Clerics using blunt weapons.

[AxeMental]

I always thought the weapons restriction for clerics (non bladed weaopns) was made up by Gary as a way to distinguish this class from fighters in a very visual way (just as MUs walk around in capes with tall pointed hats). However, I came across this summary of weapons (some BBC bloke) types which states blunt weapons were used by "warrior priests" who found smashing vs. cutting a more humane way to die.

I didn't know there really were warrior priest types running around in Europe way back when, never mind wielding only maces hammers and other non cutting weapons.

Here check it out look under blunt weapons:

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2522657

The rest is interesting as well (though most was not new info).

[AxeMental]

Just looked at this again, it seems this was written by some poster, not any kind of athority (at least there is no claim of such). Still, it's interesting though very general.

[bonesmccoy]

Hmmm, I dunno Axe. It would be cool if it were true but this one part (about the mace) gives me pause:

"it was conceived of and used almost exclusively by warrior priests and warrior monks as a more civilized manner in which to kill. They considered that killing without drawing blood was a more holy way to go about it."

I always thought maces were used to penetrate heavy armor and could be wielded by anybody. Also, there are maces in all kinds of countries and time periods, especially if you count plain, round metal heads as a mace. And even stone heads too. Plus, the mace is a symbol of royalty or authority. Like a scepter. I don't think it's restricted to priests like this dude says.

Maybe P&P will drop by and enlighten us.

[blackprinceomuncie]

The guy is a f#@ktard who's mixing basic history with pseudo-fantasy RPG trivia and SCA quackery. I'd like him to point out which militant wing of the Roman Catholic priesthood sponsored "warrior monks" and where any historical document proposes that bashing someone's brains in with a metal club is more "civilized" than gutting him with a pointy thing or lopping off random appendages with a big sword! Dumbass!

Get this....

Early on in the days of the 'caveman' - an exact date cannot be given due to the incomplete nature of history, as cavemen predate all forms of dating and history - a certain black rock was noticed to be useful in skinning animals, cutting hides and about anything else that needed to be stabbed, cut or otherwise opened by forceful means. This rock later became known as obsidian or flint.

I mean, if this statement alone doesn't tip you off that the guy got his history (and geology) lessons from reading the graffiti in a toilet stall somewhere, I don't know what will.

[AxeMental]

Dammn you BP your shattering my newly acquired understanding of the history of war. Yeah, this has to be a truck load of horse $hit.

[geneweigel]

I think where clergy did go to battle that they used normal weapons just like anybody else.

The bishop in the Bayeaux Tapestry has a mace so maybe thats where the kernel of an idea that clerics should be bloodless in combat.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Yes, Bishop Odo was using a blunt instrument of some kind on the Bayeux Tapestry (it's variously interpreted as a mace, cudgel or sceptre.)

There are plenty of other maces depicted on the BT, not necessarily in the hands of churchmen. They seem to be used as missile weapons. Later on, as heavy armour becomes more common, maces become a popular hand weapon.

Historically, few churchmen did any fighting. The only big exception are the Military Orders, exemplified by the Knights Templar who were formed in 1118. The Knights Templar enthusiastically used swords and axes and spears as well as maces. This also goes for the other Military Orders which were formed subsequently.

As far as I'm aware, the rule about clerics using blunt weapons comes out of Gygax's imagination.

(Sidenote: The theology of the doctrine of Holy Violence is rather worrying. It runs like this:-

• It is okay for a doctor to use a knife to cut into your skin when he needs to do that to save your life.
  
• It is therefore okay for a holy man to use a sword to cut into your skin when he needs to do that to save your soul.
  

This little piece of theology was invented, so far as we know, by Pope Urban II in 1095 and is responsible for the Crusades. Five years later, when the Frankish knights besieged the Holy City of Jerusalem, they used this as an excuse to kill nearly every non-Christian in the city, so that the streets ran red with blood. They proceeded to create the Kingdom of Jerusalem which lasted 87 years before Saladin took the Holy City back again.

The history of all this makes absolutely brilliant reading. Fantasy novels frustrate me sometimes - why do so many of them have such staid, wooden, boring plots when they could so easily draw from the fascinating tales of treachery, lies, betrayal, ambition, hypocrisy, and murder that really happened?)

[geneweigel]

Actually, the clergy killed all the time perhaps even moreso than your average non-combatant. It leaks out here in there in the documents of the past but it never makes it into the history books.

Can't have that now!

[AxeMental]

I would like to know what this guys resource was for the mace thing, though I have a feeling BP is correct (some players handbook or his head). Still...he could be an idiot and have no idea what an RPG is, and might have read something legit. And the site he posted at being BBC is a little bizzareo as well.

[Semaj The Silent]

Hiya. New poster here, and I'd thought I'd kick things off with necro-ing this thread. It's of interest to me.

Everytime I introduce new players to 1E...especially those who've played a slightly newer edition...I'm asked: why can't clerics use swords? I've give them two answers:

1. It's a game mechanic. You're playing a game...not reliving an R.A. Salvatore novel.

2. Clerics have a special pipeline to the gods that other mortals don't have. This pipeline consists of the cleric doing the bidding of the god and receiving in return special abilities in order to serve further. Because of this special relationship, the cleric has to hold himself apart from mundane society. Since almost every culture ascribes special powers to blood and the shedding thereof, the cleric cannot shed blood like other mortals since that would put him on the same level as them...the notable exception being blood sacrifices during a ritual...if your religion is into that sort of wild time. But even then, it's done within unholy space, so that doesn't count. Ergo, the cleric must use weapons that bash, not cut or stab. Yeah...a little blood leaks from bash wounds, but it's not the same idea.

This usually satisfies them, and drives home the point that this is a game and every game has rules.

BTW, nice board. Think I'll hang around for awhile, if you will have me.

[master]

Welcome slient dude.

Friar tuck would be another example. Most sources have him fighting with just a staff.

I remember hearing of a converted roman soldier fighting with the blunt end of the spear. Then there is the archbishop character from the song of roland. I think he used a mace too.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

It's not Friar Tuck! His real name was Friar F*** - Gary said so!

[The Master]

Something i just learned, the inquisition designed alot of torture devices that didn't shed blood. I guess it was ok to torture somone as long as you didn't make them bleed.