priest and theologian

[Anomylous]

Originally Posted by zot

.."might listen" doesn't really affect your character day-to-day and doesn't define what they actually DO during adventures. So... not a satisfying situation at all for a "priest character".

Which is why I made the theurgy toolkit

I looked at that toolkit. It's pretty neat. If I were to use it in a campaign, though, I'd definitely consider having it replace regular wizard magic, rather than existing alongside it. Having two entirely different fleshed-out magic systems in play just seems like too much to keep track of.

As far as what characters do during adventures, look at what priestly types do IRL - they don't have any supernatural powers at all (that we can prove). What they do have is dedication to a particular set of principles, and a mission to advance those principles in the world. I've seen a few characters take the Priest talent as it stands, despite the fact that it gives almost no tangible game benefits, simply because that's the character concept the player had in mind. It's a very anti-munchkin mindset, and I'm fine with that.

(discussion on karma points)

At least a couple of the Dark City Games modules use the concept. I like it, haven't really used it much outside of those modules though.

I'd rule that a Karma point will allow you to reroll your Prayer roll, if I was using both those ideas. (So would a Wish, but if you've got a Wish then what do you need prayer for?)

EDIT: In general, I strongly agree with Ty's approach and interpretation. I *like* having a fantasy world built on essentially atheistic principles...it feels more real. (And it also let me play TFT with my fundamentalist Christian friends when we were all younger, without having parents flip out too much about "devil worship" or "false gods".)

[DrewAstolfi67]

I wonder if some of the Call of Cthulhu non-mythos spells might be a place to start from for a list of clerical spells. They are much less dramatic than the Wizzard spell list, but some of them have pretty good subtle effects.

Like a lot of people who played this game back in the day, I was unhappy with the no gods thing that the In the Labyrinth book lays out. But then the Silver Dragon/Unicorn Gold came along with its human sacrificing Toltec Brujos, and so it seemed like the gods/God were fair game again.

[Tenex]

I think a lot of how you think about religion comes down to either designing an alternative magic system for priests or reassessing how rare spellcasters are.

Per TFT wizards are what, 1/200? And are as rare/respected/feared as lawyers? Under TFT canon, wizards pay double for talents and heroes pay 3 points for a spell. This really limits crossover type characters like the ranger, paladin, etc.

But continuing the legal analogy, there are lots of people in the modern US who have some legal skill, but are not lawyers. Paralegals, cops, legal historians, legal secretaries, trial/jury consultants, etc. So why not make it easier to have a little magic skill?

TFT, as written, doesn't lend itself to crossover characters because the cost is too high. Unless you are willing to house rule away wizard/hero penalties for learning crossover spells/talents, then you will have to develop an entirely supplemental "religious" magic system. But if you just do away with the crossover learning penalties you wouldn't have to bother with a supplemental system.

I don't think there will be a lack of robust religions with plenty of followers even if you don't institute a "priestly" magic system. There are plenty of devoutly religious people around the world today despite a lack of real world "proof". Imagine how devout people would be if magic were a real thing and was used to enhance a priest's sermon.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Tenex

...
I don't think there will be a lack of robust religions with plenty of followers even if you don't institute a "priestly" magic system. There are plenty of devoutly religious people around the world today despite a lack of real world "proof". Imagine how devout people would be if magic were a real thing and was used to enhance a priest's sermon.

Yes to this last part. In our old TFT campaigns using the published rules and not adding any religious magic, there were more than enough religious people and priests and holy warriors, as well as rangers (who don't need magic).

Also, the religions we did have tended to be rather creatively developed. I'm so glad TFT did not bake in generic clerics or other RPG tropes, so there was lots of room to make up interesting homebrew stuff and not have players feeling entitled to be a generic trope in homebrew worlds. (I mean, they could if they wanted to, but the system wasn't going to pave the way for them, and there were all sorts of other options.)

And there were as many non-wizards learning spells for 3 Talent Points as I would want - I certainly would not want spells to be available for the same difficulty as the Swimming talent, or else it'd be an "almost everyone knows magic" campaign, which personally is not my cup of tea, and although I am quite willing to track logistics and individual wound healing for everyone, I am neither willing nor able to consider what would go on in towns and societies where a large fraction of the population could and did know and use all sorts of magic spells.

As for making it easier to learn spells, it sounds like SJ is likely to be already doing that, if the new character development rules let you use experience to exceed your IQ in talents and spells.

[Tenex]

As Skarg points out, a lot of it is also how much you want your campaign to track with the classes in D&D or some other class based game. The paladin as a holy warrior kind of needs spells. The other classes not so much. I have to agree that the thing I liked about TFT was that it wasn't AD&D.

Another possibility is that only the PCs can have easy purchase of spells and skills as crossover characters. That would avoid having to reset the whole world.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Tenex

... The paladin as a holy warrior kind of needs spells. The other classes not so much.

Real-world Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, Knight of Saint Peter, crusaders, etc didn't have any magical abilities that I know of. In fact, if they did, they might likely have been subject to witchcraft charges.

But there's nothing stopping a TFT military order from learning a spell or two except how hard it is to learn and cast spells without being a wizard, but it seems to me the difficulty level is about how I like it.

Originally Posted by Tenex

I have to agree that the thing I liked about TFT was that it wasn't AD&D.

Exactly! It was a great demonstration of how a game can be even more interesting without all the tropes and conventions from that other game (which have gone on to find their way into so many other games, not generally because they're great ideas that should be in all games, but because of convention and lack of originality).

Originally Posted by Tenex

Another possibility is that only the PCs can have easy purchase of spells and skills as crossover characters. That would avoid having to reset the whole world.

Yes, if you're really sure you want the PCs and other notably special NPCs to be able to be fighter/wizards, it's the easiest thing in the world for a GM to say they can. But I caution against saying anyone can learn spells for 1 Talent Point and then expecting the world's logical consequent state to be manageable. I bring this up as a caution to GMs, and to avoid the popular consensus drifting to the point that it becomes a common or even official change, because from long TFT GM experience I can see a lot of issues with the idea everyone can easily learn spells.

[Tenex]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Real-world Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, Knight of Saint Peter, crusaders, etc didn't have any magical abilities that I know of. In fact, if they did, they might likely have been subject to witchcraft charges.

But there's nothing stopping a TFT military order from learning a spell or two except how hard it is to learn and cast spells without being a wizard, but it seems to me the difficulty level is about how I like it.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that and it seems even with my anti-AD&D bias I still find myself influenced by those iconic classes!

[Tenex]

Originally Posted by warhorse11h

Maybe that's why this forum has the name "House Rules".

Everybody's just spitballin' here. Do whatever you want.

[David Bofinger]

One of the distinctive characteristics of Runequest was that characters typically knew both magic and mundane skills. I wouldn't want every TFT campaign to be like that, I certainly wouldn't want every TFT character to be like that, I wouldn't want such characters to be better than specialists. But I think it would be nice if characters like that were supported by the rules, even if such characters only came from certain cultures, only appeared in certain campaigns, etc. And there are lots of other reasons characters might have a foot in both camps.

I wrote up a generalist character but I was never entirely happy with the 125% rule. I would rather have made it normal cost for both but given them some other penalty, if I could think of good one.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by warhorse11h

I'm not sure that references to real world knightly orders not having magical abilities as a reason to not permit a religious order of warriors with a limited number of magical abilities is entirely valid in this circumstance. We are talking about a fantasy rpg here. In the real world there are also no dragons, hydras, orcs, elves or dwarves either. If we apply real world conditions as a standard, we might as well put all the books away.

Maybe that's why this forum has the name "House Rules".

Sure.

That's not why I mentioned the lack of spells on real-world religious knights. I was just making a similar-but-opposite counterpoint to Tenex's comment "The paladin as a holy warrior kind of needs spells."

i.e. Yes people can play with wizardly warriors all they want, but they also don't "need" to.