Stop with the “gods” already

Stop with the “gods” already.

• Spiritual traditions are a campaign setting decision. NOT a character class decision. The “gods” have nothing to do with the Cleric class.

• Regarding the Cleric character - the Human race description gets it right: “Human lands are a home to mix of people − physically, CULTURALLY, RELIGIOUSLY, politically DIFFERENT”. Notice: Religiously and culturally different. Many (most) humans arent polytheists. But then irritatingly, the Cleric class description gets it wrong: “A Cleric serves the gods”. No. No, a Cleric doesnt. A Cleric can represent any of a spectrum of spiritual traditions: monotheism, polytheism, ancestorism, animism, atheism, and so on, from transcendent to immanent, from idealistic to pragmatic. There are many different kinds of spiritual traditions. Humans are a “mix” − “religiously different”.

• Please, explicitly open the Cleric class upto the full spectrum of human spiritual traditions.
  
• As a player, I dont want to play a polytheistic character. I really really dont. And I strongly resent when WotC forces this kind of fluff on my Cleric character concept.

• Moreover as a DM, it is impossible for me to relate to personifications of spiritual concepts as “monsters with stats” - even if I run a campaign setting where “gods” do exist (like Forgotten Realms). Such monsters are stupid - and misunderstand and misrepresent reallife polytheism - and misrepresent reallife spirituality generally. In an offensive - defaming - way. It is ridiculous to stat Hindu gods for example. This is true for any kind of polytheism.

• It is nonsensical to stat monotheistic traditions. But it is likewise nonsensical to stat other kinds of spiritual traditions. I hope D&D next avoids actual stats for any sacred concept. For example, there are reallife worshippers of Norse gods, Celtic gods, Shinto gods, and so on. Even gods who die in reallife mythology dont really die - they just come to personify certain aspects of death in a dreamlike way. For example, the Norse god Baldr “dies every year” sotospeak during the Jul (Yule). This is because this sacred concept personifies celestial daylight - and related concepts of truth, consciousness, and life - and as daylight “dies” during the Winter Solstice when night is longest. Loki who engineers his death personifies firelight - along with a number of related concepts. It just makes no sense to stat these kinds of principles.

• Godlike “manifestations” by spiritual leaders who are “inspired” by these archetypes seems fine to stat. But not the concepts themselves. It is the community itself that is energizing these manifestations. This can apply whether the community is monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, whatever.

• The heavy-handed imposition of the “gods” is WORSE than the heavy-handed imposition of the alignments system.

• There are many different kinds of human spiritual traditions. Few of them of have gods.

• In a recent forum, the clear majority of D&D players voted for D&D Next to support Eberron as the highest priority for a campaign setting. This high-priority campaign setting correctly portrays a diversity of different kinds of spiritual traditions. It is stupid to say, Clerics must serve “gods” in the context of this campaign setting. This setting has Clerics, and the Cleric class must acknowledge the existence of Clerics who will not worship “gods” - at all - in any way.

• In the poll, the top Campaign Settings are: Eberron (spiritual diversity ranging from the monotheistic Silver Flame to the ancestoric Elf tradition), Forgotten Realms (polytheism - ancient epics), Ravenloft (veneration of ancestors as undead? funerary cults), Plane Scape (polytheism - personifying the Alignments of the Wheel), Dark Sun (mostly animism). If there is anything D&D offers, it is choice of campaign settings to adventure in. The Cleric class needs to get on board with choice of settings.

• There is a near-100% chance that D&D players will eventually play a campaign setting besides the default setting - if there should even be a default setting. The Cleric class must make sense and be useful for all of the D&D players who use this class else where. The class descriptions must open up to all of these other official and custom and optional campaign settings.

• The D&D tradition clearly supports Clerics that are non-polytheists. 2e and 3e are explicit. For example, the 3e Players Handbook explicitly says, “Not all Clerics worship gods.” Only 4e gets this wrong. And I hate this intrusive anti-choice aspect of 4e. Bring back the D&D tradition of spiritual diversity and choice.

• The part of the Cleric that gets it right is “domains” - archetypes, concepts, values, symbols. Domains yes. The gods no.


STOP WITH THE GODS. JUST STOP.

Wizards, shave and a haircut

You're looking at a limited-scope playtest. I am confident the final printing of the rules will be more open, as you suggest. 

Everyone should be reminded that you are not looking at the final rules and fluff of the game. 
Matt James Freelance Game Designer Loremaster.org

Follow me on Twitter!
I have to say I feel like you are getting very worked up over something that isn't that big of a deal.  You are absolutely welcome to define your campagin setting however you like.  If a player comes to your table and wants to play a cleric you can say "hey, here is how religion stands in this campaign, what sounds good to you?" If WoTC were to switch to your model then all the people who prefer it the way it stands will have the cleric they love taken away from them. 

I am also confused as to where you are getting the idea that in the D&D worlds most humans aren't polytheists.  As far as I know they are until you decide to frame your campagin setting differently. 

Plus, all descriptions of anything in D&D has to be taken with a grain of salt, except for the pure mechanics.  The wonder of D&D is that no matter how the developers describe something you can take the base and change the fluff into anything you want.  They are all fantasy worlds, so dream them up however you would like.  Just don't demand that everyone else has to see it your way.
I have to say I feel like you are getting very worked up over something that isn't that big of a deal.  You are absolutely welcome to define your campagin setting however you like.


You homebrew your own gods into your own campaign setting. I dont want them.
TLDR: Please put “Not all Clerics worship gods.” in the book somewhere.
TLDR: Please put “Not all Clerics worship gods.” in the book somewhere.


Exactly.
I have to say I feel like you are getting very worked up over something that isn't that big of a deal.  You are absolutely welcome to define your campagin setting however you like.


You homebrew your own gods into your own campaign setting. I dont want them.



You sound concerned.

If you don't want it, don't use it.  Demanding that WoTC remove what's been an integral part of the class since day one is a little over the top.

TLDR: Please put “Not all Clerics worship gods.” in the book somewhere.



That's been in every previous edition, don't know why it wouldn't be in the new one. 
I think it's important to remember that D&D is intended to represent an entire different universe than the one we live in.  In the D&D default universe, many gods do exist and are very much known to the public, and it has been that way for quite some time (in both the history of the default universe and in the actual history of the game).  Should you want to change this, you're more than welcome to, but you are using a homebrew universe then, and not the default D&D universe.  There is a rich history in the chosen deities of D&D and being that they often fight each other, the idea of polytheism is very much at the root of that universe. 

While some of these gods may be based on existing Earth mythology, they are not to be confused with the exact same god people worship here on Earth.  It is a fictional deity based on existing mythos, so WotC's choice to give a god stats does not reflect their opinion of the base Earth god.  Also, as has been pointed out before in existing materials, often you cannot simply kill god by reducing it's HP to 0, they often Discorporate (spelling?) and simply rise again elsewhere, unless your campaign contains homebrew items that allow one to kill a god.

I completely understand that this may seem to be at odds with your current beliefs or spirituality, but please also understand that this is not intended as being a replacement for your particular beliefs, but instead information about a world that does not truly exist.  I've been in many campaigns where they chose to remove most of the gods in the default setting and instead base the world on one or two gods, or have no gods at all.
I think the OP is over reacting a bit here.  Every DnD campaign world that I have seen (with the exception of Darksun and its lack of divine magic) assumes that there are pagan/polytheistic dieties, that these dieties are real, and a connection to these dieties is the source of divine magic.  Its pretty basic to the metafiction of the game.  It seems sensible to me that this would be the "default" explanation of how a cleric works.

Also, if in your campaign you want a montheistic relgiion, or a non-theistic religion (sort of like 4th edition's primal power source) go right ahead.  You don't need anyone's permission, you can do it even if it isn't "in the book".   The source of a cleric's powers are just story fluff, feel free to replace the standard fluff if fluff of yoru own choosing.  Its not like someone from WoTC will kick in the door of your game room and tell you that you are doing it wrong.
Currently the only Gods that I want them to remove are the ones with monsters, and really just remove the name of the God, so that as different worlds are introduced there isn't the confusion of where this God roosts.  I like that I know that the hobgoblin God causes skulls to chuckle while they are praying, but I don't need him to have a name until someone asks.
Sharpy'll cover up that Moradin text real good.
Clerics generally serve Gods, in both monotheist and polytheist forms.  They sometimes have different names, like priests.  Shamans generally server shamanist and animist religions.  There are many faiths with MANY names for their servants.  If you don't like what the book says, then I would suggest changing it for your setting.  Let your players know how your view the traditional "Cleric" class.  That would be the best way to go about it.
You homebrew your own gods into your own campaign setting. I dont want them.




Thats a little harsh.  You could just as easily be told to homebrew them OUT of your campaign as others want them in.  I happen to like the way the system works and don't feel its an issue.  

Sharpy'll cover up that Moradin text real good.



HA!
Holy Symbol text says: A holy symbol is a small representation of a god, pantheon, or philosophy.

Stop overreacting.
Stop with the “gods” already.

• Spiritual traditions are a campaign setting decision. NOT a character class decision. The “gods” have nothing to do with the Cleric class.

• Regarding the Cleric character - the Human race description gets it right: “Human lands are a home to mix of people − physically, CULTURALLY, RELIGIOUSLY, politically DIFFERENT”. Notice: Religiously and culturally different. Many (most) humans arent polytheists. But then irritatingly, the Cleric class description gets it wrong: “A Cleric serves the gods”. No. No, a Cleric doesnt. A Cleric can represent any of a spectrum of spiritual traditions: monotheism, polytheism, ancestorism, animism, atheism, and so on, from transcendent to immanent, from idealistic to pragmatic. There are many different kinds of spiritual traditions. Humans are a “mix” − “religiously different”.

• Please, explicitly open the Cleric class upto the full spectrum of human spiritual traditions.
  
• As a player, I dont want to play a polytheistic character. I really really dont. And I strongly resent when WotC forces this kind of fluff on my Cleric character concept.

• Moreover as a DM, it is impossible for me to relate to personifications of spiritual concepts as “monsters with stats” - even if I run a campaign setting where “gods” do exist (like Forgotten Realms). Such monsters are stupid - and misunderstand and misrepresent reallife polytheism - and misrepresent reallife spirituality generally. In an offensive - defaming - way. It is ridiculous to stat Hindu gods for example. This is true for any kind of polytheism.

• It is nonsensical to stat monotheistic traditions. But it is likewise nonsensical to stat other kinds of spiritual traditions. I hope D&D next avoids actual stats for any sacred concept. For example, there are reallife worshippers of Norse gods, Celtic gods, Shinto gods, and so on. Even gods who die in reallife mythology dont really die - they just come to personify certain aspects of death in a dreamlike way. For example, the Norse god Baldr “dies every year” sotospeak during the Jul (Yule). This is because this sacred concept personifies celestial daylight - and related concepts of truth, consciousness, and life - and as daylight “dies” during the Winter Solstice when night is longest. Loki who engineers his death personifies firelight - along with a number of related concepts. It just makes no sense to stat these kinds of principles.

• Godlike “manifestations” by spiritual leaders who are “inspired” by these archetypes seems fine to stat. But not the concepts themselves. It is the community itself that is energizing these manifestations. This can apply whether the community is monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, whatever.

• The heavy-handed imposition of the “gods” is WORSE than the heavy-handed imposition of the alignments system.

• There are many different kinds of human spiritual traditions. Few of them of have gods.

• In a recent forum, the clear majority of D&D players voted for D&D Next to support Eberron as the highest priority for a campaign setting. This high-priority campaign setting correctly portrays a diversity of different kinds of spiritual traditions. It is stupid to say, Clerics must serve “gods” in the context of this campaign setting. This setting has Clerics, and the Cleric class must acknowledge the existence of Clerics who will not worship “gods” - at all - in any way.

• In the poll, the top Campaign Settings are: Eberron (spiritual diversity ranging from the monotheistic Silver Flame to the ancestoric Elf tradition), Forgotten Realms (polytheism - ancient epics), Ravenloft (veneration of ancestors as undead? funerary cults), Plane Scape (polytheism - personifying the Alignments of the Wheel), Dark Sun (mostly animism). If there is anything D&D offers, it is choice of campaign settings to adventure in. The Cleric class needs to get on board with choice of settings.

• There is a near-100% chance that D&D players will eventually play a campaign setting besides the default setting - if there should even be a default setting. The Cleric class must make sense and be useful for all of the D&D players who use this class else where. The class descriptions must open up to all of these other official and custom and optional campaign settings.

• The D&D tradition clearly supports Clerics that are non-polytheists. 2e and 3e are explicit. For example, the 3e Players Handbook explicitly says, “Not all Clerics worship gods.” Only 4e gets this wrong. And I hate this intrusive anti-choice aspect of 4e. Bring back the D&D tradition of spiritual diversity and choice.

• The part of the Cleric that gets it right is “domains” - archetypes, concepts, values, symbols. Domains yes. The gods no.


STOP WITH THE GODS. JUST STOP.




Really?????????? Already????????
MY DM COMMITMENT To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games. Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
gods, pantheons and spiritualism have always been a function of the campaign and should remain as such.
I was very happy that 4e included a non-divine healer class. While I think the warlord could have been more interesting, it was very good to have it. Next should include warlord in the base classes (in fact its the only class beyond the basic four that I am really interested in... well, besides the ranger)

Ceterum censeo capsum rubeum esse delendam

Some people really get worked up over nothing. 

I can tell you from experience that referances to the gods is a long standing tradition. The generalist priest is a second edition phenomenon resulting from a high strung anti D&D movement in the early to mid eighties.

There are things that just are and tirades will have little effect. 

I have my own game world that I use that has been around for a couple of decades, almost five iterations of D&D and I still don't use the gods as described in the players hand book. They are just words on a page to use or ignore as you please. I'm sure they aren't hurting anything.

Besides it's just the first round of the play test, the whole deal is disposable.
 
This has been one of those rare threads where I actually read every post before offering my opinion...


It's a game. It's still in development. The class descriptions are based on classic game understandings. The developers have already clearly stated that the Cleric Domains were being explored in this round of testing.  Give the rules a chance to mature.  Give the "generic" world a chance to grow.

Clerics should be molded to fit the base campaign setting of the edition. WotC has to give players, especially new ones, the ability to fully understand what the class is all about. You can freely change things as you please in YOUR campaign setting but make no mistake - D&D has Gods and Cleric's worship them to gain spells.

 If you want to prance around in the woods naked to gather up spiritual energy then you need a DM to craft a world where such things are possible or play a class that more closely matches that flavor (like a Druid or a Shaman).
Its your game. If you dont want clerics to worship gods then dont have goods in your game. Simple.
Mountains out of molehills.
Why can't you just ignore the class description and fluff it as appropriate to your setting? It's fluff. The player and the DM have control over it, in the end.
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! Resident Invisible Man Lurker in the House of Trolls A Testament to My Glory
Stop with the “gods” already.

• Spiritual traditions are a campaign setting decision. NOT a character class decision. The “gods” have nothing to do with the Cleric class.

• Regarding the Cleric character - the Human race description gets it right: “Human lands are a home to mix of people − physically, CULTURALLY, RELIGIOUSLY, politically DIFFERENT”. Notice: Religiously and culturally different. Many (most) humans arent polytheists. But then irritatingly, the Cleric class description gets it wrong: “A Cleric serves the gods”. No. No, a Cleric doesnt. A Cleric can represent any of a spectrum of spiritual traditions: monotheism, polytheism, ancestorism, animism, atheism, and so on, from transcendent to immanent, from idealistic to pragmatic. There are many different kinds of spiritual traditions. Humans are a “mix” − “religiously different”.

• Please, explicitly open the Cleric class upto the full spectrum of human spiritual traditions.
  
• As a player, I dont want to play a polytheistic character. I really really dont. And I strongly resent when WotC forces this kind of fluff on my Cleric character concept.

• Moreover as a DM, it is impossible for me to relate to personifications of spiritual concepts as “monsters with stats” - even if I run a campaign setting where “gods” do exist (like Forgotten Realms). Such monsters are stupid - and misunderstand and misrepresent reallife polytheism - and misrepresent reallife spirituality generally. In an offensive - defaming - way. It is ridiculous to stat Hindu gods for example. This is true for any kind of polytheism.

• It is nonsensical to stat monotheistic traditions. But it is likewise nonsensical to stat other kinds of spiritual traditions. I hope D&D next avoids actual stats for any sacred concept. For example, there are reallife worshippers of Norse gods, Celtic gods, Shinto gods, and so on. Even gods who die in reallife mythology dont really die - they just come to personify certain aspects of death in a dreamlike way. For example, the Norse god Baldr “dies every year” sotospeak during the Jul (Yule). This is because this sacred concept personifies celestial daylight - and related concepts of truth, consciousness, and life - and as daylight “dies” during the Winter Solstice when night is longest. Loki who engineers his death personifies firelight - along with a number of related concepts. It just makes no sense to stat these kinds of principles.

• Godlike “manifestations” by spiritual leaders who are “inspired” by these archetypes seems fine to stat. But not the concepts themselves. It is the community itself that is energizing these manifestations. This can apply whether the community is monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, whatever.

• The heavy-handed imposition of the “gods” is WORSE than the heavy-handed imposition of the alignments system.

• There are many different kinds of human spiritual traditions. Few of them of have gods.

• In a recent forum, the clear majority of D&D players voted for D&D Next to support Eberron as the highest priority for a campaign setting. This high-priority campaign setting correctly portrays a diversity of different kinds of spiritual traditions. It is stupid to say, Clerics must serve “gods” in the context of this campaign setting. This setting has Clerics, and the Cleric class must acknowledge the existence of Clerics who will not worship “gods” - at all - in any way.

• In the poll, the top Campaign Settings are: Eberron (spiritual diversity ranging from the monotheistic Silver Flame to the ancestoric Elf tradition), Forgotten Realms (polytheism - ancient epics), Ravenloft (veneration of ancestors as undead? funerary cults), Plane Scape (polytheism - personifying the Alignments of the Wheel), Dark Sun (mostly animism). If there is anything D&D offers, it is choice of campaign settings to adventure in. The Cleric class needs to get on board with choice of settings.

• There is a near-100% chance that D&D players will eventually play a campaign setting besides the default setting - if there should even be a default setting. The Cleric class must make sense and be useful for all of the D&D players who use this class else where. The class descriptions must open up to all of these other official and custom and optional campaign settings.

• The D&D tradition clearly supports Clerics that are non-polytheists. 2e and 3e are explicit. For example, the 3e Players Handbook explicitly says, “Not all Clerics worship gods.” Only 4e gets this wrong. And I hate this intrusive anti-choice aspect of 4e. Bring back the D&D tradition of spiritual diversity and choice.

• The part of the Cleric that gets it right is “domains” - archetypes, concepts, values, symbols. Domains yes. The gods no.


STOP WITH THE GODS. JUST STOP.





1. Their main point with the cleric was that they WANTED to make your deity more like a class decision. A Cleric of Boccob is going to be more inclined to cast spells, and less to swing his mace, that a cleric of, say, St. Cuthbert.

2. You can have your Cleric believe WHATEVER he wants. If he's a Cleric of Boccob, then he can choose to only believe that Boccob exists. I will note, though, that in a basic DnD setting, there ARE multiple Deities. It is a FACT of DnD. Also, you can't be an Atheist Cleric. That's the worst thing I've ever heard. That's like in real life being a priest of Atheism. It's NOT a thing.

3.It is open up to all kinds of ideas. If you don't think so, SOMEONE' is bad at roleplaying.

4.Hey, here's an idea! how about you just DON'T play a polytheist! If your DM says their are multiple gods, there ARE multiple gods, but that doesn't mean your character has to believe that there are multiple gods. Once again, ROLEPLAYING.

5.DnD Polytheism is COMPLETELY different than real life Polytheism. In DnD polytheism, gods are NOT all powerful. They CAN'T just make anything happen whenever they want. DnD polytheism is most closely related to, say, Greek or Roman Polytheism. The gods CAN be killed by mortals and have more of an effect on the world than RL gods do(if they had the same effect as RL gods, Clerics would be non magical).

6. Read the above.

7. Read the above.

8. Says you.

9. Not true, learn to read.

10. Ok, it seems to me like what you're saying is clearly stated in the difference between a Cleric and a Druid. Clerics get their powers from the Deity they worship, but Druids get it from their love of natural things. If your character worships something to the ideals of a Druid, but that thing is not a got, neither is it nature, then it is not up to Wizards to make some obscure class for you to take on, just to appease you.

11. The Cleric class is COMPLETELY compatible with all of those, you just need to learn to do it right.

12. Once again, the Cleric class is EXTREMELY versitile. You can adapt it to almost any kind of situation. As stated previously, learn to do it right.

13. Once again, learn to roleplay, noob. Also, when the 5e Player's Handbook comes out, who's to say it won't add specific rules for monotheistic/atheistic Clerics?

14. Domains are what that Deity represents, as a whole. In most Polytheistic religions, each Deity represents some different thing in the pantheon. (Ex. Ares represents War, so his domains would represent that. Hephaestus was the craftsman, and would have domains to represent that.).
An "Atheist" cleric would be a cleric that does not worship gods, but ideals. Law and Good, for example, or Chaos and Evil. In 3.x this was well pointed out in the class description that a cleric did not have to worship gods. Ideals worked just fine in their place. 
This is all well and good. Worship whatever concetpts you choose. The point of this part of the play test is to test the system and provide feed back on the basics, right? 

or wait, maybe I should let someone else say a few words about playtesting................

critical-hits.com/2012/05/23/playtest-dd... 
MY DM COMMITMENT To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games. Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
An "Atheist" cleric would be a cleric that does not worship gods, but ideals. Law and Good, for example, or Chaos and Evil. In 3.x this was well pointed out in the class description that a cleric did not have to worship gods. Ideals worked just fine in their place. 



Yeah, I know. But this guy seems like he wants to play a Cleric who worships nothign at all, and that's not a thing. Lol, I had a 3.5 Paladin once whos power came from his belief in how sexy he looked XD so he prepared spells by doing a "beauty routine" in the morning XD
An "Atheist" cleric would be a cleric that does not worship gods, but ideals. Law and Good, for example, or Chaos and Evil. In 3.x this was well pointed out in the class description that a cleric did not have to worship gods. Ideals worked just fine in their place. 



Yeah, I know. But this guy seems like he wants to play a Cleric who worships nothign at all, and that's not a thing. Lol, I had a 3.5 Paladin once whos power came from his belief in how sexy he looked XD so he prepared spells by doing a "beauty routine" in the morning XD




LOL, wow. That's friggin hilarious!
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Really?????????? Already????????



Not already.  Still. He never freakin' stops.  I don't think his brain contains any other thoughts.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Interesting idea.

I could see that working from a separate module POV.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
@haldrik
I like a lot of what you say on so many things but this seems to be your pet peeve of insanity.  

I'm for a note that says there are other options.  But it is true that 99% of your clerics will worship Gods.  Ok?  So forgive them for commenting that way in their initial playtest release.   No one wants to stop you from playing a Godless cleric unless it is your DM.  

If I were a DM though you would not escape the difficulties of dealing with a God by going Godless and in fact your life would be harder.  By defying your philosophy you could lose the ability to cast a spell instantly whereas with Gods you usually only get cut off the next time you prayed.



 
So let me get this straight...

You're upset because the description says "Gods" instead of "God"?

Most clerics pick one god upon creation. You don't have to worship multiple gods. 

Chill out dude. This is a non-issue. 
Also, complaining because a game puts stats on gods is ridiculous. D&D takes place in a world where the gods are tangible beings that you can kill. Therefore, they have stats. 

If you don't like it, don't put gods in your campaign.

If you refuse to change the rules or setting in any way, shape, or form, then I suggest you play a different game. If D&D's rules and setting were set in stone, it wouldn't be D&D. 
This is serious - you guys don't get it...
This is serious - you guys don't get it...



In D&D, multiple gods exist. They're not a theory, they're fact. Just like the fact that the earth is round, there may be people who don't believe in these facts.

I could just as easily complain that the D&D handbook doesn't say that belief in humans is optional.

D&D is about customization, but the Cleric gets his power from a Holy source. You could always say that your cleric is a super-skeptic, and truly believes that these powers are his own.

What the OP is asking for, is a rewrite of the D&D fiction. The fiction that has been around since the 70s. These gods exist. It's not up for debate.

If you don't like it, alter the setting for your game. 


In D&D, multiple gods exist.



Not necessarily true.  It depends on the setting.  There are none on Dark Sun, and whether or not Eberron has gods is a matter for conjecture, and whether or not they really exist in any given DM's homebrew campaign is up to him.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


In D&D, multiple gods exist.



Not necessarily true.  It depends on the setting.  There are none on Dark Sun, and whether or not Eberron has gods is a matter for conjecture, and whether or not they really exist in any given DM's homebrew campaign is up to him.



Did you read my entire post, or just stop after that sentence? I went on to say that the DM could alter the setting to his liking.

In the default setting, with no homebrew changes, the gods exist. I'm not commenting on other settings.

But yeah, you got me on a technicality. I should have specified that I was talking about the Playtest, and not alternate settings in previous editions... Undecided
Bottom line - D&D is framework for the basics of a campaign. You can tailor/adjust the rules or aspects as you wish. They provide the basics from the origin of D&D religion, but you don't have to use it. They clearly state in every edition that you can make house rules and adjust gameplay as you see fit. It's their ideas, use it when YOU need it. Or... don't use them at all.
Okay, so why exactly am I supposed to be concerned about this thread again?  It seems like a few overly sensative people are throwing a fit that a fictional game's writing doesn't cater to their beliefs exclusively...

Besides, I thought the basic structure and role of Clerics in D&D was pretty self-evident.  Do we really need to spell this out in as foam padded language as possible?
Bottom line - D&D is framework for the basics of a campaign. You can tailor/adjust the rules or aspects as you wish. They provide the basics from the origin of D&D religion, but you don't have to use it. They clearly state in every edition that you can make house rules and adjust gameplay as you see fit. It's their ideas, use it when YOU need it. Or... don't use them at all.



Thank you. You could create a game where players are on the moon fighting green Dog-Aliens. Or, you could play in the standard D&D setting, and take out the gods.

The first rule of D&D is that there are no rules (that's just a turn-of-phrase Salla, please don't correct me).