Thoughts of Religion in D&D

[R.Shackleford]

So in D&D we have deities of good and evil that can actually prove their existence and give spells and features.

What about a setting where everyone is a Cleric, Druid, or Palafin or some derivative of that. Arcane magic is forbidden, if you don't get your magic through a deity then you have already been hunted down and killed long ago. The deities, even the good ones, view humans and other races casting spells without their permission to be a slap in their face.

All the other classes that have specific features could be converted to subclasses. Divine Bards, Avengers (Divine Rogues), Wardens (Divine Barbarians), and Shaman (Divine Sorcerer) could all be subclasses or whatever.

You could run basic campaigns as a divine classes or if you want a sneaky witch hunt campaign your players could be arcane casters.

[Logosloki]

D&D has so many gods that there are gods of magic that run the gamut. Wee jas is my favourite for this as she is a god of magical contracts as well as the god that takes people buried by suel rites. In fact i think there are two other gods of magic in through same pantheon as her.

However divine only campaign would be hella fun. Divine rogues, fighters, barbarians and bards sound like a little bit of work. Maybe allow for Arcane trickster and Eldritch knights as mystical orders, remnants of the ancients who keep the arcane knowledge in hidden libraries.

[rlc]

Whether it's the party or some mystical cult, there would definitely need to be some kind of arcane magic users. Maybe somebody found some old magic somewhere.

[R.Shackleford]

Whether it's the party or some mystical cult, there would definitely need to be some kind of arcane magic users. Maybe somebody found some old magic somewhere.

No they wouldn't.

You don't need arcane casters at all, even in normal D&D games.

Ever see a Cleric x Paladin group? They absolutely wreck 5e.

[rlc]

No they wouldn't.

You don't need arcane casters at all, even in normal D&D games.

Ever see a Cleric x Paladin group? They absolutely wreck 5e.

Yeah, I was talking about the storyline, bud.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah, I was talking about the storyline, bud.

Then say that?

Also, no you wouldn't.

You could say that Arcane magic never existed at all due to people never getting the chance to create it.

Or you could say that Arcane magic died off years ago, so long that it is more myth than anything else.

Arcane casters aren't needed at all.

[rlc]

Yeah, I think I'm just going to peace out of this thread and not try to help you with any other ideas if you're just going to start lame arguments.

[BrianDavion]

whose to say arcane magic is using magic without the gods permission, a LOT of settings note that mortals can only use magic because of a deities expressly setting em up for it. Thus you could instead of having it not exist at all have arcane magic be TIGHTLY controlled by the clergy.

think a little bit like dragon ages circle of the magi.

[Gastronomie]

This is why I don't want the gods to even exist in these sorts of games (at least, the ones I DM in). Yeah, I know it's tradition, but I simply can't feel that a world with these gods is just... right. It feels really wrong and illogical.

[Regitnui]

This is why I like Eberron. The most popular pantheon is either nonexistent or dragon saints. The great chuch worships a fire with a paladin eternally trapped inside staring at a demon. The Religion of Evil is devoted to self-help advice dispensed by liches, vampires and mummies. And the most devoted cleric can give all of them the middle finger and still cast level 9 divine spells by believing really hard in belief.

[Blue Lantern]

I liked the Dragonlance 5th age approach, with the gods gone Magic was divided by arcane manipulating the energy of the world, while divine was re fluffed as using the power of your own inner heart.

[KorvinStarmast]

What about a setting where everyone is a Cleric, Druid, or Palafin or some derivative of that. Arcane magic is forbidden, if you don't get your magic through a deity then you have already been hunted down and killed long ago.

You could run basic campaigns as a divine classes or if you want a sneaky witch hunt campaign your players could be arcane casters. Sorcerers would still exist, but have to keep their power secret? Warlocks as well?

[Arkhios]

simple solution to satisfy all who still want to play their wizards, sorcerers, bards, warlocks, and of course eldritch knights and arcane tricksters. Reskin arcane magic as divine magic. They could all still get their normal spells, except that they would be considered as divine spells.
No, you don't have to give all classes access to holy symbol as spell foci; instead, treat their existing foci as religious relics or the like.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah, I think I'm just going to peace out of this thread and not try to help you with any other ideas if you're just going to start lame arguments.

Help me with what? I'm not trying to get help with anything. I'm just thinking about what a setting could look like if religions were more... Well... Religious.

They are way too passive it seems.

You said X, didn't explain what you meant, then I said that X wasn't really needed. If you can't be told "no, that isn't needed" then ok...

You just don't *need* arcane magic one bit.


whose to say arcane magic is using magic without the gods permission, a LOT of settings note that mortals can only use magic because of a deities expressly setting em up for it. Thus you could instead of having it not exist at all have arcane magic be TIGHTLY controlled by the clergy.

think a little bit like dragon ages circle of the magi.

What I'm saying is a setting where the deities specifically monopolize magic so that they will be worshiped more.


This is why I don't want the gods to even exist in these sorts of games (at least, the ones I DM in). Yeah, I know it's tradition, but I simply can't feel that a world with these gods is just... right. It feels really wrong and illogical.

I'm the same way, deities don't exist in my games anymore. Arcane and Divine magic is the same thing but different spells even when I'm not going to use the Neolithic-Arcana house rules.

D&D multiverse was created more natural/scientific and I like that.


This is why I like Eberron. The most popular pantheon is either nonexistent or dragon saints. The great chuch worships a fire with a paladin eternally trapped inside staring at a demon. The Religion of Evil is devoted to self-help advice dispensed by liches, vampires and mummies. And the most devoted cleric can give all of them the middle finger and still cast level 9 divine spells by believing really hard in belief.

Sounds interesting.


I liked the Dragonlance 5th age approach, with the gods gone Magic was divided by arcane manipulating the energy of the world, while divine was re fluffed as using the power of your own inner heart.

Arcane and Psionic, nice.

[JackPhoenix]

Help me with what? I'm not trying to get help with anything. I'm just thinking about what a setting could look like if religions were more... Well... Religious.

I'm not sure why do you mean more religious... having only divine classes actually seems less religious, it delegates it to just another form of magic. There's no place for faith left, gods do exist and share their power with those who sing them praise...yay? Demon lords, archfey and Cthulhu do that with warlocks, what's the difference between them and "gods"?

I second Regitnui's mention of Eberron, if can't sure gods really exist, divine magic is powered by faith (and propably some unknown factors, because not every zealot has divine magic at his disposal) and not just by overpowered outsiders and you can't solve religious schizms by Plane Shifting to ask Olladra about the isue over afternoon tea (or, knowing her, booze) or to (trying to) kick the Devourer's (presumably scaly) butt, it just seems more "religious" to me.

Is it really still religion if you've replaced faith with knowledge and brown-nosing?

[Millstone85]

What about a setting where everyone is a Cleric, Druid, or Paladin or some derivative of that.
This is why I like Eberron. The most popular pantheon is either nonexistent or dragon saints. The great church worships a fire with a paladin eternally trapped inside staring at a demon. The Religion of Evil is devoted to self-help advice dispensed by liches, vampires and mummies. And the most devoted cleric can give all of them the middle finger and still cast level 9 divine spells by believing really hard in belief.It seems to me that combining these ideas creates a setting like that of Game of Thrones, where every magical tradition claims a connection to some pantheon. Greenseers and skinchangers have their Old Gods of the Forest, Faceless Men their Many-Faced God, Red Priests their God of Flame and Shadow... But it is left unclear if any such deities exist or if faith actually plays any part in the powers these people display. So it might be a divine-magic-only world or it might be an arcane-magic-only world where spellcasters are very religious. Former-maester Qyburn might be the first man with a secular approach to magic.

Or those entities might turn out to be real but also be describable as dragons, liches and what have you. Would the setting have actual gods then, or not? These are beings of mighty magic. People worship them. People owe their own magical abilities to them. It is pretty divine already.

[R.Shackleford]

I'm not sure why do you mean more religious... having only divine classes actually seems less religious, it delegates it to just another form of magic. There's no place for faith left, gods do exist and share their power with those who sing them praise...yay? Demon lords, archfey and Cthulhu do that with warlocks, what's the difference between them and "gods"?

I second Regitnui's mention of Eberron, if can't sure gods really exist, divine magic is powered by faith (and propably some unknown factors, because not every zealot has divine magic at his disposal) and not just by overpowered outsiders and you can't solve religious schizms by Plane Shifting to ask Olladra about the isue over afternoon tea (or, knowing her, booze) or to (trying to) kick the Devourer's (presumably scaly) butt, it just seems more "religious" to me.

Is it really still religion if you've replaced faith with knowledge and brown-nosing?

Essentially, with the power and influenced that deities have, why don't the worlds (where deities have been there a long time or since the beginning) actually show in the world.

Even without the deity doing anything, people flock to power and protection. There is no ability score prerequisite to become a cleric, paladin, druid, or whatever. One would think that people, especially ones without high potential, would flock to the teachings of deities.

Farmers wouldn't just be farmers. Farmers would be Druid or Nature Clerics.

Soldiers would all be Clerics and Paladins, not because of mechanics but because of fluff.

Sure warlocks would still be around but they are essentially weird clerics.

D&D is typically set in the dark age/middle age/renaissance type setting... Why aren't the people's minds set there too

Religions are very... Help us to say it the best way. I would love to see D&D religions to act more realistic for the sake of immersion.



It seems to me that combining these ideas creates a setting like that of Game of Thrones, where every magical tradition claims a connection to some pantheon. Greenseers and skinchangers have their Old Gods of the Forest, Faceless Men their Many-Faced God, Red Priests their God of Flame and Shadow... But it is left unclear if any such deities exist or if faith actually plays any part in the powers these people display. So it might be a divine-magic-only world or it might be an arcane-magic-only world where spellcasters are very religious. Former-maester Qyburn might be the first man with a secular approach to magic.

Or those entities might turn out to be real but also be describable as dragons, liches and what have you. Would the setting have actual gods then, or not? These are beings of mighty magic. People worship them. People owe their own magical abilities to them. It is pretty divine already.

The many face god is apparently The Doctor from what I've been told :p.

Butt GoT is essentially the exact opposite.

GoT is maybe deities and maybe connection to the deities.

D&D is YES deities and YES connection to the deities.

However the people/society/governments of D&D typically take the same approach toward their deities as the people from GoT.


(note, I'm horrible at explaining things with my thumbs)

[RickAllison]

Here are some thoughts on the various classes:

Wizards: Legal versions of these guys can still exist! My wizard in my IRL campaign has a level of knowledge cleric because he had his mind opened to magic possibilities by a deity. It would be a really interesting setting if a few churches were the only ones who had access to the vast swaths of versatility in wizard magic.

Sorcerers: These guys seem like prime candidates for indoctrination into the churches. Sorcadins of Pelor sounds like quite a catch, especially if they have been brainwashed.

Bards: This seems like the kind of caster who has learned to hide from the churches, perhaps right under their noses. These are the spies, the watchers who supply information to apostates because they value freedom.

Warlocks: Those casters who were chased out of society while weak, but who then chose to become more. Apostates galore. Alternatively, these are the people who divine beings approach to act on a more personal level, imbued by the god while acting outside normal boundaries.

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters: Special operatives and the paladin equivalents of Knowledge and Arcana domain deities. EKs are enforcers, using their knowledge of arcane techniques to hunt down those who would use them outside the church. ATs work in a more nuanced environment, obtaining information and extorting mages for aid and knowledge.

Druids: May or may not be safe. If they are safe, they are likely to be neutral in apostate hunts. Otherwise, they might harbor fugitives so long as nature isn't threatened.

Rangers: Apostate hunters, seeking out and killing those who abuse magic. Alternatively, they might hunt the hunters due to being more chaotic.

Any I missed?

[Millstone85]

Any I missed?Barbarians and monks. Some barbarians can be very druidic in the way they rage and they also may or may not be safe. Monks aren't defined as arcane or divine, they just use "ki", but that could be reflavored too.

[RickAllison]

Barbarians and monks. Some barbarians can be very druidic in the way they rage and they also may or may not be safe. Monks aren't defined as arcane or divine, they just use "ki", but that could be reflavored too.

Barbarians: These bloodthirsty warriors latch onto an almost-supernatural resistance when enraged. These would rarely be hunted as they are not a great threat alone, but any who ally with apostates would be mercilessly killed. The support of a Mage can turn these warriors from a sturdy pincushion to a nightmarish flurry of death by protecting his weaknesses. On the other hand, these beasts prove to be excellent enforcers when paired with a paladin or cleric to support the weaknesses they do have. Standard practice is to attempt to recruit, then kill if recruitment fails.

Monks: These ascetics rarely venture from their monasteries, but they provide a grave danger if provoked. The magic they create is strange and functions differently from other apostates, but this just makes them harder to understand and thus hunt. They are maneuverable, resilient, versatile, and never unarmed. Where a Mage must rest for the night to regain his strength, these strange warriors seem to be able to regain full strength in merely an hour of meditation. If it is possible to recruit, do so; their versatility is quite well-adapted to dispose of apostates. Otherwise, their monasteries should be given a wide berth and individual members should be struck down with overwhelming firepower.

[Safety Sword]

I liked the Dragonlance 5th age approach, with the gods gone Magic was divided by arcane manipulating the energy of the world, while divine was re fluffed as using the power of your own inner heart.

I am a big Dragonlance fan, but I specifically didn't like this approach. I preferred the earlier approach.

I think they had it right when wizards were controlled by needing to join a specific order to learn high level magic and sorcerers were outlawed, hunted down and killed out of hand. :smalltongue:

Oh, and divine magic was almost non-existent because all of the gods were neglecting their followers and busy beating each other up in the stars. Sorry, I mean cosmic struggle between good and evil. The balance and all that.

[R.Shackleford]

Here are some thoughts on the various classes:

Wizards: Legal versions of these guys can still exist! My wizard in my IRL campaign has a level of knowledge cleric because he had his mind opened to magic possibilities by a deity. It would be a really interesting setting if a few churches were the only ones who had access to the vast swaths of versatility in wizard magic.

Sorcerers: These guys seem like prime candidates for indoctrination into the churches. Sorcadins of Pelor sounds like quite a catch, especially if they have been brainwashed.

Bards: This seems like the kind of caster who has learned to hide from the churches, perhaps right under their noses. These are the spies, the watchers who supply information to apostates because they value freedom.

Warlocks: Those casters who were chased out of society while weak, but who then chose to become more. Apostates galore. Alternatively, these are the people who divine beings approach to act on a more personal level, imbued by the god while acting outside normal boundaries.

Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters: Special operatives and the paladin equivalents of Knowledge and Arcana domain deities. EKs are enforcers, using their knowledge of arcane techniques to hunt down those who would use them outside the church. ATs work in a more nuanced environment, obtaining information and extorting mages for aid and knowledge.

Druids: May or may not be safe. If they are safe, they are likely to be neutral in apostate hunts. Otherwise, they might harbor fugitives so long as nature isn't threatened.

Rangers: Apostate hunters, seeking out and killing those who abuse magic. Alternatively, they might hunt the hunters due to being more chaotic.

Any I missed?

From what I was thinking...

Any casting of arcane magic would get those characters killed. They would need to hide the hell out of it and if the players are playing a sneaky game. Or arcane magic just doesn't work and they just don't exist (Mystra never existed or decided that only deities should have magic and then they can give it to their followers).

Druids, Rangers, and other divine casters would be safe as they are still getting their magic from a deity.


Barbarians and monks. Some barbarians can be very druidic in the way they rage and they also may or may not be safe. Monks aren't defined as arcane or divine, they just use "ki", but that could be reflavored too.

Monks are pretty much Psionic-lite at best and full on Psionic.

Barbarians/druids should be fine as they get their powers from nature/divine. /shrug

[Logosloki]

Warlocks could be refluffed as having divine magic. Their usual sources of power are now seen as minor gods that are bound to a place and warlocks act as their intermediaries. Or the gods have divine servants/families and warlocks are the mortal contacts. An example of the former are fal'cie (or l'cie i cannot remember) and the latter like how rich/prestigious families might have a corresponding family that acts as a banner/batman or as their spies/assassins.

[R.Shackleford]

Warlocks could be refluffed as having divine magic. Their usual sources of power are now seen as minor gods that are bound to a place and warlocks act as their intermediaries. Or the gods have divine servants/families and warlocks are the mortal contacts. An example of the former are fal'cie (or l'cie i cannot remember) and the latter like how rich/prestigious families might have a corresponding family that acts as a banner/batman or as their spies/assassins.

There is no need to refluff. Warlocks are already arcane clerics. If you want a divine version of the Warlock then... Yeah, cleric.

You would just need domains such as War (phb), Arcane/Knowledge (SCAG/PHB), and Servitude (homebrew it?) to give you the Blade, Tome, and Chain pacts.

[Arkhios]

There is no need to refluff. Warlocks are already arcane clerics. If you want a divine version of the Warlock then... Yeah, cleric.

You would just need domains such as War (phb), Arcane/Knowledge (SCAG/PHB), and Servitude (homebrew it?) to give you the Blade, Tome, and Chain pacts.

Technically it's not that simple. Clerics are chosen by their deities. Warlocks actively search for their Patron to receive their powers in exchange for a deal. That is not to say a Warlock couldn't strike a deal with a deity. The nature of such a deal however is a bit different than channeling the deity's will. Pact with a deity might provide divine keyword for your abilities, but it doesn't make Warlocks become Clerics.

[R.Shackleford]

Technically it's not that simple. Clerics are chosen by their deities. Warlocks actively search for their Patron to receive their powers in exchange for a deal. That is not to say a Warlock couldn't strike a deal with a deity. The nature of such a deal however is a bit different than channeling the deity's will. Pact with a deity might provide divine keyword for your abilities, but it doesn't make Warlocks become Clerics.

Not at all. Not all Warlocks seek out their patron and not all clerics are chosen by their deity or else there is no free will in the game.

The big old cliche with fiends is that they find you and make a deal (Ask V).

The big old cliche with religion is that you hit rock bottom and then go search for help. Or you go off to a monestary/church to find guidance or power or whatever.

Warlocks and Clerics are the same thing, they just get their power from different sources. How they go about getting said power is pretty similar and one's fluff can easily go for the other.

They are both mortals who make a pact/promise in order to obtain something from a powerful outsider.

[Arkhios]

Warlocks and Clerics are the same thing, they just get their power from different sources. How they go about getting said power is pretty similar and one's fluff can easily go for the other.

No, they're not. They are different enough from each other to justify being differentiated as separate classes. If they (cleric & warlock) were the "same thing" why would they (D&D designers) have made two classes instead of one? They gain their power from different sources by different methods.

[Regitnui]

No, they're not. They are different enough from each other to justify being differentiated as separate classes. If they (cleric & warlock) were the "same thing" why would they (D&D designers) have made two classes instead of one? They gain their power from different sources by different methods.

I can kinda see where he's coming from. Both warlocks and clerics gain power from the sponsorship of a greater entity. The main difference is the source; a cleric gets their power from a being of divine strength, while a warlock from a slightly lesser being; both clerics and warlocks could draw power from Asmodeus and both could still be his trusted agents in the world...

[BrianDavion]

If they (cleric & warlock) were the "same thing" why would they (D&D designers) have made two classes instead of one?


to sell a Splatbook back in 3rd edition.

[Gastronomie]

There's a vast difference between clerics and warlocks.

Clerics seem generally "okay". They're nice people.

On the contrary, Warlocks seem really edgy and dark, and overall make interesting characters. At least in my opinion.

[RickAllison]

To me, a cleric is marked by being the lowly servant of their deity. It is a decidedly one-sided relationship where the deity really has all the power. In contrast, a warlock has a much more even level with his patron.

A cleric is gifted power from his deity because the deity deigns to acknowledge his accomplishments. A warlock receives his powers through a contract , trading a service for the power.

A cleric is part of a monarchic/fascistic relationship while the warlock is more capitalistic.

[Millstone85]

I would say that the archetypical cleric is a true follower of what the setting defines as an actual god, while the archetypical warlock is bound by contract to a god-like being such as a fiend, an archfey or an "outer" god.

Now, if you want the D&D equivalent of a Satanist, a Wiccan or a Cthulhu cultist, or if you want a character with a business-like relationship to an actual god, you can go either cleric or warlock and just not play the archetypical one.

[MrFahrenheit]

This discussion brings up a question I've been pondering for some time.

Obviously, the deities in the settings that have them aren't all powerful. But are they more powerful within their domains than Greek gods? I can see an argument both ways. They're not constantly interacting with mortals, and Greek gods could basically be viewed as a family of immortals with super powers. However, more than one D&D deity has access to any given domain, so each individual deity can only control certain aspects of them.

Also, am I the only one who feels that a deity-centric campaign/setting can begin to feel more like Ancient Greece with medieval weaponry, rather than the medieval ages with a Hellenically styled pantheon (which most fantasy attempts to do)?

[JackPhoenix]

This discussion brings up a question I've been pondering for some time.

Obviously, the deities in the settings that have them aren't all powerful. But are they more powerful within their domains than Greek gods? I can see an argument both ways. They're not constantly interacting with mortals, and Greek gods could basically be viewed as a family of immortals with super powers. However, more than one D&D deity has access to any given domain, so each individual deity can only control certain aspects of them.

Also, am I the only one who feels that a deity-centric campaign/setting can begin to feel more like Ancient Greece with medieval weaponry, rather than the medieval ages with a Hellenically styled pantheon (which most fantasy attempts to do)?

Cleric domains are not the same things as divine portfolios. Apollo and Hefaistos could both grant Light domain, but for Apollo, it would represent his role as Sun god and for Hefaistos, it would come from the fires of his forge.

Domain is the mechanical representation of things they give to player characters, their portfolios are things they rule over. How complete control each god has over his/her charge depends on setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

To me, a cleric is marked by being the lowly servant of their deity. It is a decidedly one-sided relationship where the deity really has all the power. In contrast, a warlock has a much more even level with his patron.

A cleric is gifted power from his deity because the deity deigns to acknowledge his accomplishments. A warlock receives his powers through a contract , trading a service for the power This was a great post until that last sentence, which I left out since it is rubbish. Suggest leaving politics out of it. It is also worthwhile recalling the difference between an economic system and a political system (and of course their inevitable overlap due to how power works).

[Dr. Cliché]

This is why I don't want the gods to even exist in these sorts of games (at least, the ones I DM in). Yeah, I know it's tradition, but I simply can't feel that a world with these gods is just... right. It feels really wrong and illogical.

Any chance you could elaborate on this?

[MrFahrenheit]

Cleric domains are not the same things as divine portfolios. Apollo and Hefaistos could both grant Light domain, but for Apollo, it would represent his role as Sun god and for Hefaistos, it would come from the fires of his forge.

Domain is the mechanical representation of things they give to player characters, their portfolios are things they rule over. How complete control each god has over his/her charge depends on setting.

Point taken...so I guess the d&deities really aren't more powerful than your average Greek god?

My next campaign is totally going to be Ancient Greece in theme.

[Gastronomie]

Any chance you could elaborate on this?I believe that in TRPGs, the players should feel special, that their actions are what makes the world move. The world doesn't necesarrily need to revolve around the players, but the players' influence should be quite large.

If there's these "Gods" around, the characters, being mortals, seem really... you know... small. Something of insignificance. I don't like it. The player characters should carve out their own destinies by their own hands, instead of being guided by some "divine creator" or something. Even if the player characters weren't "guided", I feel it's best if the world has no gods, and the characters really need to fight for themselves.

It's not really about me being atheist or anything. It's about what I seek in protagonists.

[Regitnui]

Any chance you could elaborate on this?

All powerful beings who've really got nothing better to do than play with the lives of mortals like they're game pieces or sit on their high-CR butts and wait for the players to come beat them up/negotiate boons. Eberron's dragons ars a better representation of the standard D&D "bunch of all-powerful meddlers restrained from killing each other for reasons" pantheon. At least with the dragons there's a reason for them to be concerned with the lesser beings: if they don't, demonic lords will rise and enslave the world. Again. The evil gods in most campaign settings appear just as helpless as the good gods for no reason.

Maybe that's a topic for another rant...

[RickAllison]

This was a great post until that last sentence, which I left out since it is rubbish. Suggest leaving politics out of it. It is also worthwhile recalling the difference between an economic system and a political system (and of course their inevitable overlap due to how power works).

It was more a commentary on the absolute nature of one versus the contractual nature of the second. They are different systems because they capture very different things. The deity has total control over the relationship (a monopoly would be the closest economic system, where the deity has control over the supply and can exert greater control over the buyers) while the warlock has bargaining power with the patron (there didn't seem to be an appropriate government system to continue the comparison).

Discussion of politics is verboten on these forums, but just mentioning a system is not. How can we carry on a civilized discussion of in-universe social structures if you decry statements using basic terms as rubbish for doing so?

[KorvinStarmast]

How can we carry on a civilized discussion of in-universe social structures if you decry statements using basic terms as rubbish for doing so?
You last sentence added NOTHING to the preceding, well thought out and well presented, description of the power relationships involved. You don't need to try to shoe horn stuff into a label. Enough on that, and RATS>

I had a post just disappear about how the existential struggle between "powers" and "deities" is a nice return to OD&D Law versus Chaos as the cosmic backdrop, but never mind.

I think RS has a great idea.

[Dr. Cliché]

All powerful beings who've really got nothing better to do than play with the lives of mortals like they're game pieces or sit on their high-CR butts and wait for the players to come beat them up/negotiate boons. Eberron's dragons ars a better representation of the standard D&D "bunch of all-powerful meddlers restrained from killing each other for reasons" pantheon. At least with the dragons there's a reason for them to be concerned with the lesser beings: if they don't, demonic lords will rise and enslave the world. Again. The evil gods in most campaign settings appear just as helpless as the good gods for no reason.

Maybe that's a topic for another rant...


I believe that in TRPGs, the players should feel special, that their actions are what makes the world move. The world doesn't necesarrily need to revolve around the players, but the players' influence should be quite large.

If there's these "Gods" around, the characters, being mortals, seem really... you know... small. Something of insignificance. I don't like it. The player characters should carve out their own destinies by their own hands, instead of being guided by some "divine creator" or something. Even if the player characters weren't "guided", I feel it's best if the world has no gods, and the characters really need to fight for themselves.

It's not really about me being atheist or anything. It's about what I seek in protagonists.

Ah, I get what you mean now. Thanks for explaining. :smallsmile:

Interesting that you bring this up, as one of my villains in a campaign was based around this sort of thing. He was an elven mage who, it was prophesied, would be the one to save their city from a great evil. When the time came, he instead sided with the evil and allowed it to destroy the city. His reasoning was basically 'how dare the gods choose my destiny for me.' From then on, he basically dedicated himself to evil and screwing with people as a middle-finger to the gods.


Anyway, I don't necessarily object to gods in fantasy games, but I prefer it when their existence (not to mention their assistance) is always in doubt. Otherwise, as you say, players start to feel rather small and not in control of their own fates.

Out of interest, would you prefer that the gods were absent altogether, or just less influential?

[Gastronomie]

If there's no paladin or cleric in the party, I like to picture them as merely "religions the people of the world believe". People worship the gods, but no one has proof they exist. They simply just believe in it as a part of their culture and custom.

[Temperjoke]

You know, Eddings has two book trilogies that are similar to this thought, the Elenium and the Tamuli. In this world, spells are actually prayers to deities; basically, if you ask a god in the right way, he/she grants your request, assuming they feel like it. Usually they do, because this form of spell-prayer counts as worship for them, but sometimes the evil gods don't necessarily answer. I know it's not exactly the same as your thought, with no arcane magic, but it's similar. With this world environment, Sorcerers would be hunted, wizards are actually priests, warlocks could be hunted depending on who they get their powers from (Archfey might be iffy, Archfiend is probably out depending on the area's religion).

[Dr. Cliché]

I've enjoyed some of Eddings' books, but (IMO) he does have a tendency to make his heroes rather overpowered, compared to his villains.

The heroes, in addition to having a god on their side, also acquire God 2.0. Basically a god with the power to unmake other gods.

Rather unsurprisingly, the villains can't really do much after that. :smallwink:

[Grinner]

So in D&D we have deities of good and evil that can actually prove their existence and give spells and features.

What about a setting where everyone is a Cleric, Druid, or Palafin or some derivative of that. Arcane magic is forbidden, if you don't get your magic through a deity then you have already been hunted down and killed long ago. The deities, even the good ones, view humans and other races casting spells without their permission to be a slap in their face.

All the other classes that have specific features could be converted to subclasses. Divine Bards, Avengers (Divine Rogues), Wardens (Divine Barbarians), and Shaman (Divine Sorcerer) could all be subclasses or whatever.

You could run basic campaigns as a divine classes or if you want a sneaky witch hunt campaign your players could be arcane casters.

This would be very difficult to work.

People will tend to approach fantasy (or anything else, really) with their own values in mind. Thus, I would think it would be very difficult to justify the intolerant mindset required for this sort of campaign to many players. In fact, it would require revising the definitions of good and evil.

In the past, arcane magic has been deemed evil in certain works of fiction due to corrupting effects inherent in it. You would need a similarly viable justification for the players to accept the premise.

[Temperjoke]

I've enjoyed some of Eddings' books, but (IMO) he does have a tendency to make his heroes rather overpowered, compared to his villains.

The heroes, in addition to having a god on their side, also acquire God 2.0. Basically a god with the power to unmake other gods.

Rather unsurprisingly, the villains can't really do much after that. :smallwink:

Yeah, I'm not terribly enamored with his writing. All of his books are like that, really, relies on deus ex machina way too much.

Back on the original topic, I think it could be interesting, but I'm not fond of putting to many limitations on player choices like that. I mean, strictly speaking, anyone who chose to play an arcane caster would be constantly in danger, unless the Gods aren't omniscient in that setting.

Now, if it wasn't the entire world, merely a continent or country that followed the "no arcane" beliefs... that would work out much better, I think.

[RickAllison]

Yeah, I'm not terribly enamored with his writing. All of his books are like that, really, relies on deus ex machina way too much.

Back on the original topic, I think it could be interesting, but I'm not fond of putting to many limitations on player choices like that. I mean, strictly speaking, anyone who chose to play an arcane caster would be constantly in danger, unless the Gods aren't omniscient in that setting.

Now, if it wasn't the entire world, merely a continent or country that followed the "no arcane" beliefs... that would work out much better, I think.

To be sure, the Sorcerers would be packing Subtle Spell. This would be an excellent time for Favored Soul, however. The idea of an apostate campaign with different arcane casters on the run could be a blast!

[BrianDavion]

I believe that in TRPGs, the players should feel special, that their actions are what makes the world move. The world doesn't necesarrily need to revolve around the players, but the players' influence should be quite large.

If there's these "Gods" around, the characters, being mortals, seem really... you know... small. Something of insignificance. I don't like it. The player characters should carve out their own destinies by their own hands, instead of being guided by some "divine creator" or something. Even if the player characters weren't "guided", I feel it's best if the world has no gods, and the characters really need to fight for themselves.

It's not really about me being atheist or anything. It's about what I seek in protagonists.


with all due respect that's kind of a silly additude, yeah if gods pop up and help your players slay a buncha wovles then that's silly. or if gods pop up at all ever. but you can have perfectly epic tales in a world where there are people more powerful then you. consider lord of the rings. the true hero of that story is often considered to be Sam, whom was the HUMBLEST member of the fellowship.

[Safety Sword]

To me, a cleric is marked by being the lowly servant of their deity. It is a decidedly one-sided relationship where the deity really has all the power. In contrast, a warlock has a much more even level with his patron.

A cleric is gifted power from his deity because the deity deigns to acknowledge his accomplishments. A warlock receives his powers through a contract , trading a service for the power.

A cleric is part of a monarchic/fascistic relationship while the warlock is more capitalistic.

I don't agree with the description of the warlock-patron relationship.

Patrons have the ability to also "turn off the tap" that powers the warlock. Sure, it's an arrangement made by trading service for power, but it doesn't make it any more "even" than the relationship you have with your electricity provider. Even with a contract, they still hold your supply at their whim. And if you're unhappy with what you're getting, you can swap providers.

Warlocks are the consumers in the eldritch power deregulation market scenario.

[Gastronomie]

with all due respect that's kind of a silly additude, yeah if gods pop up and help your players slay a buncha wovles then that's silly. or if gods pop up at all ever. but you can have perfectly epic tales in a world where there are people more powerful then you. consider lord of the rings. the true hero of that story is often considered to be Sam, whom was the HUMBLEST member of the fellowship.The "stronger characters" in Lord of the Rings (Gandalf etc.) are generally part of the "main cast" = the "party", though. The readers can "cheer for them". Not the case with gods.

Having gods appear out of nowhere and save the day, and having Gandalf appear out of nowhere and save the day are, while they sorta seem similar on first glance, actually completely different things.

[R.Shackleford]

I don't agree with the description of the warlock-patron relationship.

Patrons have the ability to also "turn off the tap" that powers the warlock. Sure, it's an arrangement made by trading service for power, but it doesn't make it any more "even" than the relationship you have with your electricity provider. Even with a contract, they still hold your supply at their whim. And if you're unhappy with what you're getting, you can swap providers.

Warlocks are the consumers in the eldritch power deregulation market scenario.

I'm not sure if there is any mechanics, outside of DM fiat, that causes clerics or warlocks to lose their features.

5e is pretty lenient even with Paladins.

[Safety Sword]

I'm not sure if there is any mechanics, outside of DM fiat, that causes clerics or warlocks to lose their features.

5e is pretty lenient even with Paladins.

OK, that's a separate issue. I'm not suggesting you take away character features as a DM unless you want your game to melt down.

What I was saying is that as a character, you are aware of where your power comes from and if you decide to go against the tenets of your "power provider" you should feel at risk of angering them and losing what they give to you.

Clerics are easier to consider in this regard because they have an assumed structure to their faith which can guide their behaviour.

When it comes to warlocks however, the patron should have goals in mind, and should be providing power on the basis that the warlock is making progress in his key performance indicators, furthering those goals.

Warlock patrons don't just hand out power and expect nothing in return, a pact requires sacrifice on the part of the warlock all the time, not just to get to Level 1.

[RickAllison]

The "stronger characters" in Lord of the Rings (Gandalf etc.) are generally part of the "main cast" = the "party", though. The readers can "cheer for them". Not the case with gods.

Having gods appear out of nowhere and save the day, and having Gandalf appear out of nowhere and save the day are, while they sorta seem similar on first glance, actually completely different things.

Gandalf was definitely a stronger character, but he certainly wasn't at a level to be compared to the gods of D&D. He was one of the Maia, the soldiers, handmaidens, and other instruments of the Valar. Those are the more apt comparison.

How much influence did the Valar have over the Lord of the Rings story? Not rhetorical, I don't remember, but I don't think we see that much impact. The impact that we do see is like the waters that flooded out he Nazgul riders, acts that certainly have an effect, but every major victory came from the PC-equivalents without the aid of the Valar.

[NecessaryWeevil]

If you want to play up the "witch hunt" aspect, Katherine Kurtz' Deryni series is a setting in which arcane casters are a hated, feared and hunted minority. There might be some good plot hooks there, including the drug merasha that incapacitates casters, combining the role of identification and subdual. The only sanctioned magic is performed by royalty, who have convinced the people that their magical abilities are given by divine right.

[BrianDavion]

Gandalf was definitely a stronger character, but he certainly wasn't at a level to be compared to the gods of D&D. He was one of the Maia, the soldiers, handmaidens, and other instruments of the Valar. Those are the more apt comparison.

How much influence did the Valar have over the Lord of the Rings story?


How about when Gandolf was "sent back, to finish what I've started"? contineuing the "gandolf's essentially a PC" comparison, this would be the equivilant of a cleric being ressurected by the gods of a setting. this is how the gods roll in a game, they operate subtly, through mortal agents or the like. An Avatar of Thor isn't going to pop up and bash heads everytime an Orc looks sideways at someone. now that said an avatar of thor might arrange for a conveniant flash of thunder and lighting to awaken a party of adventurers he favors before Orcs can creep up on their camp and slaughter them in their sleep. or... he might not bother. I mean... in the long run, why get involved? when you're a deity you tend to think on differant levels then mortals.

[RickAllison]

How about when Gandolf was "sent back, to finish what I've started"? contineuing the "gandolf's essentially a PC" comparison, this would be the equivilant of a cleric being ressurected by the gods of a setting. this is how the gods roll in a game, they operate subtly, through mortal agents or the like. An Avatar of Thor isn't going to pop up and bash heads everytime an Orc looks sideways at someone. now that said an avatar of thor might arrange for a conveniant flash of thunder and lighting to awaken a party of adventurers he favors before Orcs can creep up on their camp and slaughter them in their sleep. or... he might not bother. I mean... in the long run, why get involved? when you're a deity you tend to think on differant levels then mortals.

Excellent points. And don't get me started on Eru, the guy who made the Valar. He and the vast majority of the Valar have basically sat back and watched how Arda progresses. Only a handful stuck around to deal with Melkor's interference.

Now I feel like there are millions of alternate pantheons in the D&Dverse that just sit back with infinite popcorn and treat us as a movie...

[Regitnui]

Now I feel like there are millions of alternate pantheons in the D&Dverse that just sit back with infinite popcorn and treat us as a movie...

I treat this as the default state of most D&D gods, even the ones people worship.

It doesn't make sense, though. I get the Lawful gods agreeing on noninterference, and the Chaotic Good gods might see more value in their worshippers learning self-reliance, but why don't the various Chaotic Neutral/Evil gods walk around the world all the time? After all, doing what you want is one of the core descriptors of Chaotic alignment. Shouldn't you see the gods' handiwork everywhere, and not in the RL way of looking at a pretty sunset?

[Arkhios]

I treat this as the default state of most D&D gods, even the ones people worship.

It doesn't make sense, though. I get the Lawful gods agreeing on noninterference, and the Chaotic Good gods might see more value in their worshippers learning self-reliance, but why don't the various Chaotic Neutral/Evil gods walk around the world all the time? After all, doing what you want is one of the core descriptors of Chaotic alignment. Shouldn't you see the gods' handiwork everywhere, and not in the RL way of looking at a pretty sunset?

Where do you suppose Aasimar come from? They're part celestial beings. Celestials can be either good or evil or anything between. :smalltongue:

[Regitnui]

Where do you suppose Aasimar come from? They're part celestial beings. Celestials can be either good or evil or anything between. :smalltongue:

An aasimar is what happens when a Good-aligned god really likes his chief priestess.

[Gastronomie]

An aasimar is what happens when a Good-aligned god really likes his chief priestess.An aasimar is what happens when Zeus appears in your campaign world.

[RickAllison]

An aasimar is what happens when Zeus appears in your campaign world.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6c/65/fe/6c65fe8c30a5fd114dd54d0ccf017998.jpg

[Dr. Cliché]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6c/65/fe/6c65fe8c30a5fd114dd54d0ccf017998.jpg

I want to sig this. :smallbiggrin:

[Temperjoke]

An aasimar is what happens when a Good-aligned god really likes his chief priestess.

Related (http://oglaf.com/offering/) and very much NSFW

[BrianDavion]

I treat this as the default state of most D&D gods, even the ones people worship.

It doesn't make sense, though. I get the Lawful gods agreeing on noninterference, and the Chaotic Good gods might see more value in their worshippers learning self-reliance, but why don't the various Chaotic Neutral/Evil gods walk around the world all the time? After all, doing what you want is one of the core descriptors of Chaotic alignment. Shouldn't you see the gods' handiwork everywhere, and not in the RL way of looking at a pretty sunset?

The answer is gonna depend on the camapign setting to a degree obviously...

In some gods may not be ABLE to manifest on the world beyond granting visions to faithful
In others it may simply take too much out of them to do so on a regular basis
In some settings they may occasionally manifest

that said one big answer is the same answer to the question "why doesn't the US or Russia just nuke all those little third world dictatorships that they dislike?" being "sure they could. but it'd immediatly cause an escalation that puts them at risk with powers that could do them real harm."

I mean sure Bane could come down to the realms and try to conquer it himself, but then a deity of good (or even an evil one whose in oppisition) could come down and stop him. Hell, apparently Bane's never been too much of a fan of appering as an Avatar ever since Torm kicked his ass in the ToT

[RickAllison]

The answer is gonna depend on the camapign setting to a degree obviously...

In some gods may not be ABLE to manifest on the world beyond granting visions to faithful
In others it may simply take too much out of them to do so on a regular basis
In some settings they may occasionally manifest

that said one big answer is the same answer to the question "why doesn't the US or Russia just nuke all those little third world dictatorships that they dislike?" being "sure they could. but it'd immediatly cause an escalation that puts them at risk with powers that could do them real harm."

I mean sure Bane could come down to the realms and try to conquer it himself, but then a deity of good (or even an evil one whose in oppisition) could come down and stop him. Hell, apparently Bane's never been too much of a fan of appering as an Avatar ever since Torm kicked his ass in the ToT

This is an excellent point. When they flash down an avatar, that could take a lot out of them. Take the Rise of Tiamat: why wouldn't Bahamut just intercede? Because by making part of himself mortal, he is giving his enemies a chance to weaken him. By trying to fight Tiamat, he could give her the chance to take his power for her own. If he stays in his heaven, he can always help re-create the world anew.

[BrianDavion]

This is an excellent point. When they flash down an avatar, that could take a lot out of them. Take the Rise of Tiamat: why wouldn't Bahamut just intercede? Because by making part of himself mortal, he is giving his enemies a chance to weaken him. By trying to fight Tiamat, he could give her the chance to take his power for her own. If he stays in his heaven, he can always help re-create the world anew.



right, it's more effective in many cases, and also SAFER to work through mortals. this doesn't mean the gods are absent entirely (one of class abilities of a 5th edition cleric is called divine intervention, pretty clearly obvious) but they're gonna work more subtly then appering in avatar form and smashing stuff apart. most of the time they're going to at best, send a sign to a favoured servant prodding them to take action.

When a Paladin of Tyr shows up and saves the day. that IS Tyr getting involved.

[JackPhoenix]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6c/65/fe/6c65fe8c30a5fd114dd54d0ccf017998.jpg

Zeus wore pants? Hm... in retrospect, that may be part of the problem...