Player Buy-In on Divine Classes

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey Playground,

I have an odd situation. Basically I have a player that's a pious person in real life, and they feel like playing a paladin or cleric impinges on their faith. I've offered various other options (like using the cleric of a philosophy from Xanathar's, etc), but they remain somewhat unconvinced. I want to be clear: in other respects this person is a great player, and one of the most tactically adept players I've had the pleasure of DMing for. Which is why I would love for them to play a paladin. I've backed off it for several months now, but I wanted to broach the subject with new options.

Has anyone had this happen at their table? I just feel like this player is missing out on a lot of fun here. What thoughts do you all have?

Please don't denigrate my player (that's not helpful), but if you have options, builds, or other suggestions, please hit me up.

[Man_Over_Game]

Hey Playground,

I have an odd situation. Basically I have a player that's a pious person in real life, and they feel like playing a paladin or cleric impinges on their faith. I've offered various other options (like using the cleric of a philosophy from Xanathar's, etc), but they remain somewhat unconvinced. I want to be clear: in other respects this person is a great player, and one of the most tactically adept players I've had the pleasure of DMing for. Which is why I would love for them to play a paladin. I've backed off it for several months now, but I wanted to broach the subject with new options.

Has anyone had this happen at their table? I just feel like this player is missing out on a lot of fun here. What thoughts do you all have?

Please don't denigrate my player (that's not helpful), but if you have options, builds, or other suggestions, please hit me up.

They can gain power from a Plane by using the Oath's/Domain as a conduit. Since the whole "planar" thing is tied into alignment, just have it be that as long as you act a certain way, you can channel the power of Positive Elemental Energy into spells and weapons and stuff. The "Domain" of Light grants power to Creatures of Light, and acting in those ways is a cosmic cheat code for Domain of Light to grant you those same powers.

I've played with highly religious people before. Not to sound rude, but in the end, they need to either get over it or make the decision themselves. There are many people who still consider DnD to be a practice of Satanism, or that they don't want people to be interacting with simulated violence. They have to make the decision as to what works best for them, and that might mean playing something that fits them better.

I don't like Barbarians or Fighters. It doesn't matter if that's what the team needs, I can't play them. So I find a way to work around it. Sure, it's because I think those classes are incredibly dull and can be played by monkeys, but that's my problem to deal with. I could still play a Moon Druid, a Paladin, a Bladesinger, a Swords Bard, a Horizon Walker Ranger, a Draconic Sorcerer Hill Dwarf... You get the idea. There are options, and they are numerous. If their opinion means they don't want to play pious classes, then it's a good thing that there are 9 classes that aren't.

[Unoriginal]

Paladins don't get power from a deity, but from their Oath (unless you're in Faerun or a world with similar cosmology on this point).

What exactly do your player feels like it's impinging on their faith? The fact the power is said to be of a "divine source"?

[MrStabby]

Never seen this before and to be honest it is a bit alien to me so I might not offer the best suggestions...

First up, just to say I think you are doing the right thing in accommodating the players beliefs. We are all different and each person has different needs from a game.

As to the suggestions:

Would they play a paladin aligned to their own faith? Use it as an outlet to showcase and celebrate their values? Use the class to reflect on the teachings of their own faith?

Could you strip out the religious element through some refluffing of abilities? Paladins is a great support class and playing them as a very martial bard could work?

Or... let them be. If they are having fun and everyone else is then there is not a huge problem. Maybe a lost opportunity but is it worth the risk of losing what you have? You know the people better and might need to make the judgement.

[PhantomSoul]

Hey Playground,

I have an odd situation. Basically I have a player that's a pious person in real life, and they feel like playing a paladin or cleric impinges on their faith. I've offered various other options (like using the cleric of a philosophy from Xanathar's, etc), but they remain somewhat unconvinced. I want to be clear: in other respects this person is a great player, and one of the most tactically adept players I've had the pleasure of DMing for. Which is why I would love for them to play a paladin. I've backed off it for several months now, but I wanted to broach the subject with new options.

Has anyone had this happen at their table? I just feel like this player is missing out on a lot of fun here. What thoughts do you all have?

Please don't denigrate my player (that's not helpful), but if you have options, builds, or other suggestions, please hit me up.

Just to confirm: does the player want to play a paladin/cleric except is holding back for the religious reason, or do you want them to play that and they're refusing/declining for the religious reason? From the phrasing it looks like the desire for them to play the classes is yours rather than theirs.

That said, if they want to play a cleric/paladin, clerics of philosophies make perfect sense (as noted before me) which matches the idea that power comes from belief, and paladins follow oaths but not necessarily gods anyhow (at least in the base PHB; your game may be different).

[Zevox]

Or... let them be. If they are having fun and everyone else is then there is not a huge problem. Maybe a lost opportunity but is it worth the risk of losing what you have?
This. Generally speaking, I'd just say let him play what he wants to play, don't pressure him into playing anything he doesn't, whatever his reasons for that may be. I don't see any good reason to do that, ever. It's just a game that's meant to be played for fun, so let him do exactly that.

[Grog Logs]

Hey Playground,

I have an odd situation. Basically I have a player that's a pious person in real life, and they feel like playing a paladin or cleric impinges on their faith. I've offered various other options (like using the cleric of a philosophy from Xanathar's, etc), but they remain somewhat unconvinced. I want to be clear: in other respects this person is a great player, and one of the most tactically adept players I've had the pleasure of DMing for. Which is why I would love for them to play a paladin. I've backed off it for several months now, but I wanted to broach the subject with new options.

Has anyone had this happen at their table? I just feel like this player is missing out on a lot of fun here. What thoughts do you all have?

Please don't denigrate my player (that's not helpful), but if you have options, builds, or other suggestions, please hit me up.

I can understand why you would want to see this Player shine in their best element. And, I think that your intentions are good. But, the very reason that they would shine is the very reason that they feel uncomfortable. To shine they have to muddy what is most precious to them.

The only possible way that I can see for your idea to work would be if the Player could see your point using the example of Aslan from The Chronicles of Narnia. C. S. Lewis (the author) viewed Aslan as (an imaginary answer to) the reincarnation of a real life major religious deity (rather than an allegory as many readers would suppose). I'm being vague here to respect the boards rules on religions. See Wikipedia entry for Aslan.


Never seen this before and to be honest it is a bit alien to me so I might not offer the best suggestions...

First up, just to say I think you are doing the right thing in accommodating the players beliefs. We are all different and each person has different needs from a game.

As to the suggestions:

Would they play a paladin aligned to their own faith? Use it as an outlet to showcase and celebrate their values? Use the class to reflect on the teachings of their own faith?

Could you strip out the religious element through some refluffing of abilities? Paladins is a great support class and playing them as a very martial bard could work?

Or... let them be. If they are having fun and everyone else is then there is not a huge problem. Maybe a lost opportunity but is it worth the risk of losing what you have? You know the people better and might need to make the judgement.

While in some ways this is a good suggestion, I suggest that the PC using the Player's faith would still be unpleasant for the Player. A real life deity in a world with fantasy deities creates potential problems from certain religious perspectives. For example, it may be viewed as equating the two as equals within the context of the gaming world. That is, why does the fantasy deity have the same power as the real life deity? This would likely be viewed as sacrilegious or mocking their faith. I'm not saying that I agree with the Player (or that all pious players would agree with that), but this particular Player seems to feel that way.


Not a quote, just more general responses

Rather than trying to pigeon hole your Player into a role that you want, why don't you have a discussion with the Player about how to bring out some of their pious characteristics into a non-divine PC. For instance, maybe they play a Rogue scoundrel whose selfishness provides a clear example about why greater piety in the real world is needed. Maybe that character evolves over time. Or, maybe they don't.

Or, maybe, they play a Bard who is only focused on hedonism - the next song, the next whine glass, the next party with consenting adult activities (off screen, of course). Then, maybe their hedonism leads them to neglect someone in need in the first session (or story arc). Later, the Bard runs across the dead body of that NPC (or that PC is permanently crippled, or homeless). The Bard may start to have a small change of heart, but doesn't understand how to be a good person. They only start to do good because to look good in the eyes of others or to alleviate their own guilt. That is, the Bard is falsely altruistic. Never when real sacrifice is involved. Then, maybe the real campaign kicks off. Can the Bard learn what real, true altruism is?

Or, Peter Parker letting the robber go who kills his uncle? Or, an Ebenezer Scrooge or Mr. Potter (It's a Wonderful Life? Or, a BoJack Horseman, who never changes - no matter how much he appears to at first?

In other words, have an open conversation with your Player. Let them know that you respect their religious views and their discomfort with playing a divine PC. But, also tell them that you think that they have a lot of untapped potential as a role-player. Tell the Player some of the personality and character traits that they possess that you admire. Be specific. Ask them, if there is any way to bring some of those traits into play in the game through a non-divine PC who displays traits that are pious-adjacent. And, also mention that sometimes the best way to recognize the importance of something is to first have its absence. Explore what does the absence of these pious traits create in terms of one's spirit or soul. What are the negative short- and long-term consequences to living such a life? Bring that to life in a PC. And, ask your Player if they would like to explore those consequences in a safe space in order to develop a deeper appreciation of who they are in the real world. And, ask your Player if they would like to play out that negative space throughout the campaign. Or, whether they would like to witness the transformation of a PC from the anti-thesis of piety to striving for that piety (even if never reaching it).

[Unoriginal]

Honestly though, I don't see why an amazing tactical player wouldn't be as enjoyable to see playing, say, a Fighter or a Bard.

[J-H]

I'm reluctant to play devout clerics, and I'll never play a Fiend-pact Warlock, for the same reasons. I think the Paladin oaths as presented in 5E provide a suitable alternative, since the power is derived from the power of the oath, with no deity necessarily involved - just as a druid's power comes from "around" instead of a particular source. One of the oaths made my wife go "Oh, it's _____" (what we believe) when she first glanced through it.

[2D8HP]

Honestly though, I don't see why an amazing tactical player wouldn't be as enjoyable to see playing, say, a Fighter or a Bard.


This +1.

The player sounds like they'd make a great Champion Fighter (or a bunch of other classes).

Throw some magic items their way or suggest the Magic Initiate Feat (if they want).

The classes are pretty balanced so it's not like not playing a Paladins and having those abilities even if your otherwise upholding the Tenets of an Oath because that's how you want your PC to act (or not!) is a great burden, and if they don't want to write down on their character sheet any of the deities of Faerûn, don't insist.

[Grey Watcher]

I find that the more you insist, wheedle, cajole, bargain, and plead, the less appealing the thing being advocated becomes to the person.

They know these classes exist. You've outlined ways they could be played that wouldn't involve worshipping a deity. The option's there, and they'll take it if and when they want.

If they play a Paladin primarily to get you to shut up about it, they're almost guaranteed to have a bad time of it.

[Unoriginal]

I find that the more you insist, wheedle, cajole, bargain, and plead, the less appealing the thing being advocated becomes to the person.

They know these classes exist. You've outlined ways they could be played that wouldn't involve worshipping a deity. The option's there, and they'll take it if and when they want.

If they play a Paladin primarily to get you to shut up about it, they're almost guaranteed to have a bad time of it.

100% true.

[2D8HP]

...One of the oaths....


Despite not particularly wanting to play a Paladins or any spellcasting class, because I didn't want to keep track of the options and resource management, plus my usual character concept is "a guy with some skills, a bow and a sword" one of the Oaths made me go "I want my PC to try to adhere to that" without the mechanical goodies attached.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah... don't try to force it.

Just make sure you've laid out their options and alternatives, make it clear that it's available... then make it clear that it's their choice and they can play whatever class they'll have fun with.

[Tectorman]

First suggestion: Suggest the Oath of Treachery from the Unearthed Arcana article. It has no beliefs, behavioral requirements, or tenets of any kind (you're not even required to be treacherous); instead, it's just a subcollection of class features to be added onto the main collection of class features. No different from the Wizard, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, or any other non-divine class. In fact, no different from any other variety of Paladin or Cleric, either; they just come with unfortunate baggage that the Oath of Treachery is (ironically) honest enough to do away with.

Second suggestion: Outright and explicitly treat the Cleric and every other Oath sub-class of Paladin the same way. As in, "there is no 'Oath of Devotion Paladin', but there is a 'Collection of Class Features #7, Sub-collection #7A'". None of the legacy baggage, oaths, tenets, behavioral requirements, etc. is necessary to the tactical play that you say this player is good at and that you want to see him exercise without reservation, so I recommend just throwing the dunsels overboard.

[Keravath]

Honestly, I would simply respect their opinion and let them choose what they want to play. There is nothing mechanically that singles out a paladin as a good class for a tactical player. All the classes can work for such a player.

If the person has an objection on religious grounds to playing paladins or clerics then that is their position to take and beyond mentioning that they might enjoy playing the class mechanically and that paladins at least don't have much in terms of religious overtones in this edition (assuming he hasn't read the material) then I would leave it at that.

On the other hand, if they have read the material already and still don't feel comfortable with the classes then I wouldn't raise the possibility at all. They know what the classes can do, they know the lore they are based on, they don't want to play one for whatever reason ... end of story.

[Keravath]

First suggestion: Suggest the Oath of Treachery from the Unearthed Arcana article. It has no beliefs, behavioral requirements, or tenets of any kind (you're not even required to be treacherous); instead, it's just a subcollection of class features to be added onto the main collection of class features. No different from the Wizard, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, or any other non-divine class. In fact, no different from any other variety of Paladin or Cleric, either; they just come with unfortunate baggage that the Oath of Treachery is (ironically) honest enough to do away with.

Second suggestion: Outright and explicitly treat the Cleric and every other Oath sub-class of Paladin the same way. As in, "there is no 'Oath of Devotion Paladin', but there is a 'Collection of Class Features #7, Sub-collection #7A'". None of the legacy baggage, oaths, tenets, behavioral requirements, etc. is necessary to the tactical play that you say this player is good at and that you want to see him exercise without reservation, so I recommend just throwing the dunsels overboard.

I just want to comment that no matter how you reskin the mechanics of the cleric class ... it is still rooted on a historical basis as a divine casting class. If it was just the lore that bothered the player, the player could easily reskin it as anything as you suggest. However, when someone asks what class they are playing it will be "Cleric but we changed things up so it isn't called cleric" ... bottom line is that it is still a cleric and the concepts associated with the cleric class, even the name cleric may be part of the concern that the player feels.

A cleric by any other name is still a cleric :)

[Chaosmancer]

Hey Playground,

I have an odd situation. Basically I have a player that's a pious person in real life, and they feel like playing a paladin or cleric impinges on their faith. I've offered various other options (like using the cleric of a philosophy from Xanathar's, etc), but they remain somewhat unconvinced. I want to be clear: in other respects this person is a great player, and one of the most tactically adept players I've had the pleasure of DMing for. Which is why I would love for them to play a paladin. I've backed off it for several months now, but I wanted to broach the subject with new options.

Has anyone had this happen at their table? I just feel like this player is missing out on a lot of fun here. What thoughts do you all have?

Please don't denigrate my player (that's not helpful), but if you have options, builds, or other suggestions, please hit me up.

Yeah, reading through this a few times, I don't get it.

They don't want to play a paladin, so why are you trying to convince them to play a paladin? I could see a question they didn't like anybody playing a divine class, but that isn't what you're presenting.

No matter how many times you think "But they'd be an awesome paladin" they have already said no. Respect that.

[Pex]

One doesn't have be a divine class to be a righteous person. If the player is uncomfortable playing a divine class don't force him. I know you're not doing that literally, but rather let it go. Some players are incapable of playing a class. I know I cannot play a rogue. I do not have the mindset necessary to do the class justice, and I know being a rogue doesn't mean steal everything in sight nor red make up. I see players play the class beautifully and I'm applauding their successes, but I can't do it. It's not fun for me to do, and I wouldn't have thought to do what they do.

I understand the mindset of a person of faith in real life not being able to pretend another faith in the game. Faith is a very important value to them, not to be stored away for their avatar in a make believe game. Let it go.

[Sparky McDibben]

Getting some great advice here, all. I think y'all are right to tell me to take ego out of it and let 'em be. Thanks for a real, honest, and respectful talk y'all.

[Tectorman]

I just want to comment that no matter how you reskin the mechanics of the cleric class ... it is still rooted on a historical basis as a divine casting class. If it was just the lore that bothered the player, the player could easily reskin it as anything as you suggest. However, when someone asks what class they are playing it will be "Cleric but we changed things up so it isn't called cleric" ... bottom line is that it is still a cleric and the concepts associated with the cleric class, even the name cleric may be part of the concern that the player feels.

A cleric by any other name is still a cleric :)

Yeah. Like I said: unfortunate baggage. Maybe there's enough distance from earlier editions of the game where reskinning is on the table, and maybe this isn't a notion he'd be amenable to until later with something like 6th or 7th Edition.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: You've all done an amazing and commendable job addressing this without getting any further into the real world religion, but this is a topic inherently based on a real world religious issue, which is an Inappropriate Topic here, even if it intersects a gaming topic.