Goodman Games

blizack wrote:This is one of the things I like least about the way the class is usually played... but hey, that's just me.

Me too. I get that there are players who dig that sort of thing. But it gets old after a while, IME.

mshensley wrote: What priest would take part in tomb robbing for example?

One dedicated to a 'rival' god, if history is to be believed.

geordie racer wrote:

mshensley wrote: What priest would take part in tomb robbing for example?

One dedicated to a 'rival' god, if history is to be believed.

Like recovering a relic for his church, or destroying one of the enemies. But people did worse things for their religion, than tomb robbing. And the cleric is a templar-like class, with decent martial abilities, not a priest. The idea of being a chosen warrior of it's god, like GnomeBoy said, is one that would fit the class better.

mshensley wrote:What priest would take part in tomb robbing for example? IMO, the cleric and the paladin were the driving force behind pushing D&D from its roots of being a game about a band of roguish cutthroats to being a game of fantasy superheroes that spend their day rescuing villages from the Forces of Evil.

The cleric, who appeared in the first copy of D&D, is a driving force leading D&D away from its roots. Where were these roots before the D&D box set? Appendix N? Sure, there are a good collection of roguish types in Appendix N but there's also a good collection of heroic fantasy where do-gooders save the day for little reward. I fail to understand how anyone could say doing heroic deeds is outside the "roots of D&D".

Far more people, I'm sure, have been lured into playing D&D, since the beginning of D&D, by being told they could "be a knight on a quest to rescue the fair princess" than have been told they could create their own Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories. And I'm sure a higher percentage of D&D players have engaged in some form of princess rescuing than have read any of Lieber's F&GM tales.

Ravenheart87 wrote:

geordie racer wrote:

mshensley wrote: What priest would take part in tomb robbing for example?

One dedicated to a 'rival' god, if history is to be believed.

Like recovering a relic for his church, or destroying one of the enemies. But people did worse things for their religion, than tomb robbing. And the cleric is a templar-like class, with decent martial abilities, not a priest. The idea of being a chosen warrior of it's god, like GnomeBoy said, is one that would fit the class better.

Would? What do you mean would fit better? That is the image of the class. At least it has always been my view of the class. Clerics are modeled after the crusaders heading off to liberate the holy land. If they don't qualify as roguish cutthroats (as mshensley put it) I don't know what a cutthroat is.

I've always assumed the "Cleric" were the "special forces" troops for an underlying religious institution "chosen by their deity" to defend the faith. 2nd Ed D&D had the "priest" class for the folks who stay in the village and run the local temple. If anything, 2nd Ed paid a lot more attention to making clerics makes sense. The cleric spells were divided into spheres and no every deity granted access to every sphere removing the silliness that allowed clerics of the fire god to cast create water spells.

jmucchiello wrote:Sure, there are a good collection of roguish types in Appendix N but there's also a good collection of heroic fantasy where do-gooders save the day for little reward. I fail to understand how anyone could say doing heroic deeds is outside the "roots of D&D".

That's the dilemma of trying to make a game that is supposed to be based on the Appendix N stuff. The feel of Conan is not that of LotR which is not that of Hammer Dracula movies which is not that of Cthulhu. That's the unfocused mashup of stuff that is D&D. It's probably both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

geordie racer wrote:

mshensley wrote: What priest would take part in tomb robbing for example?

One dedicated to a 'rival' god, if history is to be believed.

This would depend on your campaign setting and if it is polytheistic or monotheistic.

In a polytheistic world there was no such thing as a monotheist and there really were no 'opposed Gawds'... mainly becuase the real world doesn't have an alignment system.

Each god was associated with real world things and paid homage to in that area. Even a priestess of Apollo would say a prayer to Poseidon before going on a voyage... just like everyone else.

Is the Gawd of Death bad? Well... he's not as cheery as the Gawd of Boooze, but he serves a vital purpose in shepherding the dead to the afterlife. Death isn't evil... its just a big inevitable part of life.

People talking about 'rival' gods and crusaders are talking about a Monotheistic world - 'we' (whoever 'we' are) are monotheistic, and 'they' (whoever 'they' are - the people who are not 'we' I guess) are monotheistic.

In our history, there were periods where monotheistic cultures coexisted with polytheistic ones. If you only look at where such cultures were in direct contact they usally weren't very long periods. In those cases any other cultures 'one Gawd' or 'many Gawds' would all be fair game as 'rival Gawds.'

Famous Last Words: We don't worship this squid-headed-gawd... lets see what riches lie within its sunken temple!

mshensley wrote:

jmucchiello wrote:Sure, there are a good collection of roguish types in Appendix N but there's also a good collection of heroic fantasy where do-gooders save the day for little reward. I fail to understand how anyone could say doing heroic deeds is outside the "roots of D&D".

That's the dilemma of trying to make a game that is supposed to be based on the Appendix N stuff. The feel of Conan is not that of LotR which is not that of Hammer Dracula movies which is not that of Cthulhu. That's the unfocused mashup of stuff that is D&D. It's probably both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

D&D is often referred to as its own "genre" for this very reason.

mshensley wrote:That's the dilemma of trying to make a game that is supposed to be based on the Appendix N stuff. The feel of Conan is not that of LotR which is not that of Hammer Dracula movies which is not that of Cthulhu.

The trick is not to expect a game that represents all of Appendix N all the time. If it's got enough there to emulate whichever feel/genre you're after when the spotlight falls on that type of play, you're on to a winner. I think the emphasis on the modules being story-based rather than purely location-based will be a definite bonus to emphasizing the different 'feels'.

geordie racer wrote:I think the emphasis on the modules being story-based rather than purely location-based will be a definite bonus to emphasizing the different 'feels'.

I do wonder if the modules will follow certain 'paths' as in styles of Appendix N, which you could of course mix and match to your taste -- or if they'll all be more or less generally Appendix N-ish.

In other words, will there emerge some kind of 'series' of them, with styles running in parallel (a la G-series, S-series, A-series, etc.), or will it just be #67, #68, #69, #70, and so on. with one being more Leiberian, the next Wellmanian, the next Burroughsian, etc. with no particular links.

I'd suppose they'd be along the same drag-and-drop(-into your campaign) style as they have always been, but it might be nice to see the occasional short series (or all-in-one campaign boxed set) with a stronger orientation.

kataskicana wrote: In a polytheistic world there was no such thing as a monotheist and there really were no 'opposed Gawds'... mainly becuase the real world doesn't have an alignment system.

There was no such thing as "polytheistic" world. There was a world of multiple polytheistic and monotheistic religions. Usually, the monotheistic religions opposed the polytheistic ones, since in polytheistic religions, you could find some common elements that made you believe, that the others are worshipping the same god, just under a different name. But even in the same polytheistic religion, there was a rivalry among gods, since they usually had both beneficent and malevolent deities. Egyptian mythology, Iliad, Odyssey and the viking sagas are full of them! Horus vs Seth, Poseidon vs Athene, Here vs Zeus, Loki vs everyone...

GnomeBoy wrote:I'd like to see clerics as chosen by a deity, rather than choosing a deity (or choosing a patron, as wizards).

I like this idea.

Randomly rolling the alignment of the god you serve would fix a potential min/maxing issue Andy mentioned wayback - that you've have players wanting their Cleric to be Neutral Good to give the best chance of healing characters of differing alignments.

Also roleplaying a character whose worldview is at odds with their god's could be fun, but this could complicate things in play, also taking away player choice in comparison to the other classes.

Ravenheart87 wrote:

kataskicana wrote: In a polytheistic world there was no such thing as a monotheist and there really were no 'opposed Gawds'... mainly becuase the real world doesn't have an alignment system.

There was no such thing as "polytheistic" world. There was a world of multiple polytheistic and monotheistic religions. Usually, the monotheistic religions opposed the polytheistic ones, since in polytheistic religions, you could find some common elements that made you believe, that the others are worshipping the same god, just under a different name. But even in the same polytheistic religion, there was a rivalry among gods, since they usually had both beneficent and malevolent deities. Egyptian mythology, Iliad, Odyssey and the viking sagas are full of them! Horus vs Seth, Poseidon vs Athene, Here vs Zeus, Loki vs everyone...

Your examples are more of mythological literature rather than real world. I'm not talking about Greek Mythology - I'm talking about classical Greece - the reality. Ditto for Norse, Egyptian, Aztecs, Babylonians, pick a pantheon.

There was a day (many thousands of years worth) when monotheism did not exist. For an oddball 15 year exception that was buried and decried as heresy within a few generations in Egypt read about Akhenaton/Amenhotep (?).

This has strayed from Appendix N - I apologize and am done! People mentioning real world things like crusaders, etc made me want to throw the topic out there. I think shifting winds of fantasy religeon has some interesting campaign potential.

I'm going to dust off my Appendix N fantasy so I can speak with more recent knowledge about it. I haven't read much of it in several years... Lately I have only read the more macabre side of the appendix! (Lovecraft, Wellman, Dunsany, RE Howards mythos works, etc).

Cheers,

jmucchiello wrote:I've always assumed the "Cleric" were the "special forces" troops for an underlying religious institution "chosen by their deity" to defend the faith.

I love that interpretation. My group seems to think of the cleric more like Friar Tuck or a M*A*S*H unit of healing spells.

geordie racer wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:I'd like to see clerics as chosen by a deity, rather than choosing a deity (or choosing a patron, as wizards).

...Also roleplaying a character whose worldview is at odds with their god's could be fun, but this could complicate things in play, also taking away player choice in comparison to the other classes.

Thinking on this a bit further, what if you as a player chose some kind of subset of options for the deity that's chosen your character to be his agent, but still rolled randomly within that subset to generate the specific qualities of the deity...? Makes for some unexpectedness within a range you find attractive anyway, but also doesn't just throw you to the wolves of random chance.

GnomeBoy wrote:Thinking on this a bit further, what if you as a player chose some kind of subset of options for the deity that's chosen your character to be his agent, but still rolled randomly within that subset to generate the specific qualities of the deity...? Makes for some unexpectedness within a range you find attractive anyway, but also doesn't just throw you to the wolves of random chance.

The different aspects of gods is one thing I don't think I've seen explored much in RPGs. I don't know about all cultures, but the Greeks were very into this.

For example - temples were dedicated to specific aspects of Athena's domain and she would often be invoked with titles that called upon certain role of hers. This is off the top of my head... but 'Athena Nike' was Athena the bringer of victory, 'Athena Parthenos' was the law keeper more about tradition, etc. In each of her forms she was depicted with different imagery to celebrate that aspect of her personality.

To me there is room to do a lot more than picking two out of three domains or whatever. Maybe being able to call upon divine aid in several different methods.

I like the idea of dual and triple aspect gods (admittedly it's not very Appendix N). That could bring in other alignments to the same god - like a god who has one Lawful aspect (duels and ritual combat) and other Chaotic (orgies). If the Cleric wants to go toe to toe with the Zombie Centaur gladiator he has to appeal/negotiate with the appropriate aspect through tribute/sacrifice/deeds, get it wrong and he could start the duel 'equipped' for a night of passion with the twelve-score golden virgins of the Sultan's Seraglio...

One of the better applications of fantasy polytheism that I've seen in an RPG is from Questers of the Middle Realms. The pantheon is loosey-goosey but it all boils down to there's these deities. And some of them will help you. But the help is a zero sum. Because when they help you or when you do something to exalt them, you're stepping on the toes of another deity that's in opposition to them. Who will then not like you a little to a whole bunch.

It's an interesting system because it represents the different gods in conflict, similar to Greek mythology. And it represents that in actual play. It's also interesting because it makes the pantheon concrete and real in the game -- instead of something that just comes up every once in a while as a plot device.

In most fantasy RPGs, gods are hand-waved. Destroying a temple to Gruumsh or slaying an Orcus cult leader gets characters experience points. But usually the DM doesn't have the ramifications of those actions come up in play.

It might be nice to have the God of Lawful Good in direct opposition to the God of Chaotic Evil. Such that destroying a temple of Chaotic Evil brings on the enmity of that god in a tangible form in the game.

smathis wrote:Because when they help you or when you do something to exalt them, you're stepping on the toes of another deity that's in opposition to them. Who will then not like you a little to a whole bunch.

This would be especially good in campaign play with a mixed alignment party - cue friction, complications etc. The more active the adherent, the bigger the target.

For me, the divine magic system that'd be truest to Appendix N literature (I've read some of the authors' works but, admittedly, far from all) would be one where gods grant gifts or boons to individuals for good work, simple caprice, or whatever. These gifts could be given to individuals of any class, but they would be above and beyond the normal kewl powerz that individuals in a class would get. These divine gifts could be bestowed by the result of some random background roll at character creation, and/or acquired during play like a magic item. If a character acts contrary to a god's wishes, or if the god simply changes it's mind, the gift could be withdrawn. Whatever the case, for an Appendix N-inspired game I personally wouldn't base an entire class around the whims or precepts of a deity, so in that sense I'd be up for "killing" the cleric.

As I see it, the cleric class is a nod to the D&D roots of the DCC game. It's not The Appendix N RPG, it's the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. As such, it is based as much on (early) D&D as it is based on Appendix N. The cleric is a long-time central part of D&D, so it's place in DCC RPG is not strange at all. But how to make it special and unique...?

The stuff below is building on the "Clerics are chosen by their patron deities, not the other way around" idea. Things keep popping into my head along those lines, so I just thought I'd share, and see if it kicks up any interesting ideas from anyone else...


DOMAINS
Domains are broken down into multiple lists (with domains appearing on multiple lists). Domains could be determined semi-randomly, by cleric players choosing a list they like, rolling for two results randomly, and then choosing one additional domain, all from the same list. Player choice comes in by choosing which list to use, and the choice of the third domain, randomness affects the rest of the choice.
Domains determine spell lists for the cleric. Note: the list does not determine the deity. All the results of the character's creation should inspire the development of the deity of the Cleric.

DEITY ALIGNMENT
Determined randomly, or one descriptor chosen randomly after the player choses one of his liking (Where's that d9 when you need it?). This affects the character's healing ability.


SPONTANEOUS SPELLS
3e gives the cleric the ability to throw out spells on the fly and cast a Cure spell of the same level instead -- but Healing is a Special Ability in DCC RPG, rather than a spell. But this could be replaced with...

FAITH SPELLS
These would be spells central to the deity you follow, and these spells would receive a spell check bonus equal to your current level only for offsetting any casting penalty you may be under. Casting penalties, (I think) represent disfavor of your deity, but casting Faith Spells is core to the deity's plans in the world -- or rather her plans for you as her vassal -- and have a bit more favor in your deity's eyes than other spells. They could be chosen by the player with DM approval of appropriateness, or rolled randomly (again with DM approval). There should be one spell from each of your Domains.


ANATHEMA TURNING
This could be determined randomly. I don't know if monsters in DCC RPG have types as in 3e, but the list could simply use descriptors, like winged, slimy, hoofed, giant, undead, scaly, etc, and Clerics can attempt to turn anything that has the descriptor they determined at character creation.

As an alternative ability, instead of turning creatures of that descriptor, Clerics could possibly befriend creatures of that descriptor. This would be somewhat like the druid's animal companion concept, and I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out how to handle this mechanically in a simple way (because I have no idea at the moment).


FAVORED WEAPON
Rolled randomly. This essentially makes it a boon from the deity, rather than all clerics of that deity all wielding the same arms. If a cleric ever finds themselves weaponless, the DM should be encouraged to place their favored weapon somewhere logical nearby that the cleric can find -- a little 'gift' from the deity.


SPELL SIDE EFFECTS
Wizard spells in DCC RPG each have an attendant sidereal effect. Cleric spells taken as a whole could as well, determined by one of the Domains the cleric covers. Domains like Fire or Shadow may have fairly obvious options for side effects, but an attendant effect could be developed for each Domain. The Cleric's spells gain minor side effects from one of their Domains, and this applies to all of their spells.


"Well, what do you think, sirs?"

If you do domains in the 2e mode, you need more cleric spells to really differentiate the spell list by deity. In the KISS mode, I'd say that deity only affects the Anathema Turning ability and "might" restrict some spells (the whole fire gods don't create water, thing). Perhaps each spell just indicates when what domains CAN'T cast the spell. And that use of "can't" should be limited to only those places where it is absolutely needed.

indeed the "cleric" should feel a little different than a monotheistic magician in armor....

I like the idea of having the various gods bestow gifts to cultist and favored ones... in particular a Wizard could be bestowed a spell a Warrior a special attack and a Thief a special ability... or whatever...

and healing? and the "cleric" class? why not make a class with "powers" a mix between healing hands, turning undead, speak with plants and so on... "cleric" would be a middle-fighting class with powers (instead of spells)....

Fabio.MilitoPagliara wrote:and healing? and the "cleric" class? why not make a class with "powers" a mix between healing hands, turning undead, speak with plants and so on... "cleric" would be a middle-fighting class with powers (instead of spells)....

This is kinda how I look at Clerics. Would be nice to see it reflected in a game. I see Clerics more like what most everyone else calls a Paladin.