The nature of religion in OD&D

[True Black Raven]

The 3 LBBs have some quirks that separate OD&D from all later versions of D&D. 


1. We have the cleric and anti-cleric class. Consider the abilities, the spells and the level titles. Consider the presence of a cross in the equipment list (later for political correctness - even in the late 1970s and 1980s, this was replaced with "holy symbol"). These things add up to a pseudo-christian setting where all the fake pagan gods of polytheistic religions also exist, but none of them have any real power. Only the cleric, the lawful cleric can turn undead as in the vampire movies. The cleric class is much like a militant priest of the crusades.

Armed Priests

Military order (religious society) See lists at this link for ideas.

The original military orders were the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, the Order of Saint James, the Order of Calatrava, and the Teutonic Knights. The successors to  the Knights Hospitaller, were the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Order of Saint John. Others are the Knights of Saint Peter, the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre,  the Order of St. George, and others.

See also

Order of chivalry where you can see overlap between Knights (Fighting Men) and Clerics (Militant Priests/Paladins) See lists at this link for ideas.

IMO you can make a good case for Clerics being run as and held to the standards for Paladins.

[True Black Raven]

2. You will notice that in the original 3 LBBs of OD&D there is no mention of god or gods in the books. A wise decision that later editions failed to heed. Something that should have been left to the taste of each game table and group. The books only mention Help from "above". For instance in Men & Magic in reference to the building of strongholds by clerics and in a reference to the powers "above" in reference to the Commune spell.  Again all of this was a wise decision to keep official D&D at arms length to these things and leave them up to the sensibilities of each group. A medieval Christian background is obviously assumed, but never spelled out.

The wording and limited mentions does have some assumptions hard wired into the game. The "above" implies that clerical powers come from the Lawful (Good) god and that the anti-clerical powers would come from the Chaotic (Evil) devil or the demonic. This distinction was blurred in later versions when full blown polytheism was shoehorned into the game. All of those false gods could not support Lawful Clerics, only Chaotic Clerics(Neutral or Good leaning) and Anti-Clerics (Evil). At least if you view the later editions through an OD&D lens. 

Also in my mind now of those Clerics following false gods would be able to Turn Undead or Heal or Raise Dead and other distinctly "Christian" Spells. So Cleric that followed Odin or Zeus would not get the same spells as a Lawful Cleric following the real god. You get the picture. 

[True Black Raven]

3. In OD&D the 3 LBBs, spells are not defined as divinely given. This to Gygax and Arneson would have been considered obvious, since both were religious men and did not need to be mentioned. (We are not here to debate how well either one lived in that regard, that is off topic) They obviously had no intention of taking the game in an occult direction, as was later accused by idiots. Clerics carried/used spell books (not prayer books, as was grafted on later) and they had to memorize their spells the same as Magic-Users did.  Also, tellingly, Clerics can research spells just like Magic-Users. There would be no point in this if spells were divinely given by god.

This changed in the Greyhawk Supplement and in later D&D Versions.

[True Black Raven]

4. In OD&D the 3LBBs Clerics were Lawful or Chaotic from the beginning with no Neutral Clerics. Making a distinct separation between the two. But in the 5th print this was watered down allowing Clerics to be Neutral up to 7th Level and they had to then choose Law or Chaos at that time. Nothing was added to talk about where a Neutral Cleric got their spells from or which spells they could have. Now in Greyhawk it is noted in reference to the Book of Exalted Deeds, that "A Neutral Cleric will suffer the loss of one level of experience" from reading this book. This is probably one of the reasons that TPD said that the picking a side at 7th level may have been the original intention and he may be right about that. It does leave a lot unexplained and IMO you just just use Lawful and Chaotic for Clerics, but if you use Neutral as an option then they should have difference spell lists and IMO only Lawful Cleric should be able to Heal and do similar things.

[True Black Raven]

5. One good thing IMO is that the god or gods are not hands on like they are portrayed in later editions. That is they do not step into to decide most human affairs outside of the effects of spells. Clerics seem to get their power in a similar way that Magic-Users do and if they do switch sides while they do lose out on a lot, they are not going to be struck down as in some later editions. In later editions, you could be killed by an Evil god showing up to do you in and vice versa, none of that in OD&D which is IMO a good thing.

[True Black Raven]

6. IMO looking at this from the original wargamer's perspective, OD&D was originally written to be more black and white in regard to religion, not to detailed, just enough for flavor and to help justify the Cleric. In that regard it makes a lot of sense for Clerics not to be Neutral and for it to be Law versus Chaos and Good vs Evil. It made sense for the god or gods to almost entirely non-intrusive into human affairs and for Clerics to use magic in a way very similar to Magic-Users. Later on as the wargaming perspective was diluted it went to bad places IMO, even early on in the supplements with the addition of demons and devils taking it from assumed to explicit. A lot of people complained when demons and devils were taken out in 2nd Ed AD&D, but IMO they should never have been there to begin with. That kind of stuff should have been left to the user.

[True Black Raven]

Comments or input?

[hengest]

Very interesting remarks, enlightening to one who doesn't know the OD&D booklets well. Everything here makes a lot of sense, and I am inclined to agree that the demons and devils did not need to be there in the first place and all that should have been left to individual refs. I will think more on this.

[The Semi-Retired Gamer]

Feb 5, 2022 14:45:15 GMT -5 True Black Raven said:

The 3 LBBs have some quirks that separate OD&D from all later versions of D&D. 


1. We have the cleric and anti-cleric class. Consider the abilities, the spells and the level titles. Consider the presence of a cross in the equipment list (later for political correctness - even in the late 1970s and 1980s, this was replaced with "holy symbol"). These things add up to a pseudo-christian setting where all the fake pagan gods of polytheistic religions also exist, but none of them have any real power. Only the cleric, the lawful cleric can turn undead as in the vampire movies. The cleric class is much like a militant priest of the crusades.

Armed Priests

Military order (religious society) See lists at this link for ideas.

The original military orders were the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, the Order of Saint James, the Order of Calatrava, and the Teutonic Knights. The successors to  the Knights Hospitaller, were the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Order of Saint John. Others are the Knights of Saint Peter, the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre,  the Order of St. George, and others.

See also

Order of chivalry where you can see overlap between Knights (Fighting Men) and Clerics (Militant Priests/Paladins) See lists at this link for ideas.

IMO you can make a good case for Clerics being run as and held to the standards for Paladins.

IMO Paladins and Clerics are two sides to the same coin.  Paladins are warrior types with priestly training while Clerics are priest types with warrior training.  It sounds the same and they are similar in many ways, but there are differences.  I agree with you True Black Raven.  I just think they approach situations from a slightly different view, but Clerics can definitely be run as and held to the standards for Paladins.

[The Perilous Dreamer]

This is a great writeup True Black Raven and I also like the comments about Clerics and Paladins. I have read a lot online and think most people play their Clerics as Neutral leaning Evil instead of Lawful and Good. I think putting some of the Paladin restrictions on any Cleric is a good idea and in fact if the tweak the Cleric just right, you would have no need of Paladins in the game at all.