Religion in D&D

168 posts / 0 new
Last post

Hi I want to about Religion in D&D, yes I know that when comes to Humans they rather have a Patheons rather then a one god like in our world. In Dragon Age setting I like how they handled there Religion for the Humans,


 


 


 


 LW

Religion in D&D is very setting-dependent.  It's completely different, for instance, in the Forgotten Realms, in Athas, and in Eberron.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Religion in D&D is very setting-dependent.  It's completely different, for instance, in the Forgotten Realms, in Athas, and in Eberron.



Or in your own campaigns as well.  So yeah, definitely agree it really just depends on the setting as well as the players and DM as for how much/little religion plays a part.  Also, just to mention the in D&D the humans did have a god of their own, he just died in the Dawn War.  Or just after, can't remember exactly.  Either way that doesn't mean there could still be plenty of people believing in the dead god despite it all, just as a suggestion. 
But no national chruch like in our world with Catholic Church, there could Templar Knight in service of this church like in Dragon Age. A Church that takes a dim view on Magic.


 LW
You kind of have to make up your own world that doesnt reak of magic at every turn to play the "dim" view of magic unless that church is ahem "dim"

The game generally assumes the major heros of the world including the players are as often toaters of bell book and candle as a long broad blade.

Darksun however does do Arcana is bad and the divine is non-existant... which is similar. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Yeah well they could have good reason for hating Magic like it was stated in Dragon Age, I mean it not hard for Human Religions to start hating some groups.


 LW
When discussing "religion in D&D" it is necessary to either be extremely specific - in fact abandon the subject and instead speak of "religion in this one specific D&D campaign" - or be quite general. So let me say up front that I am being extremely general, and to everything I am about to say there are exceptions that I'm not going to mention.

In a D&D world, it is known - not subject to dispute - that arcane, primal, and divine magic exist. And maybe psionic magic too. And gods, demons, and other sorts of extraplanar beings are pretty common, either through their direct influence on the standard mortal plane, or from reports by past adventurers who visited other planes and returned, or through various sorts of scrying rituals.

Obviously, strict monotheism doesn't work, when the gods you are saying don't exist can walk through the doors of your temple any day and may or may not destroy the doors in the process. Similarly, while an uppity priest may declare that one god is really a god and all the other are demons, the gods themselves know better. Study "hubris"...

That doesn't mean there can't be monotheism. A monotheism that says the entirety of the one true god is not completely knowable by any mortal, and *all* the gods we worship are partial and distorted reflections of that one true god... that could work, given certain assumptions about how the planes affect each other. (Its effectiveness at getting people to donate to your temple rather than someone else's... variable.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
No offence but the Hinduist and related religions's answer may work better than near east Monotheism.

All gods being a part of a Divine Ultimate Truth, by example.. Demons and such? Ashura - aka antigods, maybe. 
You could have a henotheism or philosophical monotheism that finds a place for the pantheon gods as subordinate divine beings in a universe in which there's a single 'true' god.  Tolkien's Valar would be a possible model.
Based on the flavour text, I think invokers might be attracted to those kinds of ideas, since they seem to like to think of themselves as skipping the pantheon and going directly to source.


Hoard: may earn you gp; Horde: may earn you xp.
when comes to Humans they rather have a Patheons rather then a one god like in our world.



Like thespaceinvader said though, you kind of have to specify which setting you're talking about. Religion in Eberron and religion in Dark Sun are very different.


Hi I want to about Religion in D&D, yes I know that when comes to Humans they rather have a Patheons rather then a one god like in our world. In Dragon Age setting I like how they handled there Religion for the Humans,


 


 



We have pantheons in our world. The One God is not universally accepted. Even among those who follow the One God, there is little agreement on how He should be worshipped. Allah, Yahweh and God are all the same Being, colored by the different cultures which adopted Him.


The published campaign settings assume polytheism (or at least, acceptance of various religions), except Dark Sun, which has small pockets of local cults worshipping entities that they accept as Divine, with most people denying the existence of gods altogether.


In your own campaigns, run religion in whatever way makes sense to the setting.

when comes to Humans they rather have a Patheons rather then a one god like in our world.



Like thespaceinvader said though, you kind of have to specify which setting you're talking about. Religion in Eberron and religion in Dark Sun are very different.




Still, if the OP is asking if the D&D world (the default Points of Light Nentir Vale one) is like the world of Dragon Age, I'd say not as written.  If they are asking if there could be a religious view against "teh witchzorz" or whatever, yes, that can totally be inserted.  I mean, Arcane magic is both reviled and secretly used (or not so secretly) within Athas, the world of Dark Sun.  So potentially, yes, you could mold a self made world on the ideals within Dragon Age.  Feel free to borrow liberally from any and all real-world and fictional areas to create your own world's dynamic.  It isn't ready-made, per se, but you can totally do it if you are willing to sculpt that world to the image you want it to be.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Well I generaly assume that the Gods and other Divine beings are decently active, at least enough so that it is readly apparent they exist.  I do however generaly stick with the idea that their ability to manifest outside of the Astral Sea (or whatever plane they hold their power) is limited.  I also generaly keep my gods stuck to the alignment system pretty tightly, they aren't mortals with free will who can choose their own path, they are personifications of specific forces, beings who are completly defined by what they are not who they may choose to be.  

In a world where deities clearly exist Belief and faith would have very little power, instead devotion and following of the tennates of a god would be what seperates a divine person from the normal populace.  Also in a world where gods run the gamut from good to evil and everywhere in between, the teachings of a paticular god would stand not as a moral law but simple as a guide on how to please that paticular deity.  

I also personaly really like using gods in a pantheistic sense, if people know that all the gods exist the concept of praying to one god to the exclusion of others seems silly.  I would assume that most people simply pray to whatever god who has dominion over what they are praying about ATM, possibly they hold a preference to a specific god who is patron to their race, region, city, whatever but for the most part the gods would be called upon and worshipped as needed.  In that sense devotion to a singular deity and their teachings might be what seperates a divine character from other folk.

Most places of worship would probably be devoted to either all the gods, allowing people to worship as they please or to a general grouping of deities that are called upon often in daily life.  I generaly make a group of three primary deities that are the primaries of different people and places.

The Elven port town worships Melora (the sea), Kord (storms) and Avandra (travel) to assure their ships safety at sea and because of their elven population.
The large millitary of some city state or small nation could venerate Kord (War), Erathis (order and structure) and The Raven Queen (Death) as the deities of a well ordered military.

Of course all of this is just how I do things, anyone who wants to can and should take a totally different approach to deities.  Each campaign is different.
I see that Pantheisthic is better for a D&D 4th world, then limiting there choices when comes to deities,


 LW
But no national chruch like in our world with Catholic Church, there could Templar Knight in service of this church like in Dragon Age. A Church that takes a dim view on Magic.
LW



In the "real world" neither of the countries I hold citizenship in have chosen to make the Catholic Church a "national chruch". One (United States) legally prohibits the federal and state government(s) from singling out any religion for official status. The other is the Jewish state, ethnically culturally, religiously, etc.

The answer is, it depends. The Nentir Vale setting's default religious set-up is a loose pantheon, where the gods don't really interact much with the world anymore. (After the Dawn War, the Primal Spirits asked the gods politely to stay home in the Astral Sea.) The main exception to this is Vecna, who is active in the world, and seeks to turn the pantheon into a monotheistic religion, by killing all the other gods. There may be nations which are theocracies, but they seem to be few and far between, mostly because the gods are not actively involved in their affairs.

Faerun (of the Forgotten Realms setting) does not have a Pantheon per se; it has groups of gods who are actively involved in the affairs of the world, and who form alliances among themselves. Torm and Ilmater are allies, as are Selune, Tymora and Waukeen. Bane is allied with Malar, Loviatar and Maglubieyt. The only gods going it alone is Cyric, god of insanity, and Shar, goddess of shadow. Elturgard is an example of a theocracy in Faerun (it was rules by the clergy of Torm).

The gods of Krynn (the Dragonlance campaign) are highly active in their world's activities, to the point where they start wars, cause Cataclysms, and generally screw up. (Don't look at me, I voted for Raistlin.) The King-Priest of Istar ran a highly corrupt theocracy (see aforementioned Cataclysm), and Takhisis tried numerous times to cut out the middleman and conquer Krynn herself, before her divinity was revoked and she was killed (permanently) by a Dragonlance in the back.

In the Eberron campaign setting there are lots of religions. Despite the existence of the Divine power source, no single religion has a monoploy on the truth; any or none of the religions practiced could be the truth.

On Athas (the Dark Sun campaign setting) there are two religions currently active, both of which were set up by Sorcerer-Kings to cement their rule. In terms of "gods" and "pantheons", there are none. The Astral Sea has been cut off from Athas since before the Green Age. It is possible the Primordials killed the gods, or that the gods fled deep into the Astral Sea to escape the Primordials. Having won a great victory, the Primordials seem to have ordered out for pizza and settled down to watch the big game. (Either that or they have no interest in the barren dustball Athas has become.)

The gods of the Birthright setting died in Ragnarok. The religions of the Ravenloft setting are as vague as those of Eberron; Ezra may be a goddess, but she could also be a trick of the Dark Powers. Many of the Ravenloft religions have become state religions in certain Domains of Dread (Zhakata in G'Henna, Church of Ezra in Borca, Eternal Order in Darkon, Belenus in Nidala) but there are several Domains, not least Barovia, which are officially atheist. There is also some Crystal Sphere in the Spelljammer campaign setting, where a cleric tricked the gods into hiding in an orb so they could survive the sun going nova; it never went nova and they are the clerics personal Sea Monkeys.

That about wraps it up. So once again: not all D&D campaigns have pantheons; some have religions, some don't.
Professor Pacali, Keeper of the Pickled Punks, Resident of the Carnival. (Please do not call me a "barker". It is insulting.)
Limiting Player choice in Deities is the last thing I would do actualy (Unless it is for a very story specific reason).  Its no fun if you want to do something that is a thematic choice and are told you can't for no reason but the DM says so.  Even in a setting whith rules and laws about which deities are kosher a player might want to play against the fold or something.  Limiting options is not generaly a good idea.

If your world has a different pantheon than core that is cool of course, but if a god exists players should be allowed to choose to worship it (exept evil deities depending on where you stand on Evil PC's)
Limiting Player choice in Deities is the last thing I would do actualy (Unless it is for a very story specific reason).  Its no fun if you want to do something that is a thematic choice and are told you can't for no reason but the DM says so.  Even in a setting whith rules and laws about which deities are kosher a player might want to play against the fold or something.  Limiting options is not generaly a good idea.

If your world has a different pantheon than core that is cool of course, but if a god exists players should be allowed to choose to worship it (exept evil deities depending on where you stand on Evil PC's)



To a certain extent I agree with you; if a player wants his Forgotten Realms PC to worship Malar, and can come up with a way he worships Malar in a non-evil manner, I as DM would allow it. (Note to LFR players: you can't worship Malar. He's evil. And that's wrong.) I would probably be a little less happy with a PC who worships Lolth or Bane. I would never in a million years allow player of a non-chaotic evil PC to choose Cyric as his PC's god. I might not even let a CE PC have Cyric as a patron deity without proof of the PC's mental illness. The main point though, is that Malar, Lolth, Bane and Cyric are all listed in the FRCS, alongside Moradin, Torm, Tymora and Mieliki. Not allowing a player to choose these options requires me to justify my decision as DM.

On the other hand, if I am creating my own campaign world from scratch, I can decide to exclude whomever I want. I could announce that Tiamat does not exist in my campaign, or that Vecna is no longer seeking part-time worshippers. I could decide my campaign has only two deities, only one deity, or that choice of deity was made for your PC at birth; by being born to an Elven mother you are considered a follower of Sehanine, whether you like it or not.
Professor Pacali, Keeper of the Pickled Punks, Resident of the Carnival. (Please do not call me a "barker". It is insulting.)
Limiting Player choice in Deities is the last thing I would do actualy (Unless it is for a very story specific reason).  Its no fun if you want to do something that is a thematic choice and are told you can't for no reason but the DM says so.  Even in a setting whith rules and laws about which deities are kosher a player might want to play against the fold or something.  Limiting options is not generaly a good idea.

If your world has a different pantheon than core that is cool of course, but if a god exists players should be allowed to choose to worship it (exept evil deities depending on where you stand on Evil PC's)



To a certain extent I agree with you; if a player wants his Forgotten Realms PC to worship Malar, and can come up with a way he worships Malar in a non-evil manner, I as DM would allow it. (Note to LFR players: you can't worship Malar. He's evil. And that's wrong.) I would probably be a little less happy with a PC who worships Lolth or Bane. I would never in a million years allow player of a non-chaotic evil PC to choose Cyric as his PC's god. I might not even let a CE PC have Cyric as a patron deity without proof of the PC's mental illness. The main point though, is that Malar, Lolth, Bane and Cyric are all listed in the FRCS, alongside Moradin, Torm, Tymora and Mieliki. Not allowing a player to choose these options requires me to justify my decision as DM.

On the other hand, if I am creating my own campaign world from scratch, I can decide to exclude whomever I want. I could announce that Tiamat does not exist in my campaign, or that Vecna is no longer seeking part-time worshippers. I could decide my campaign has only two deities, only one deity, or that choice of deity was made for your PC at birth; by being born to an Elven mother you are considered a follower of Sehanine, whether you like it or not.



So in other words you agree with me.  The two exceptions to the no limitations rule that I made were Evil Deities (Once again depends on if you want to allow evil PC's) and changes in Pantheon.  My main concern is DMs using the core pantheon or some other pantheon of their own devising but then disalowing players from choosing some, any or most of those gods because of arbitrary reasons like, I don't like Correlon so he can't be your deity or your a dwarf so you worship Moradin no exceptions.  That is the kind of pigeonholing I am against. 

Or just make something up.

Seriously, there's no reason you couldn't just say "there is 1 god, and he hates magic".

A little boring IMO, but perfectly viable.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Or just make something up. Seriously, there's no reason you couldn't just say "there is 1 god, and he hates magic". A little boring IMO, but perfectly viable.


Well, you see, about that god..... Well, there was this party, and....

Well, he's definately overreacting. Though the box of fish and the ostrich egg were a bit much. 
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
Ultimately, religion in D&D operates however you want it to.  In any game I run, there are no gods, even if people think there are, for example.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Ultimately, religion in D&D operates however you want it to.  In any game I run, there are no gods, even if people think there are, for example.

I want to emphasize the first statement by completely contrasting the latter*: In my game, there are active gods, even if people think there are not.

In 3e, where the rules let godless clerics exist, my campaign had a little twist that players would eventually learn** if they chose to play a godless cleric: Entropy was the deity that fed the power of the godless clerics. She loved it when a godless entity rose in power, because She knew She could eventually gain a greater foothold in the world through them as they gained a taste for the power She provided. When the truth was made known to them, they could not sacrifice all that power, and would instead serve Her more directly.

* Contrasting is not objection. I would love to play in any game Salla ran.
** The players learned of this before the PCs did, but not at character creation, because it was a story element critical to the campaign.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.


You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...


You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.


If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violations, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.

Or just make something up. Seriously, there's no reason you couldn't just say "there is 1 god, and he hates magic". A little boring IMO, but perfectly viable.


Well, you see, about that god..... Well, there was this party, and....

Well, he's definately overreacting. Though the box of fish and the ostrich egg were a bit much. 

Is that quote from Douglas Adams or is it from Terry Pratchett? It seems almost clever enough to be a genuine Terry Pratchett joke, possibly from Small Gods, but its not that clever, so it could just be something Douglas Adams wrote.

Professor Pacali, Keeper of the Pickled Punks, Resident of the Carnival. (Please do not call me a "barker". It is insulting.)
Or just make something up. Seriously, there's no reason you couldn't just say "there is 1 god, and he hates magic". A little boring IMO, but perfectly viable.


Well, you see, about that god..... Well, there was this party, and....

Well, he's definately overreacting. Though the box of fish and the ostrich egg were a bit much. 

Is that quote from Douglas Adams or is it from Terry Pratchett? It seems almost clever enough to be a genuine Terry Pratchett joke, possibly from Small Gods, but its not that clever, so it could just be something Douglas Adams wrote.



Actually, the reason that it's not that clever is probably because I made it up on the spot. Though I do read a lot of Pratchett so there's probably some influence there.
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
Religion in D&D is very setting-dependent.  It's completely different, for instance, in the Forgotten Realms, in Athas, and in Eberron.


The above answer is dishonest. It may have been true in D&D 3e, but in 4e, for Clerics, the features, feats, and powers MECHANICALLY REQUIRE characters to worship specific polytheistic gods. There is no freedom of choice, unless using Rule Zero to nullify the official rules.

Per the Rules-As-Written, setting is irrelevant. Or rather, specific polytheistic settings are baked into the game.   

Religion in D&D is very setting-dependent.  It's completely different, for instance, in the Forgotten Realms, in Athas, and in Eberron.


The above answer is dishonest. It may have been true in D&D 3e, but in 4e, for Clerics, the features, feats, and powers MECHANICALLY REQUIRE characters to worship specific polytheistic gods. There is no freedom of choice, unless using Rule Zero to nullify the official rules.

Per the Rules-As-Written, setting is irrelevant. Or rather, specific polytheistic settings are baked into the game.   




No matter how much you say it, it still doesnt make it true.  The silver flame from ebberron disproves you.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

Religion in D&D is very setting-dependent.  It's completely different, for instance, in the Forgotten Realms, in Athas, and in Eberron.


The above answer is dishonest. It may have been true in D&D 3e, but in 4e, for Clerics, the features, feats, and powers MECHANICALLY REQUIRE characters to worship specific polytheistic gods. There is no freedom of choice, unless using Rule Zero to nullify the official rules.

Per the Rules-As-Written, setting is irrelevant. Or rather, specific polytheistic settings are baked into the game.   


No matter how much you say it, it still doesnt make it true.  The silver flame from ebberron disproves you.


The problem is, Eberron simply ignores what the official rules say.

I agree an official setting, especially Eberron, can rethink the official material. And that is legitimate. Yet the wording in the default text remains problematic.



It is a sore issue for me, and continues to be almost a deal-breaker.

The D&D tradition needs to relax its hostility against its customers who arent polytheists or atheists.
Religion in D&D is very setting-dependent.  It's completely different, for instance, in the Forgotten Realms, in Athas, and in Eberron.


The above answer is dishonest. It may have been true in D&D 3e, but in 4e, for Clerics, the features, feats, and powers MECHANICALLY REQUIRE characters to worship specific polytheistic gods. There is no freedom of choice, unless using Rule Zero to nullify the official rules.

Per the Rules-As-Written, setting is irrelevant. Or rather, specific polytheistic settings are baked into the game.   


No matter how much you say it, it still doesnt make it true.  The silver flame from ebberron disproves you.


The problem is, Eberron simply ignores what the official rules say.

I agree an official setting, especially Eberron, can rethink the official material. And that is legitimate. Yet the wording in the default text remains problematic.



It is a sore issue for me, and continues to be almost a deal-breaker.

The D&D tradition needs to relax its hostility against its customers who arent polytheists or atheists.



Could you elighten us on this hostility?

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

According to the rules-as-written, it is impossible for a Cleric to be a monotheist.
According to the rules-as-written, it is impossible for a Cleric to be a monotheist.



I wouldnt call that Hostility.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

In the interests of reaching out to a GLOBAL marketplace, it would be smart if WotC switches to a religiously neutral setting - or at least an religiously open-ended setting - as the default setting.
According to the rules-as-written, it is impossible for a Cleric to be a monotheist.

How so? Because the deities recognize their fellows' divinity?

According to the rules-as-written, it is impossible for a Cleric to be a monotheist.

How so? Because the deities recognize their fellows' divinity?




His arguement is that the phrase: "choose a Patron Diety" means that 4e only accepts polythestic and athestic characters.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

In a game of imagination and creativity, “impossible” is a serious attack. Absolute censorship is absolute hostility.



Then I guess most other RPG's are also "hostile"? 

I'm pretty sure the book never says its impossible. At the same time, its kind of hard for someone to believe only their god exists when clerics of the "false" other gods are actively wielding divine power.


You'd need to remove the divine power source.


You'd need to remove the divine power source.



I'm all for that.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


You'd need to remove the divine power source.



I'm all for that.



Except then people like me who make good use of the Divine Power source get screwed.  Religion in D&D is totally up to the player and is ultimatly fluff, the divine power source however is a bunch of character archetypes that would disapear, and every time you kill a perfectly good character choice a kitten dies.
 


You'd need to remove the divine power source.



I'm all for that.



Except then people like me who make good use of the Divine Power source get screwed.  Religion in D&D is totally up to the player and is ultimatly fluff, the divine power source however is a bunch of character archetypes that would disapear, and every time you kill a perfectly good character choice a kitten dies.
 



Just do three power sources: Martial, Magic, and Psionic.  The people who choose Magic can decide where their magic comes from; it'll just be fluff and not mechanical.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
That seems silly when what we already have works fine.  The divine classes are sufficiantly thematicaly and mechanicaly different to get their own power source.  The idea that you would make the cleric an arcane class and then people could choose to consider it a divine class seems like a whole lot of fiddly bits for no reward.
 
According to the rules-as-written, it is impossible for a Cleric to be a monotheist.


Ridiculous.  Theism is a personal belief.  Any Cleric in D&D can believe their deity is the One True God(ess).  They also have the potential to be just as incorrect as anyone else.  Equally, any DM can devise a world in which a single deity is the One True deity, whether everyone else knows it or not.  Not a single aspect of any edition has ever restricted monotheism from occurring.  Nothing at all prevents you from developing your own setting and is, in fact, encouraged.

Also, you have a serious misunderstanding of the difference between "open hostility" and "doesn't cater to."  The hypothetical extremists you give in your later post are openly hostile.  D&D just doesn't cater to that culture within the mythos they created for the baseline of their game.

Perhaps you should also research some history and maybe you'll discover which side of the "D&D and Monotheism" fence has actually been hostile to the other.



Also, I would absolutely not be in favor of removing the mechanically Divine source from the baseline game.

Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Set 1 — Somnia
Set 2 — TBD
Set 3 — TBD
Planeswalker's Guide to Somnia

Build Around This
A weekly MTG Cards and Combos forum game.
Build Around This #1 - Sage's Starfish Wish
BAT #1 was built using the Legacy format with Spiny Starfish, Sage's Knowledge, and Make a Wish. Winner: Dilleux_Lepaire with Fishy Starfishies. Runner-Up: JBTM
That seems silly when what we already have works fine.  The divine classes are sufficiantly thematicaly and mechanicaly different to get their own power source.  The idea that you would make the cleric an arcane class and then people could choose to consider it a divine class seems like a whole lot of fiddly bits for no reward.
 



I didn't say 'arcane'.  I said 'magic'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Sign In to post comments