While wizards are driven by knowledge, clerics are empowered by belief instead. Which is a fine, fine, line.

I actually do quite like the idea of Clerics being specifically Holy Warriors rather than itinerant Priests. In basic or other editions of D&D where there are no Paladins it makes a lot more sense I suppose.

Makes me think of another (non-magical) example of a religious fighter: Liam Neeson's character in Gangs of New York.

 

[raniE]

A religious fighter could just be a fighter though. It’s not as if there’s an atheism requirement for fighters. If I wanted to create a member of a monastic military order, I could make a fighter. Same if I want a priest with military training or just a pious soldier. There’s no reason to have a different class for that.

 

[Klibbix!]

A religious fighter could just be a fighter though. It’s not as if there’s an atheism requirement for fighters. If I wanted to create a member of a monastic military order, I could make a fighter. Same if I want a priest with military training or just a pious soldier. There’s no reason to have a different class for that.

It's all true, but I think you run into that issue with class based systems, and not just with Clerics.

Do classes require both mechanical and thematic elements? You could call a fighter whatever you want but casting spells and turning undead aren't in the class description, so if another class has these abilities then you need some thematic justification, even if its tenuous, or it doesn't make sense.

 

[Trippy]

The Cleric is a very interesting Class in D&D, and has a lot of interesting features and concepts. There is plenty for a motivated player to find worth playing, especially if they want to explore some sort of religious philosophy with it.

However, it isn’t a core class in the way the Fighter, Rogue and Wizard are.

If I had a chance to reverse time and start from scratch, I’d have added the Ranger as the fourth core Class, and would have actually incorporated the ‘Healer’ aspect of the Cleric into its design. That is, the Ranger would be all about party survival and leadership - they’d be pretty tough, but not as specialized as the Fighter in combat situations, but they’d have healing ability as well as guidance skills to aid the party. So, in that respect, they would take the broader role of a Cleric in a typical party.

 

[raniE]

It's all true, but I think you run into that issue with class based systems, and not just with Clerics.

Do classes require both mechanical and thematic elements? You could call a fighter whatever you want but casting spells and turning undead aren't in the class description, so if another class has these abilities then you need some thematic justification, even if its tenuous, or it doesn't make sense.

Right, but why would turning undead and casting spells necessarily be a part of the concept for a religious warrior character? Anyone could use wolfsbane, silver weapons and holy water in D&D to harm various creatures. If vampires are afraid of Garlic and crosses, there's no need to make the crosses a class ability while the garlic is usable by anyone. And healing magic could just be a part of the regular Magic-user spell list. You want a character that casts spells granted by a divine patron? Ok, change the spell-book to a prayer-book, that is still a Magic-user.

 

[Voros]

I think the problem isn't that there are no archetypes for Clerics, but rather the opposite - it tries to represent a dozen or so completely different archetypes.

It's Friar Tuck, and Van Helsing, and the Knights Templar, and Brother Cadfael, and Solomon Kane, and Galadriel and Vampire Hunter D and the Dalai Lama all mashed into one.

A.K.A. D&D.

 

[Klibbix!]

Right, but why would turning undead and casting spells necessarily be a part of the concept for a religious warrior character? Anyone could use wolfsbane, silver weapons and holy water in D&D to harm various creatures. If vampires are afraid of Garlic and crosses, there's no need to make the crosses a class ability while the garlic is usable by anyone. And healing magic could just be a part of the regular Magic-user spell list. You want a character that casts spells granted by a divine patron? Ok, change the spell-book to a prayer-book, that is still a Magic-user.

For sure, i don't disagree, i'd love to just add all the cleric and magic user spells to one list, call the class, "the magus" or something similar and give Turn Undead to the Paladin or to anyone possessing the appropriate holy symbol.

I just meant more that if you're using Clerics, and not just reskinning fighters as religious fighters, then there has to be some sort of thematic distinction between the two classes that possess different abilities. A fighter who is simply religious wont have the same abilities as a Cleric, so there has to be some reason why.

In any case, I'm not sure I'm making sense anymore.

 

[VisionStorm]

Part of the problem with clerics is that even to the degree that you’re able to find historical counterparts that kinda, sorta (but not entirely) match the depiction of “clerics” in D&D, like the Knights Templar, Joan of Arc or even to a certain extent specific types of Buddhist monks, those are very specific depictions of “priests” or holy warriors that are not by any means universal or pervasive across different religions or cultures. Yet they are treated in D&D as the default depiction of “priests”. Not robe wearing priests, but armor wearing quasi-religious warriors, yet full blown casters at the same time (as the class evolved throughout the editions at least). Which seriously skews the presentation of “priests” in D&D.

 

[TristramEvans]

I think, like everything in D&D, what parts of D&D end up modelling best...is D&D. It essentially became it's own genre of fantasy.

 

[TJS]

The weird thing about the cleric is you have a class that seems most suited for modelling something like Catholic Saints and then it gets dumped on top of Sword and Sorcery polytheism.

 

[ffilz]

The weird thing about the cleric is you have a class that seems most suited for modelling something like Catholic Saints and then it gets dumped on top of Sword and Sorcery polytheism.

Yea, it is weird. From the way The First Fantasy Campaign reads, I don't think Blackmoor at least originally had polytheism, so I think in the context of that campaign the cleric made sense. The translation of it to D&D with more Sword and Sorcery feel definitely doesn't seem to fit.

But so much of D&D doesn't quite fit any one genre, so in the end, I definitely see D&D as its own genre and enjoy it as such. But I also like other depictions, RuneQuest/Glorantha in particular. I also decided to back off from too deep a reflection on how divine power actually worked in the campaign setting because there are too many implications of divine power having any degree of reality as expressed in any game system that has divine power. Cults of Prax is about as far as I want to go towards trying to place divine power into the world. And that's actually part of why I reject the newer cultural anthropologist view of Glorantha. I'll stick with the implied setting of the RQ1/2 rules and Cults of Prax.

 

[TJS]

The way clerics basically work in Symbaroum is the most sensical D&D style take that I've seen.

Clerical magic (Theurgy) is basically the magical tradition of a specific monotheistic church. They believe that it is powered by their faith, but it's far from clear that is the in setting reality of their power.

That's probably the approach I would take if modern D&D was actually capable of sustaining any kind of setting at all.

 

[Stevethulhu]

Here's a thing. Indont remember wizards, sorcerers, warlocks and so on being so finely graded and separate in ability. And I can't off the top of my head think of any literary wizards who went into battle chucking fireballs and bolts of lightning at their enemies.

At least not before D&D.

Summoning demons and putting curses on people were more the MO of the magical classes, as I remember it.

Of course, there's a really good ancestor of the Cleric. In service to a higher power. Uses magic, including healing and summoning, represents his god's will and name in the mortal realm while smiting his foes.

Elric, apart from using a sword, fits the Cleric archetype in most ways.

 

[raniE]

Here's a thing. Indont remember wizards, sorcerers, warlocks and so on being so finely graded and separate in ability. And I can't off the top of my head think of any literary wizards who went into battle chucking fireballs and bolts of lightning at their enemies.

At least not before D&D.

Summoning demons and putting curses on people were more the MO of the magical classes, as I remember it.

Sometimes, sure. Other times, Gandalf could kill goblins with a flash of fire, while Xaltotun the sorcerer could paralyze men, cause avalanches and floods, Merlin could shapeshift himself and a young Arthur into various animals etc.

 

[Silverlion]

Wizard of Earthsea had a variety of spellcasters/spells, Dying Earth in my collection has a wizard kill an entire army with a form of Excellent Prismatic Spray (IIRC), Dr. Strange, and other comic book super-wizards cast such spells. I'm trying to keep the list of works existing before D&D. But I'm tired, I'll look for a bigger list later today.

 

[TJS]

Wizard of Earthsea had a variety of spellcasters/spells, Dying Earth in my collection has a wizard kill an entire army with a form of Excellent Prismatic Spray (IIRC), Dr. Strange, and other comic book super-wizards cast such spells. I'm trying to keep the list of works existing before D&D. But I'm tired, I'll look for a bigger list later today.

Interestingly, I just reread A Wizard of Earthsea, and while nothing like a Fireball is ever cast, at one point when the young wizards are preparing a competition a fireball spell is mentioned.