My friend has my 3.5, but that says to me that it is not necessary.PHB3.0,p.30: Most clerics are officially ordained members of religious organizations...
What all that says to me is that the faith is the church...FRCS: All followers of a specific deity are considered members of the faith, also known as the church, associated with that deity. Within each faith, followers of a deity may be grouped into allied or rival sects, each holding differing beliefs to a small or large extent. Some faiths, particularly those of the lawful deities, are united in shared religious practices. Other faiths, particularly those of the chaotic deities, vary widely across the various regions of Faerun. Exceptions exist. Clashes between rival sects of a lawful deity are often particularly fierce, as the followers of Helm have learned, as both sides cite axioms proving the "Correctness" of their sect. Likewise, attempts to rein in divergent sects of chaotic deities can provoke great strife, as Cyric's follower have quickly discovered.
Within a faith, there may be a strict hierarchy of primacy, as was the case until recently in the church of Oghma, and as is the case in the church of Bane, or there may be no central unifying authority, as with the church of Tempus. In all cases, however, exceptions exist, so it is always possible for a character to be a member of a sect that does not acknowledge the primacy of the titular leader of the faith. The only rule governing such sects is that they must not stray beyond the portfolio and core beliefs of the deity without risking being forsaken by the deity and his divine servitors. Sects of some deities - such as the dwindling numbers of the cult of Ilmater that promoted self-flagellation, kidnapping, and riots - have strayed far from the core beliefs of their deity that they no longer have divine backing. Clerics and other divine spellcasters of such sects lose all access to divine spells and divinely granted abilities until they atone in the eyes of their professed deity or pledge themselves to a more appropriate deity.
And especially among chaotic deities, the church is far less important.
Or at least that is my view, as a chaotic Lutheran Protestant.
I would even go so far as to allow an invidual worshipper to be considered his own uni-person sect, but that's just me.
The part about clashes among followers of Helm, '...as both sides cite axioms proving the "Correctness" of their sect.' is itself a good statement against rules-lawyering, I think. So what is important is the DM and community feeling upon the subject.
Cleric, Druid, and Monk are all considered to be "priestly" roles. So I would say that a Priest is something much broader than a Cleric. A priest is one who worships a deity and professes this faith to others. A cleric is a priest which has been honored by the deity with divine magic. But I do not think a priest would raise very high in the ranks of a church without that divine honor by the deity.
As for whether one could possibly be cleric and wizard without knowing that some of his powers are divine, that seems far unlikely. (Notice my use of the word "his", obviously a female would be able to pull it off somehow
) (just a poke of sarcasm at the political correctness to use his/her)As has been mentioned, the process of gaining the spells is quite different. You would nearly have to notice how easily the divine magic comes versus the formulations of the arcane. Clerics pray for their spells, I think in the magic section of the PHB (I know it says this, pretty sure that's where) it explains how divine casters praying and arcane casters meditating/studying is actually part of the casting of a spell. A cleric of Lathander would pray at sunrise and would feel the divine warmth of Lathander's light as he is blessed with spells, or some other such manifestation according to the deity. A wizard must study and a sorcerer must meditate. Bards must sing or perform in some manner. And that is most of the casting of the spells right there. The way I think of this is that once that is done, it leaves latent spell energies in your head or at your disposal, spell triggers if you will. Then what you normally think of the actual casting of the spell (the somatic movements/verbal commands/material components) is actually just the last little bit of effort that is needed to trigger the spell.
One would have to be pretty clueless about arcane/divine magic or pretty deluded to not notice the difference... at which point, it seems unlikely the person would have talent with either. It may be possible for a devout wizard to gain clerical abilities, but it would be hard not to notice the difference.
Oh, almost forgot to say, the main reason I included the second paragraph in the quote was so I could say in response to "Sects of some deities - such as the dwindling numbers of the cult of Ilmater that promoted self-flagellation, kidnapping, and riots" - oh noes! they know about Zato's cult!
ROFLMAOOne cannot help but wonder if the Time of Troubles was prompted by a TSR marketing decision to facilitate the new 2nd Ed. rules).
I should have known anything called "Time of Troubles" would have to be caused by those marketing people...
And one thing I wanted to add to this discussion is the reason why bards can cast healing spells, as I see it.
I think it goes back to British/Celtic traditions in which a bard and druid go through the same initial training before their paths diverge. In fact, bards and druids were very closely connected in those traditions. I think in the context of D&D, bard has become something much less connected to druidism, something much more general - but this is some inklings of that connection, and it is of course still possible to play a bard that would be very closely connected to druidism - it is just that it doesn't seem like most bards played are that way, as the class has been made more general. Wish I had more sources on this, primarily I learned about this from Marion Zimmer-Bradley's various works regarding Avalon. Back at the time I did search around some more and found some obscure websites briefly mentioning the relation between bards and druids, but not much. I've found some books on druids, but they usually either don't give much information or are so scholarly and concerned with all the exact details, yet few of those details of any real substance, that would have much spiritual significance. This is all mostly because the Romans conquered them more than they wrote about them.
I also think, in previous editions bards may have had the same spell lists as wizards, just severely less ability in gaining the ability to cast them? I seem to remember that being the case in Baldurs Gate games anyway, I could be wrong and I don't have much experience with previous editions. But it seems to me that at least in spell selection, they are trying to give the bard some more unique flavor - something a little different than what the wizards and sorcerers get, due to the bard's different approach to magic.
~Troop