Clerical Investment vs. Religious Rank

[Kalzazz]

I pretty much make being able to use some kind of Holy Power or Cast a Divine spell as a prereq for any form of Clerical Investment or Religious Rank or such

[Anders]

You could also make scenario where the Church has become corrupt and true holy powers are found only among persecuted heretics. Dragonlance has something similar just before the Cataclysm, IIRC.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I pretty much make being able to use some kind of Holy Power or Cast a Divine spell as a prereq for any form of Clerical Investment or Religious Rank or such

I usually make them entirely unrelated. The gods pick different sorts of people for different callings, and performing a wedding and smashing demon skulls are different skill sets. Eisenhower wasn't made a general because he was the best with a rifle, after all.

Then again, my settings typically have mysterious gods. The sort that cannot easily be confirmed to exist.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Well, once magic gets involved, I'll say "that's why we have Power Investiture." It's different from Religious Rank because it's spiritual, not temporal. It differs from Magery because it channels the sacred, not cloudy, dangerous occult energies.

Yes, thats a house rule I have used for a really long time that Power Investiture requires Clerical Investment. I completely forgot that's an option to allow Power Investiture without Clerical Investment.

Though I do allow Clerical Investment without Religious Rank, I dont allow Religious Rank without Clerical Investment.

[Kalzazz]

Yeah, but I figure while Eisenhower isn't the best with a rifle in order to be a soldier he would have at least qualified with a rifle in order to be considered a soldier.

I tend to figure non adventuring clergy often don't pick up martial skills and such, so back in That Other Game I have them the hitpoints and attack rolls and Stuff like squishy wizards but with clerical casting.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Yeah, but I figure while Eisenhower isn't the best with a rifle in order to be a soldier he would have at least qualified with a rifle in order to be considered a soldier.

In Eisenhower's time, for combat commands, probably yes. At least at some point in his career.

But in both modern and historical eras being an officer doesn't necessarily entail being a soldier in most respects. Buying commissions and similar systems are particularly obvious examples. Some militia units in the US civil war were led by a rich sponsor, I believe (though regular army officers probably didn't have a lot of respect for that rank). For another angle, I suspect that in the world wars doctors joining the armed forces wouldn't be attending any infantry training.

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

Although in GURPS terms, it only amounts to Courtesy Rank, if that. She gets deferred to, but is strictly removed from any actual decision making.

Then the actual Rank is hold by the prime minister who advises HM how to exercise her powers

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by Anders

That said, if you want to make a hierarchy where authority equals asskicking (like in a certain other game), just make a meta-trait of the two costing 15 points/level. It's pricey, but you get a lot of oomph for it, both temporal and spiritual.

Originally Posted by bocephus

Yes, thats a house rule I have used for a really long time that Power Investiture requires Clerical Investment. I completely forgot that's an option to allow Power Investiture without Clerical Investment.

In my own fantasy setting, I like inverting things. Power Investiture does not require Clerical Investment, and your Religious Rank is inversely proportionate to your Power Investiture - those of Religious Rank 5 and up are political appointees whose agendas may actually be perpendicular if not entirely opposite the will of the gods. (The gods tend to be hands off, and the Churches hate when the gods grant power to someone as a prophet outside the Church hierarchy. Heresies abound!)

[dcarson]

The Queen sort of has reverse Courtesy Rank. In theory they have the power to do things but if they actually tried to use that power it would be removed by Parliament. So they use their ability to dissolve Parliament only when they are told to by Parliament. Making it the same price as normal CR seems reasonable though.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by dcarson

The Queen sort of has reverse Courtesy Rank. In theory they have the power to do things but if they actually tried to use that power it would be removed by Parliament. So they use their ability to dissolve Parliament only when they are told to by Parliament. Making it the same price as normal CR seems reasonable though.

This is the thing about having an unwritten "constitution". In theory both the King and the Parliament can order anything with no specified mechanic for deciding what happens if they order contradictory things. A surprising lot of governments actually have elements like that - a lot of stuff you think is in the rules is actually just custom.