|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 7:20AM
#61
|
|
|
because you don't play Paladins to be chaotic evil, or warlocks to be a classical hero.
Of course you can. Paladins and warlocks of any alignment are perfectly legal.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 7:29AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2011
|
Of course you can. Paladins and warlocks of any alignment are perfectly legal.
I'm not saying it's not legal - it's my personal experience that players who choose paladins are usually looking for a certain archetype of a character - similarly warlock players are usually looking for shady anti-heroes. And those that didn't conform to that, in my personal experience, were playing an evil paladin (not a blackguard, anti-paladin, or anything of the sort, which is its own trope) just to be "different". I'm not denying the fact there are exceptions to the rule (like, people who legitimately want to take a challenge of playing a good infernal warlock, and how it shapes his character), it's just, IMO, rare.
When people want to play a healer character, but one who's atheistic type, I usually advise them to take up another class. The religious fluff with the cleric is for me very strong, and fluff is in general important to me for how you build and play your character. I rarely "roll play" - I prefer getting into the character, and so do my players (I chose them wisely). Of course YOU can do it - it's just for me it sounds ridiculous because of this strong "fluff".
Check out my D&D-based play-by-post game, based on exploration and roleplaying. Agora
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 7:33AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
I do like how you imply that those who try to use their imaginations to come up with their own, entirely separate, flavour, for a whole class, are 'roll playing'. That takes class(!)
I'll say it again: flavour is what you choose to make it. You choose to use the prescribed flavour. There are those of us who choose to make our own when we feel the need. And you imply we have less imagination?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 8:03AM
#64
|
|
|
Within the context of D&D (4th edition, in particular), Religion (as a skill) encompasses the means by which a practitioner can tap into the Divine power source, whatever that is within any particular setting. Similarly, Arcana is the means by which a practitioner can tap the Arcane power source and the Nature skill encompasses the means to tap into the Primal power source. Notably absent are defining skills which correspond to the Martial power source and the Psionic power source. This, however, concerns me not, since I equate both of these sources as personal, internal sources, rather than external (though Primal is obviously not completely external).
The Key is that the Divine power source has its origin out there somewhere: and the power(s) which emanate from this source are ultimately defined by the DM (with player input, as necessary).
-DS
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 8:33AM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2011
|
Hey everyone,
Please remember NOT to mention real world religions. While I understand how it seems natural to draw comparisons and use real world examples to explain things, no matter how carefully crafted your comments they are very likely to hurt and upset members of whichever real world religion you've chosen for your example.
It's an interesting discussion. Please keep strictly to the fantasy elements.
Thanks,
Dragonette
Monica
Wizards of the Coast Online Community Coordinator
A friendly dragon.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 9:36AM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2011
|
I, for one, would think it would be interesting to play a cleric of self-actualization; a person who, upon finding out that many of the entities that fashion themselves as gods started their lives as mortals, decides that he doesn't need the providence of outside beings and instead channels divine power through his faith in his own power and potential to become something greater.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 9:38AM
#67
|
|
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because Disruption and Baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 10:18AM
#68
|
|
|
In 4E it is possible to play most divine classes without a deity.
There are, I readily grant, a couple exceptions to that, and some specific feats and powers you can't choose. But there's plenty you CAN choose.
Im unsure what rules you are reading, but the rulebook that Im reading, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, has a default setting that says - without any ambiguity - things like:
• “Clerics derive their power from the gods, and choosing which deity your character follows is an important first step.”
• “No god is powerful enough to claim the entirety of creation.”
• “Your Dungeon Master might also have other gods you can choose from.”
And so on. The game aggressively and explicitly rejects monotheism.
Its alienating enough the default setting is STRICTLY polytheistic. But this anti-monotheistic setting is actually BAKED into the gaming mechanics, the rules-as-written.
• “Channel Divinity Powers: Once per encounter, you [fill] yourself with the might of your patron deity.”
And so on, becoming more aggrevating for feats and powers among other books.
It's not baked into the mechanics; it's built into the flavor text. You can excise it completely with no mechanical effect.
It's also stated in the core rulebooks that the rites of investiture, and not the gods themselves, convey powers to divine classes. That's mainly to keep the DM from using the gods to charjack his players, but it also empowers the players and the DM alike to create divine characters that worship "false" gods, or even none at all. They say "choose a god;" they don't say "choose a god from the list provided." If the player wants his character to be a priest of some force or entity that he made up, and that's not disruptive to the tone of the campaign, the DM is encouraged to allow it. That entity or force doesn't have to exist in the game world to have priests who can use divine powers as written, and you can refluff divine powers to be independant of a philosophy that includes gods without changing their mechanical effects.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 11:08AM
#69
|
|
|
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.
Wll, in this case I just do not understand it. To me "chose a patron deity" makes every cleric a monotheist withing the polytheistic world. Maybe not in the strictest sense when he recognizes the other deities as divine entities in their own right, but he chose to serve one above all others
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 11:34AM
#70
|
|
|
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.
Wll, in this case I just do not understand it. To me "chose a patron deity" makes every cleric a monotheist withing the polytheistic world. Maybe not in the strictest sense when he recognizes the other deities as divine entities in their own right, but he chose to serve one above all others
Yes, but he still admits that Gods other than his chosen one exist, making him a polytheist.
To be a monotheist cleric of Pelor, you would need to worship Pelor while insisting that Pelor is the only God.
(Of course, the concept of "a priest of only one God" is very rare in polytheistic environments. D&D is actually the most common source of that particular model, that I'm aware of.)
Now, the statement that "RAW prohibits monotheism" is wrong - your character is welcome to believe that Pelor is the only God. However, in the Generic Fantasy Product world that D&D assumes as a default, a monotheist is wrong. He is mistaken. There are many Gods, regardless of his insistence of there being only one. Of course, so is the atheist - there are Gods.
The "hostility" mentioned by the previous poster is regarding PLAYERS, not characters. He asserts that the game is "hostile" to monotheistic players because it only supports polytheistic and atheistic characters, and a monotheist character is by definition absolutely wrong about his religion.
It's similar to complaints about World Of Warcraft, where the list of available skin colours for humans starts at "pasty" and reaches barely to "tan" before stopping letting you darken further, being "hostile" to non-white players.
I put "hostile" in quotation marks not to denigrate the term or the experience, but because I think it implies a deliberateness that's absent in the monotheists-in-D&D. I think "hostile" is the wrong word to use, in this case.
(Of course, he's wrong about atheist characters being supported - an atheist character is ALSO by definition absolutely wrong about religion in the world, for the same reason: Gods most definitely exist. You can play a character who worships no God without a problem, but playing one who doesn't believe in them means playing someone who is demonstrably, objectively wrong. Same as with a monotheist.)
|
|
|
