You can buy 4e stuff as PDFs as well. Along with I believe 3e which would cover the gods. But you shouldn't have to go to previous editions to get important information for a game.
Important information?
What do you need a list of gods for to play the game? Does any class require you to pick a god at all, much less to get mechanical benefits from your choice?
If you make a D&D world without specific gods, whether monotheistic or whatever, do you need to make any rule changes to handle that?
Clerics need a god, for starters. Paladins should all need a god, but we have seen what wotc has done to that.
You can buy 4e stuff as PDFs as well. Along with I believe 3e which would cover the gods. But you shouldn't have to go to previous editions to get important information for a game.
Important information?
What do you need a list of gods for to play the game? Does any class require you to pick a god at all, much less to get mechanical benefits from your choice?
If you make a D&D world without specific gods, whether monotheistic or whatever, do you need to make any rule changes to handle that?
Clerics need a god, for starters. Paladins should all need a god, but we have seen what wotc has done to that.
The user is correct in what they say - gods are flavor choices for a DM to make, not mechanical ones. Nothing in the PHB says “to pay this subclass, you must worship this specific god from this specific list.” That is why the lore information is being moved to the DMG. The decision of what gods are available in the world is a DM one, not a player one. The player does not get to look in the PHB, see a blurb on Pelor, and say “I want to worship this one for my cleric” unless the DM has made a world with Pelor. This was a known flaw in earlier PHBs
Struggling to understand your issue here. After all, aren’t you the one who is constantly scared of players having options and posting about how DMs should limit player agency because they should be scared of their players? You should be all in on moving options away from the PHB and into the DMG.
You can buy 4e stuff as PDFs as well. Along with I believe 3e which would cover the gods. But you shouldn't have to go to previous editions to get important information for a game.
Important information?
What do you need a list of gods for to play the game? Does any class require you to pick a god at all, much less to get mechanical benefits from your choice?
If you make a D&D world without specific gods, whether monotheistic or whatever, do you need to make any rule changes to handle that?
Clerics need a god, for starters.
Mechanically, they don't.
Flavor-wise, they still don't. Clerics imply some kind of religion, but "Individual, clearly-differentiated gods, of which you pick one to follow" is only one possible religious structure for a world. It's the D&D default, because western culture thinks of worshipping one(1) god as the way things work, and it's most definitely not the way all earth religions have worked. (In fact, I'm not sure that any Earth religions have operated on the D&D-style "in a religion with many gods, people will follow only one of them".)
And it's still setting-specific material. Whatever list of gods they put in the PHB is of no use to me. (OK, I swiped the idea of a death god named "The Raven Queen" from 4e, but all other details are invented.)
Paladins should all need a god, but we have seen what wotc has done to that.
We have. It's great. It's miles better than the 1e idea of "holy warriors for a cause, but there is exactly one cause, and it doesn't fit pretty much any polytheistic religion".
You can buy 4e stuff as PDFs as well. Along with I believe 3e which would cover the gods. But you shouldn't have to go to previous editions to get important information for a game.
Important information?
What do you need a list of gods for to play the game? Does any class require you to pick a god at all, much less to get mechanical benefits from your choice?
If you make a D&D world without specific gods, whether monotheistic or whatever, do you need to make any rule changes to handle that?
Clerics need a god, for starters.
Mechanically, they don't.
Flavor-wise, they still don't. Clerics imply some kind of religion, but "Individual, clearly-differentiated gods, of which you pick one to follow" is only one possible religious structure for a world. It's the D&D default, because western culture thinks of worshipping one(1) god as the way things work, and it's most definitely not the way all earth religions have worked. (In fact, I'm not sure that any Earth religions have operated on the D&D-style "in a religion with many gods, people will follow only one of them".)
This has always bothered me with the way gods are presented in D&D. It’s not polytheism it’s a very Christian monotheistic view of religion that’s pretending to be polytheistic. It’s more akin to a number of monotheistic religions living along side each other with the same sort of “you’re welcome to believe in that god but deep down I think mine is the right one”
You can buy 4e stuff as PDFs as well. Along with I believe 3e which would cover the gods. But you shouldn't have to go to previous editions to get important information for a game.
Important information?
What do you need a list of gods for to play the game? Does any class require you to pick a god at all, much less to get mechanical benefits from your choice?
If you make a D&D world without specific gods, whether monotheistic or whatever, do you need to make any rule changes to handle that?
Clerics need a god, for starters.
Mechanically, they don't.
Flavor-wise, they still don't. Clerics imply some kind of religion, but "Individual, clearly-differentiated gods, of which you pick one to follow" is only one possible religious structure for a world. It's the D&D default, because western culture thinks of worshipping one(1) god as the way things work, and it's most definitely not the way all earth religions have worked. (In fact, I'm not sure that any Earth religions have operated on the D&D-style "in a religion with many gods, people will follow only one of them".)
And it's still setting-specific material. Whatever list of gods they put in the PHB is of no use to me. (OK, I swiped the idea of a death god named "The Raven Queen" from 4e, but all other details are invented.)
Paladins should all need a god, but we have seen what wotc has done to that.
We have. It's great. It's miles better than the 1e idea of "holy warriors for a cause, but there is exactly one cause, and it doesn't fit pretty much any polytheistic religion".
The terms "Holy Weapon", "Divine Smite", 'Holy Symbol", "Channel Divinity", "Divine Intervention", "Bless", "Prayer of Healing", "Divine Magic", which just scratch the surface, prove you are wrong. When a Cleric casts the spell Commune, who do you think the Cleric is communicating with? The wind? Clerics need a god. Period. Mechanically, I would never allow a Cleric to NOT present a Holy Symbol when a spell or action states it is needed. And a Holy Symbol means a deity aka a god.
Turn Undead:
As an action, you present your holy symbol and speak a prayer censuring the undead.
And as for Paladins as holy warriors in 1e, the concept was vastly superior to the current iteration. That is what Paladins are: Holy Warriors, dedicated to doing the work of whatever god they follow. Further, Paladins should ONLY be Lawful Good, as per the original text. Today, you have Paladins who actually operate as if their king was a god (Oath of the Crown), or psychopaths (Oath of Conquest, Oath of Vengeance).
Gods in D&D are critical to its success, and by removing the lore, wotc has done the game a massive disservice.
Notes: We ask users to remember that there are faiths and religions that do not have deities or worship such in the same way, but will still have the concept of 'holy', 'divine' and 'prayer'.
You can buy 4e stuff as PDFs as well. Along with I believe 3e which would cover the gods. But you shouldn't have to go to previous editions to get important information for a game.
Important information?
What do you need a list of gods for to play the game? Does any class require you to pick a god at all, much less to get mechanical benefits from your choice?
If you make a D&D world without specific gods, whether monotheistic or whatever, do you need to make any rule changes to handle that?
Clerics need a god, for starters.
Mechanically, they don't.
Flavor-wise, they still don't. Clerics imply some kind of religion, but "Individual, clearly-differentiated gods, of which you pick one to follow" is only one possible religious structure for a world. It's the D&D default, because western culture thinks of worshipping one(1) god as the way things work, and it's most definitely not the way all earth religions have worked. (In fact, I'm not sure that any Earth religions have operated on the D&D-style "in a religion with many gods, people will follow only one of them".)
This has always bothered me with the way gods are presented in D&D. It’s not polytheism it’s a very Christian monotheistic view of religion that’s pretending to be polytheistic. It’s more akin to a number of monotheistic religions living along side each other with the same sort of “you’re welcome to believe in that god but deep down I think mine is the right one”
Not really; if you look back to cultures like Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. while there was a coherent pantheon who collectively governed different aspects of life, there were priesthoods or similar bodies who at least focused their devotions to a particular deity and the corresponding area within the larger structure of the religion/society, which is what you typically see particularly among the good and neutral gods of a setting like FR. Evil gods tend to push a more "it's all about me" narrative, but that's because they're- you know- eviland so jealous and self-centered about worship. That part naturally lacks an IRL analog since what makes an ongoing "cult of evil" viable in D&D doesn't exist IRL, but the idea of at least a portion of priests "specializing" in a certain portion of their pantheon is something that objectively did exist in polytheistic religions.
(a) Jl8e correctly pointed out that religion within the game is lore, and therefore the purview of the DM, not the player, so it makes sense to move this lore to the DMG instead of the PHB. [Redacted]
(b) [Redacted] No, they are moving lore somewhere new, and giving actual lore related to the gods, instead of the simplistic tables we presently have.
(c) Jl8e correctly pointed out that plenty of cultures have religions without gods - many of which involve holy symbols, prayers, and the other items. [Redacted] pretending a Western view of religion is the only one that can be properly applied to D&D [] is not only wrong in terms of how D&D can be played, it is actively racist to dismiss and ignore the existence of other cultures when they are part of the conversation.
Mechanically, I would never allow a Cleric to NOT present a Holy Symbol when a spell or action states it is needed. And a Holy Symbol means a deity aka a god.
Going back to late stage 1e, Gods are not a requirement for Clerics. Merely faith in a deity and the power that comes from that faith. This was set as a basis circa 1981, specifically and intentionally.
That hasn't changed in any edition since then. Factually speaking. The use of Philosophies, of traditional pantheons, of fictional pantheons, etc. A holy Symbol can be anything -- as long as there is faith behind it.
And as for Paladins as holy warriors in 1e, the concept was vastly superior to the current iteration. That is what Paladins are: Holy Warriors, dedicated to doing the work of whatever god they follow. Further, Paladins should ONLY be Lawful Good, as per the original text. Today, you have Paladins who actually operate as if their king was a god (Oath of the Crown), or psychopaths (Oath of Conquest, Oath of Vengeance).
in 1e, thanks to a series of community created articles that appeared in several sources, including the Dragon, Anti-paladins entered the game in mid 1980 or so. Then, in 87, they became official, with 2e.
If you go back to before 1e, you fall into the 0e space (the B/X/BECMI space was retconned out by WotC when 3.x came out), and there the original text only says Lawful.
The Archetypal concept of a Paladin, as well, was never quite clear in its difference from an Archetypal Cleric -- both were, in 1e, warriors for their deity. One was just also a priest, and the other was a layman. So the only real difference between a Cleric and a Paladin, in 1e, was ordination -- which was not a mechanical function of the game. You could note that one follows the traditions of certain warrior priests and the other follows the tradition of charlemagne's knights from the French ROmances, but you still have a thin distinction there of time (a few hundred years separate the two, which is meaningless in this circumstance) or Nobility -- and Paladins were never required to be nobility or knighted.
I happen to love the Deed of Paksenarrion; it does more to establish the path of and coming to understanding of, what a Paladin is to me than any of the traditional archetypes, despite being bound by them (and, in particular, the game's view of them). It might also please you -- Paks is my current model for how Paladins operate, and I think you would like it.
Gods in D&D are critical to its success, and by removing the lore, wotc has done the game a massive disservice.
WotC has not removed the lore, they have relocated it; likely in order to meet the needs of the majority of players who do not want to use any published pantheon or any pantheon at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Flavor-wise, they still don't. Clerics imply some kind of religion, but "Individual, clearly-differentiated gods, of which you pick one to follow" is only one possible religious structure for a world. It's the D&D default, because western culture thinks of worshipping one(1) god as the way things work, and it's most definitely not the way all earth religions have worked. (In fact, I'm not sure that any Earth religions have operated on the D&D-style "in a religion with many gods, people will follow only one of them".)
And it's still setting-specific material. Whatever list of gods they put in the PHB is of no use to me. (OK, I swiped the idea of a death god named "The Raven Queen" from 4e, but all other details are invented.)
Paladins should all need a god, but we have seen what wotc has done to that.
We have. It's great. It's miles better than the 1e idea of "holy warriors for a cause, but there is exactly one cause, and it doesn't fit pretty much any polytheistic religion".
The terms "Holy Weapon", "Divine Smite", 'Holy Symbol", "Channel Divinity", "Divine Intervention", "Bless", "Prayer of Healing", "Divine Magic", which just scratch the surface, prove you are wrong. When a Cleric casts the spell Commune, who do you think the Cleric is communicating with? The wind?
Sure. Why not?
None of those things you list require that the cleric be a follower of a specific god-like entity, chosen from amongst several. Worship of an entire pantheon. Monotheism. Animism. World-as-divinity. Etc.
The particular choices of names are partly hangovers from the very Christian-centered worldview that D&D defaults to, despite it being near-universally polytheistic. Which is weird.
But also these things need names. There's nothing in those things that requires the default model. Ultimately "Divine"->"the thing that is worshipped", "Holy"->"blessed, powered, or otherwise associated with the divine", etc.
And as for Paladins as holy warriors in 1e, the concept was vastly superior to the current iteration. That is what Paladins are: Holy Warriors, dedicated to doing the work of whatever god they follow. Further, Paladins should ONLY be Lawful Good, as per the original text.
Even within that restriction, it didn't make sense. The paladins of LG gods of justice, war, and peace were all bound to the same rules of behavior. And no gods other than LG ones had holy warriors, for reasons.
Today, you have Paladins who actually operate as if their king was a god (Oath of the Crown), or psychopaths (Oath of Conquest, Oath of Vengeance).
Pretty accurate to the real-world historical models that 1e paladins were based on, really.
Gods in D&D are critical to its success,
Citation needed.
and by removing the lore, wotc has done the game a massive disservice.
They haven't even removed the lore. They're just putting it in the places it belongs.
You can buy 4e stuff as PDFs as well. Along with I believe 3e which would cover the gods. But you shouldn't have to go to previous editions to get important information for a game.
Important information?
What do you need a list of gods for to play the game? Does any class require you to pick a god at all, much less to get mechanical benefits from your choice?
If you make a D&D world without specific gods, whether monotheistic or whatever, do you need to make any rule changes to handle that?
Clerics need a god, for starters.
Mechanically, they don't.
Flavor-wise, they still don't. Clerics imply some kind of religion, but "Individual, clearly-differentiated gods, of which you pick one to follow" is only one possible religious structure for a world. It's the D&D default, because western culture thinks of worshipping one(1) god as the way things work, and it's most definitely not the way all earth religions have worked. (In fact, I'm not sure that any Earth religions have operated on the D&D-style "in a religion with many gods, people will follow only one of them".)
This has always bothered me with the way gods are presented in D&D. It’s not polytheism it’s a very Christian monotheistic view of religion that’s pretending to be polytheistic. It’s more akin to a number of monotheistic religions living along side each other with the same sort of “you’re welcome to believe in that god but deep down I think mine is the right one”
In my worlds, the average person will pray to whichever god is most appropriate in a given situation. Getting on a boat, the sea god, planting a field, the harvest god, etc. It kind of ends up with many people praying to one more often —sailors and the sea god for example — but they still wouldn’t consider themselves followers of that god exclusively. But clerics are the exception. They generally still respect all the gods, but really only worship one of them. Though I still have no problem with putting off subclass until level 3. My world’s gods are pretty open, and any god can have a cleric of any subclass. The gods would be shocked to find out they were so limited as to only have one or two kinds of cleric. Yes, most of them tend to go one way, but not all. That ocean god has lots of tempest clerics, but sometimes, it can make use of a trickery or knowledge cleric. My gods like having different tools at their disposal.
Which is all to say I’m pretty happy they took the gods out of the PHB. For my game, it would have been wasted space and made me tell my players to ignore those pages.
Not really; if you look back to cultures like Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. while there was a coherent pantheon who collectively governed different aspects of life, there were priesthoods or similar bodies who at least focused their devotions to a particular deity and the corresponding area within the larger structure of the religion/society, which is what you typically see particularly among the good and neutral gods of a setting like FR. Evil gods tend to push a more "it's all about me" narrative, but that's because they're- you know- eviland so jealous and self-centered about worship. That part naturally lacks an IRL analog since what makes an ongoing "cult of evil" viable in D&D doesn't exist IRL, but the idea of at least a portion of priests "specializing" in a certain portion of their pantheon is something that objectively did exist in polytheistic religions.
It still wasn't the one-stop shopping it's usually characterized as in D&D. If a priest of Ares were about to embark on an ocean voyage, he'd be making offerings to Poseidon if he knew what was good for him. If his wife were giving birth, prayers to Hestia. Etc.
And the general populace were AFAIK primarily transactional in their worship.
I also think (but have not done any research to back this up) that the model was much more "you are chosen by a specific god, therefore you become a priest/whatever" than "you choose a god and become a priest".
I confess I am somewhat bemused. My current setting has deities, but only about a quarter of the population worships them, there are no "domains", and if you haven't been properly baptized you cannot enter a sacred area no matter what you try.
There are ordeals -- the whole bloody, horrible thing like weights on the chest, arm in boiling oil, etc. And if your deity is cool, you are fine.
These are not distant deities, either -- they go shipping in the markets, show up for dinner unannounced, run Inns that appear randomly out in the wilderness, seem to be beggars on the side of the road.
There really isn't a pre-described way to explain my deity system in the books, other than the blunt bit about "do it a way that you want".
And this is important to me -- the Deities shouldn't be in the PHB, because they are part of the lore and the lore is the DM's purview. The DM chooses or creates the setting, and that means they decide the deities that are there -- a lit is fine to decide on, but players are supposed to be finding out form the DM what their deity is -- even the 2014 PHB says that's how it is supposed to work.
So moving them out of the PHB is reasonable -- it is the same for a Warlock's patron; you don't know the possible patrons, you just know the category of them. And if that setting has no beings to function as patrons, then that class is going to be in a bit of a hurt.
Which is something for the DM to solve (or not) as they choose. But, not only that...
FR has all the Kara-Tur deities and the Kami. That list was never in the PHB. Amaterasu isn't part of the PHB list -- yet she is absolutely an FR deity because they retconned Kara Tur into FR. So even the list they did provide was a barebones, minimialist list that wasn't ever reflective of the settings that it did mention.
They never did a PIE gods List, either -- and those are the forerunners of all the pantheon systems. The list was just an example of possible types that might be in use if your DM used the published settings. That's all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
... the gods. But you shouldn't have to go to previous editions to get important information for a game.
Gods in D&D are fluff, and lore, unless an adventure is directly tied to the machinations or fights between deities gods are just set dressing. If you want your character to be highly religious then go to a wiki or watch videos on the religions within your setting. Otherwise religion is not important in D&D outside a few holidays, which is something the DM controls anyway.
Clerics need a god, for starters. Paladins should all need a god, but we have seen what wotc has done to that.
Not really, they need a faith or religion, a deity is not required for a belief. A concept people need to understand Nontheistic religions. The belief in the teachings of a religion without the need for a specific god. In our world [there are] are classical large beliefs that are nontheistic religions, one could also put the new age movement, and modern spiritualism and modern paganism into this category.
You could totally make a cleric of the "we are all divine beings" (type of new age belief). Clerics get their power from their beliefs made manifest. In most cases gods will add to this power, but in some cases devils have been known to do that instead. it big powerful special abilities are lore wise empowered by the object of belief. ie Channel Divinity and Divine Intervention. But you can totally make your object of belief a 'My Little Pony' Rainbow Dash doll your cleric found one day. And the Divinity abilities are literally just your stored faith in the object. Because in the worlds of D&D you can do that.
As for Paladins, sure in our world they were nothing more than warrior monks [redacted] in armor, but in D&D they are so much more. The Oath system really capture the unique thing about the worlds of D&D, really showing that people empower themselves, in the paladin case it's their faith in their oath. Clerics it's the faith in their religion, and paladins in the oath. Now can you flavor this to be tied to a religion. Absolutely yes. In my recent Decent into Avernus campaign, as the DM and because my players were off the rails, I made a key part of the story the Oath of Zariel. So I had to write it...
My version of the Oath of Zariel -
"I stretch my hands towards you, Lathanderthe Dawn Bringer.
I, Zariel, as a Solar of my God Lathander, do solemnly swear that I will watch over the all the children of Morning Lord and show them compassion; that I will bear true faith and courage for the sake of Honor in the name of the Lord of Birth and Renewal; and it is my duty to obey the orders of the Commander of Creativity, for it is my Duty and my Honor to serve Lathander and be his Solar”
You will see, I put both the classic Oath of Devotion tenets and lots of flowery words to her god Lathander. (Sorry for comic sans, I would have used a cursive font if one was available.)
TENETS OF DEVOTION
Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.
(Just so you can see the tenets of the oath, now all you need to do is write an oath, and if you want to include your religion in it, I just showed you how.)
This has always bothered me with the way gods are presented in D&D. It’s not polytheism it’s a very Christian monotheistic view of religion that’s pretending to be polytheistic. It’s more akin to a number of monotheistic religions living along side each other with the same sort of “you’re welcome to believe in that god but deep down I think mine is the right one”
Well look at all the Authors of D&D and where they are from. Half are from the North West USA [redacted], a few are from Canada looks at Ed Greenwood, and a couple are from the UK. Looking at Games Workshop who did a lot of work for D&D in the early years until their own wargaming system took off.
So yes, D&D's pagan mythology is designed by [people] who knew nothing of other religions besides what was said in movies, tv, and in churches. While for the most part I would categorize the creators as more secular than religious, that bias was their in the beginning, and can be seen in the lore all the way up through 4th edition.
I'm glad they are stepping back on in your face religious lore, for this more organic from the DM method. It should be up to the DM how deities in a campaign are, or are going to behave.
Just like in the Baldur's Gate series of games, which are strongly linked to the Gods known as the Dead Three, and their machinations, you can see that gods in D&D are a story tool nothing more. For a cleric, being shown a list of common deities in use for a setting by the DM is all that is needed. Unless the cleric player wants to know how best to RP such a character, in this case I would as a DM send them down the Youtube lore video rabbit hole. Lots of Mr.Rhexx, Jorphdan, AJ Pickett, Esper the Bard, Ed Greenwood, and others. ((Seriously love to listen to Ed Greenwood tell stories of the Realms, he's like Grandpa Lore at this point.))
You can also just jump over to the Lore Wikis such as the Forgotten realms wiki which is a good resource most of the times.
Also I should point out that all the creators of D&D purposely did not include any modern popular religion into any D&D setting, even though all of D&D is an Isekai with Humans of our world accidentally falling into D&D world. And with the new Species lore of humans coming from Sigil this lore went from Most Humans in the multiverse coming from Earth to All Humans coming from Sigil (ie Earth to Sigil to other places) you can see why the lack of Modern beliefs is a very clear conscious choice of the creators of the game. [redacted]
Basically gods and religion are set dressing and tool for RP, it's up to DMs to set what gods are in play, and up to Clerics how they interact an RP with that set dressing. There is no gameplay rules in 5e that require any religious beliefs. ((Yes I have often wanted to make a Militant Atheist of Order Cleric))
Oh and... FYI the Classic Setting of Darksun, has no Gods, Deities, or any higher powers. Yet they do have Clerics (although very few and most are actually secretly Preserver Wizards). Just imagine making a 5e Darksun game, not allowed any magical classes or subclasses. And Species traits which use magic are replaced with feats that have no magic. Reason number 2 why the setting wont be made official in 5e.
On monotheism within polytheism, I've always seen it as primarily a way of introducing religious conflict. If there's one religion and everybody agrees on it and the gods show up every now and again to remind everybody that it's accurate, it's hard to have a whole lot of conflict on the basis of faith. But conflict on the basis of faith (or at least with faith as a factor) is something that a lot of people want in their games. Think about how (at least in my experience) Druids are often presented as pagans, when really all religion in a polytheistic world would be pagan.
As for historical accuracy, certainly most laypeople in polytheistic societies wouldn't have devoted themselves to a single god, but priests could have, if not wholly then mostly. Laypeople could well have felt closer to some gods, as a fisherman would spend a lot more time chatting with the gods of the water than with the gods of agriculture. Also, it's possible for gods to be feared so much that they're thought of as taboo, maybe even evil. Best not say Hades's name in good company. Not that that stopped people from praying to him, though.
Something that's also worth considering is the distinction between gods and religion. When you're making the gods of a world, you aren't really setting up a religion (organized unit of spiritual belief), you're setting up the truth, and you shouldn't necessarily use religions as the basis for truth. It's okay if the gods of a world don't work like any real-world religion prescribes, because the gods aren't a religion, they're gods. Why would they have to work like we say they work? Why would they want to share their worshippers communally, when they could just not? Why wouldn't they want to have their own priests for carrying out their will?
Basically: a Cleric of a single god isn't that out of line for a polytheistic society, and while real-world polytheistic religions have never been divided up into monotheistic religions based on which dude you like the most, it's not such an inconceivable conclusion to come to in a world with gods as interventionist and competitive as in your standard D&D world, especially if the world is one of the ones where faith in a god translates to that god's power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Not really; if you look back to cultures like Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. while there was a coherent pantheon who collectively governed different aspects of life, there were priesthoods or similar bodies who at least focused their devotions to a particular deity and the corresponding area within the larger structure of the religion/society, which is what you typically see particularly among the good and neutral gods of a setting like FR. Evil gods tend to push a more "it's all about me" narrative, but that's because they're- you know- eviland so jealous and self-centered about worship. That part naturally lacks an IRL analog since what makes an ongoing "cult of evil" viable in D&D doesn't exist IRL, but the idea of at least a portion of priests "specializing" in a certain portion of their pantheon is something that objectively did exist in polytheistic religions.
It still wasn't the one-stop shopping it's usually characterized as in D&D. If a priest of Ares were about to embark on an ocean voyage, he'd be making offerings to Poseidon if he knew what was good for him. If his wife were giving birth, prayers to Hestia. Etc.
And the general populace were AFAIK primarily transactional in their worship.
I also think (but have not done any research to back this up) that the model was much more "you are chosen by a specific god, therefore you become a priest/whatever" than "you choose a god and become a priest".
I don’t see where you get the sense that the standard of D&D is “a cleric of one god can’t even look in the direction of another”; mechanically- insofar as the term applies, you pick a single one for a Cleric to define their specialist powers since D&D doesn’t take a grab-bag approach to character features. There’s nothing in the rules or lore that say they can’t still pray to others when appropriate.
The terms "Holy Weapon", "Divine Smite", 'Holy Symbol", "Channel Divinity", "Divine Intervention", "Bless", "Prayer of Healing", "Divine Magic", which just scratch the surface, prove you are wrong. When a Cleric casts the spell Commune, who do you think the Cleric is communicating with? The wind? Clerics need a god. Period. Mechanically, I would never allow a Cleric to NOT present a Holy Symbol when a spell or action states it is needed. And a Holy Symbol means a deity aka a god.
Turn Undead:
As an action, you present your holy symbol and speak a prayer censuring the undead.
And as for Paladins as holy warriors in 1e, the concept was vastly superior to the current iteration. That is what Paladins are: Holy Warriors, dedicated to doing the work of whatever god they follow. Further, Paladins should ONLY be Lawful Good, as per the original text. Today, you have Paladins who actually operate as if their king was a god (Oath of the Crown), or psychopaths (Oath of Conquest, Oath of Vengeance).
Gods in D&D are critical to its success, and by removing the lore, wotc has done the game a massive disservice.
Lets break this down, because there is a lot of assumptions and falsehoods to this.
ALL Spells in D&D are created by the person casting the Spell, and use their own connections to the weave, or other magical sources (ie Shadow weave, technology, feywild, outer planes, etc.)
For a cleric, Nontheistic religions is perfectly acceptable, and has been since 1st Edition was published where they specified that all magic including a Clerics comes from the person casting the spell.
Now because you can be an Atheist Cleric in D&D when you Channel Divinity, Cast Commune, or other ability which should connect with a higher power, that higher power just needs to be the source of your faith. For a theist yeah that's your god, goddess, demi-god, very powerful lich, devil, demon, etc. But for the Atheist cleric, their faith in the indomitable will of humanity, the power of science, the technological understanding of the multiverse, the power of the HHGTTG, or MYLPFIM Rainbow Dash, is what they connect to aka themself. This is baked into the rules and has been since the 80s.
If you would not allow a Cleric to play Rules as Written, then I suspect you shouldn't be a DM, as at the end of the day the game is not based in reality, but is a strategy game where you can roleplay while simulating combat.
Also a spell focus aka holy symbol is required for all spell casting until players gain a feat to allow them to not use one, the spell focus replaces material components to spells which have low cost spell needs. At a point in gameplay your weapon can usually become the spell focus, this includes Paladins and Clerics. This should never be an issue to gameplay. Forcing players to hold an idol to cast is bad gameplay, and wrecks the flow of the game. [Redacted]
Not really; if you look back to cultures like Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. while there was a coherent pantheon who collectively governed different aspects of life, there were priesthoods or similar bodies who at least focused their devotions to a particular deity and the corresponding area within the larger structure of the religion/society, which is what you typically see particularly among the good and neutral gods of a setting like FR. Evil gods tend to push a more "it's all about me" narrative, but that's because they're- you know- eviland so jealous and self-centered about worship. That part naturally lacks an IRL analog since what makes an ongoing "cult of evil" viable in D&D doesn't exist IRL, but the idea of at least a portion of priests "specializing" in a certain portion of their pantheon is something that objectively did exist in polytheistic religions.
It still wasn't the one-stop shopping it's usually characterized as in D&D. If a priest of Ares were about to embark on an ocean voyage, he'd be making offerings to Poseidon if he knew what was good for him. If his wife were giving birth, prayers to Hestia. Etc.
And the general populace were AFAIK primarily transactional in their worship.
I also think (but have not done any research to back this up) that the model was much more "you are chosen by a specific god, therefore you become a priest/whatever" than "you choose a god and become a priest".
I don’t see where you get the sense that the standard of D&D is “a cleric of one god can’t even look in the direction of another”; mechanically- insofar as the term applies, you pick a single one for a Cleric to define their specialist powers since D&D doesn’t take a grab-bag approach to character features. There’s nothing in the rules or lore that say they can’t still pray to others when appropriate.
Plus all clerics have access to all the same spells (other than the chosen domain spells) so it is very much like drawing upon the powers of which ever deity you need at the time. Need cast Inflict Wounds, then you are calling on the deity of death, Cure Wounds, well a prayer to the deity of life. I often have a preferred deity for my Domain, but that does not exclude the other deities and their place in the great scheme of things.
This has always bothered me with the way gods are presented in D&D. It’s not polytheism it’s a very Christian monotheistic view of religion that’s pretending to be polytheistic. It’s more akin to a number of monotheistic religions living along side each other with the same sort of “you’re welcome to believe in that god but deep down I think mine is the right one”
In my worlds, the average person will pray to whichever god is most appropriate in a given situation. Getting on a boat, the sea god, planting a field, the harvest god, etc. It kind of ends up with many people praying to one more often —sailors and the sea god for example — but they still wouldn’t consider themselves followers of that god exclusively. But clerics are the exception. They generally still respect all the gods, but really only worship one of them. Though I still have no problem with putting off subclass until level 3. My world’s gods are pretty open, and any god can have a cleric of any subclass. The gods would be shocked to find out they were so limited as to only have one or two kinds of cleric. Yes, most of them tend to go one way, but not all. That ocean god has lots of tempest clerics, but sometimes, it can make use of a trickery or knowledge cleric. My gods like having different tools at their disposal.
Which is all to say I’m pretty happy they took the gods out of the PHB. For my game, it would have been wasted space and made me tell my players to ignore those pages.
Plus all clerics have access to all the same spells (other than the chosen domain spells) so it is very much like drawing upon the powers of which ever deity you need at the time. Need cast Inflict Wounds, then you are calling on the deity of death, Cure Wounds, well a prayer to the deity of life. I often have a preferred deity for my Domain, but that does not exclude the other deities and their place in the great scheme of things.
I kind of dig this concept you both have mentioned and I think my next Cleric (hopefully in 2024) will work this way.
Not really; if you look back to cultures like Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. while there was a coherent pantheon who collectively governed different aspects of life, there were priesthoods or similar bodies who at least focused their devotions to a particular deity and the corresponding area within the larger structure of the religion/society, which is what you typically see particularly among the good and neutral gods of a setting like FR. Evil gods tend to push a more "it's all about me" narrative, but that's because they're- you know- eviland so jealous and self-centered about worship. That part naturally lacks an IRL analog since what makes an ongoing "cult of evil" viable in D&D doesn't exist IRL, but the idea of at least a portion of priests "specializing" in a certain portion of their pantheon is something that objectively did exist in polytheistic religions.
It still wasn't the one-stop shopping it's usually characterized as in D&D. If a priest of Ares were about to embark on an ocean voyage, he'd be making offerings to Poseidon if he knew what was good for him. If his wife were giving birth, prayers to Hestia. Etc.
And the general populace were AFAIK primarily transactional in their worship.
I also think (but have not done any research to back this up) that the model was much more "you are chosen by a specific god, therefore you become a priest/whatever" than "you choose a god and become a priest".
I don’t see where you get the sense that the standard of D&D is “a cleric of one god can’t even look in the direction of another”; mechanically- insofar as the term applies, you pick a single one for a Cleric to define their specialist powers since D&D doesn’t take a grab-bag approach to character features. There’s nothing in the rules or lore that say they can’t still pray to others when appropriate.
It's not in the mechanical sense -- in 5e, they don't actually pick a god, but a domain, which could be their god's portfolio or a subset thereof, but really all we know is it's a specialization of some kind. You could potentially be a war domain cleric of a nature god. Or a priest of a war god. Or a war priest of the Whereverian pantheon. Or whatever.
But in the worldbuilding sense, it does seem to be that way for D&D settings. My impression is mostly formed by FR and Dragonlance, for those were where most of the D&D novels I read back in the day were set, and also the computer games and game supplements. But I don't think Greyhawk was any different, and I'm pretty sure that's the vibe the rulebooks created when they talked about clerics.
Stepping in to remind folk that we do not allow any comments that seek to limit or disparage how people play and also to remember to be sensitive and aware of this topic, including that there are faiths and religions that do not have or worship deities, and how it can easily stumble into breaking our rules on Minor Prohibited Content- Religious and political debates. Remember as well that if you find you are posting a chain link of replies, that you may be engaging more with the user than the topic and it might be time to step back. It is also preferable you keep such reply chains short.
As for this topic mechanically, I will note that Paladins have never explicitly needed deities except in 4e, have been explicitly allowed to be nontheistic in 2e (Complete Paladin's Handbook), 3.5 and 5e. Likewise Clerics that do no worship gods have been explicit in 2e (Complete Priest's Handbook), 3.5 (SRD), and 5e (SRD/PHB). Settings can also vary. Mechanically the game has allowed for settings with little to no explicit existence of deities and allowed ambiguity in how they interact with the setting for a while now. Preference to how much you include or do not include the gods is personal and vary. You can express your preferences without disparaging others.
As for where this lore comes in I do imagine we'll see in more so in the DMG or in setting specific content.
Clerics need a god, for starters. Paladins should all need a god, but we have seen what wotc has done to that.
The user is correct in what they say - gods are flavor choices for a DM to make, not mechanical ones. Nothing in the PHB says “to pay this subclass, you must worship this specific god from this specific list.” That is why the lore information is being moved to the DMG. The decision of what gods are available in the world is a DM one, not a player one. The player does not get to look in the PHB, see a blurb on Pelor, and say “I want to worship this one for my cleric” unless the DM has made a world with Pelor. This was a known flaw in earlier PHBs
Struggling to understand your issue here. After all, aren’t you the one who is constantly scared of players having options and posting about how DMs should limit player agency because they should be scared of their players? You should be all in on moving options away from the PHB and into the DMG.
Mechanically, they don't.
Flavor-wise, they still don't. Clerics imply some kind of religion, but "Individual, clearly-differentiated gods, of which you pick one to follow" is only one possible religious structure for a world. It's the D&D default, because western culture thinks of worshipping one(1) god as the way things work, and it's most definitely not the way all earth religions have worked. (In fact, I'm not sure that any Earth religions have operated on the D&D-style "in a religion with many gods, people will follow only one of them".)
And it's still setting-specific material. Whatever list of gods they put in the PHB is of no use to me. (OK, I swiped the idea of a death god named "The Raven Queen" from 4e, but all other details are invented.)
We have. It's great. It's miles better than the 1e idea of "holy warriors for a cause, but there is exactly one cause, and it doesn't fit pretty much any polytheistic religion".
This has always bothered me with the way gods are presented in D&D. It’s not polytheism it’s a very Christian monotheistic view of religion that’s pretending to be polytheistic. It’s more akin to a number of monotheistic religions living along side each other with the same sort of “you’re welcome to believe in that god but deep down I think mine is the right one”
The terms "Holy Weapon", "Divine Smite", 'Holy Symbol", "Channel Divinity", "Divine Intervention", "Bless", "Prayer of Healing", "Divine Magic", which just scratch the surface, prove you are wrong. When a Cleric casts the spell Commune, who do you think the Cleric is communicating with? The wind? Clerics need a god. Period. Mechanically, I would never allow a Cleric to NOT present a Holy Symbol when a spell or action states it is needed. And a Holy Symbol means a deity aka a god.
Turn Undead:
As an action, you present your holy symbol and speak a prayer censuring the undead.
And as for Paladins as holy warriors in 1e, the concept was vastly superior to the current iteration. That is what Paladins are: Holy Warriors, dedicated to doing the work of whatever god they follow. Further, Paladins should ONLY be Lawful Good, as per the original text. Today, you have Paladins who actually operate as if their king was a god (Oath of the Crown), or psychopaths (Oath of Conquest, Oath of Vengeance).
Gods in D&D are critical to its success, and by removing the lore, wotc has done the game a massive disservice.
Not really; if you look back to cultures like Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. while there was a coherent pantheon who collectively governed different aspects of life, there were priesthoods or similar bodies who at least focused their devotions to a particular deity and the corresponding area within the larger structure of the religion/society, which is what you typically see particularly among the good and neutral gods of a setting like FR. Evil gods tend to push a more "it's all about me" narrative, but that's because they're- you know- evil and so jealous and self-centered about worship. That part naturally lacks an IRL analog since what makes an ongoing "cult of evil" viable in D&D doesn't exist IRL, but the idea of at least a portion of priests "specializing" in a certain portion of their pantheon is something that objectively did exist in polytheistic religions.
[Redacted]
Let us be very clear on this:
(a) Jl8e correctly pointed out that religion within the game is lore, and therefore the purview of the DM, not the player, so it makes sense to move this lore to the DMG instead of the PHB. [Redacted]
(b) [Redacted] No, they are moving lore somewhere new, and giving actual lore related to the gods, instead of the simplistic tables we presently have.
(c) Jl8e correctly pointed out that plenty of cultures have religions without gods - many of which involve holy symbols, prayers, and the other items. [Redacted] pretending a Western view of religion is the only one that can be properly applied to D&D [] is not only wrong in terms of how D&D can be played, it is actively racist to dismiss and ignore the existence of other cultures when they are part of the conversation.
Going back to late stage 1e, Gods are not a requirement for Clerics. Merely faith in a deity and the power that comes from that faith. This was set as a basis circa 1981, specifically and intentionally.
That hasn't changed in any edition since then. Factually speaking. The use of Philosophies, of traditional pantheons, of fictional pantheons, etc. A holy Symbol can be anything -- as long as there is faith behind it.
in 1e, thanks to a series of community created articles that appeared in several sources, including the Dragon, Anti-paladins entered the game in mid 1980 or so. Then, in 87, they became official, with 2e.
If you go back to before 1e, you fall into the 0e space (the B/X/BECMI space was retconned out by WotC when 3.x came out), and there the original text only says Lawful.
The Archetypal concept of a Paladin, as well, was never quite clear in its difference from an Archetypal Cleric -- both were, in 1e, warriors for their deity. One was just also a priest, and the other was a layman. So the only real difference between a Cleric and a Paladin, in 1e, was ordination -- which was not a mechanical function of the game. You could note that one follows the traditions of certain warrior priests and the other follows the tradition of charlemagne's knights from the French ROmances, but you still have a thin distinction there of time (a few hundred years separate the two, which is meaningless in this circumstance) or Nobility -- and Paladins were never required to be nobility or knighted.
I happen to love the Deed of Paksenarrion; it does more to establish the path of and coming to understanding of, what a Paladin is to me than any of the traditional archetypes, despite being bound by them (and, in particular, the game's view of them). It might also please you -- Paks is my current model for how Paladins operate, and I think you would like it.
WotC has not removed the lore, they have relocated it; likely in order to meet the needs of the majority of players who do not want to use any published pantheon or any pantheon at all.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sure. Why not?
None of those things you list require that the cleric be a follower of a specific god-like entity, chosen from amongst several. Worship of an entire pantheon. Monotheism. Animism. World-as-divinity. Etc.
The particular choices of names are partly hangovers from the very Christian-centered worldview that D&D defaults to, despite it being near-universally polytheistic. Which is weird.
But also these things need names. There's nothing in those things that requires the default model. Ultimately "Divine"->"the thing that is worshipped", "Holy"->"blessed, powered, or otherwise associated with the divine", etc.
Even within that restriction, it didn't make sense. The paladins of LG gods of justice, war, and peace were all bound to the same rules of behavior. And no gods other than LG ones had holy warriors, for reasons.
Pretty accurate to the real-world historical models that 1e paladins were based on, really.
Citation needed.
They haven't even removed the lore. They're just putting it in the places it belongs.
In my worlds, the average person will pray to whichever god is most appropriate in a given situation. Getting on a boat, the sea god, planting a field, the harvest god, etc. It kind of ends up with many people praying to one more often —sailors and the sea god for example — but they still wouldn’t consider themselves followers of that god exclusively.
But clerics are the exception. They generally still respect all the gods, but really only worship one of them. Though I still have no problem with putting off subclass until level 3. My world’s gods are pretty open, and any god can have a cleric of any subclass. The gods would be shocked to find out they were so limited as to only have one or two kinds of cleric. Yes, most of them tend to go one way, but not all. That ocean god has lots of tempest clerics, but sometimes, it can make use of a trickery or knowledge cleric. My gods like having different tools at their disposal.
Which is all to say I’m pretty happy they took the gods out of the PHB. For my game, it would have been wasted space and made me tell my players to ignore those pages.
It still wasn't the one-stop shopping it's usually characterized as in D&D. If a priest of Ares were about to embark on an ocean voyage, he'd be making offerings to Poseidon if he knew what was good for him. If his wife were giving birth, prayers to Hestia. Etc.
And the general populace were AFAIK primarily transactional in their worship.
I also think (but have not done any research to back this up) that the model was much more "you are chosen by a specific god, therefore you become a priest/whatever" than "you choose a god and become a priest".
I confess I am somewhat bemused. My current setting has deities, but only about a quarter of the population worships them, there are no "domains", and if you haven't been properly baptized you cannot enter a sacred area no matter what you try.
There are ordeals -- the whole bloody, horrible thing like weights on the chest, arm in boiling oil, etc. And if your deity is cool, you are fine.
These are not distant deities, either -- they go shipping in the markets, show up for dinner unannounced, run Inns that appear randomly out in the wilderness, seem to be beggars on the side of the road.
There really isn't a pre-described way to explain my deity system in the books, other than the blunt bit about "do it a way that you want".
And this is important to me -- the Deities shouldn't be in the PHB, because they are part of the lore and the lore is the DM's purview. The DM chooses or creates the setting, and that means they decide the deities that are there -- a lit is fine to decide on, but players are supposed to be finding out form the DM what their deity is -- even the 2014 PHB says that's how it is supposed to work.
So moving them out of the PHB is reasonable -- it is the same for a Warlock's patron; you don't know the possible patrons, you just know the category of them. And if that setting has no beings to function as patrons, then that class is going to be in a bit of a hurt.
Which is something for the DM to solve (or not) as they choose. But, not only that...
FR has all the Kara-Tur deities and the Kami. That list was never in the PHB. Amaterasu isn't part of the PHB list -- yet she is absolutely an FR deity because they retconned Kara Tur into FR. So even the list they did provide was a barebones, minimialist list that wasn't ever reflective of the settings that it did mention.
They never did a PIE gods List, either -- and those are the forerunners of all the pantheon systems. The list was just an example of possible types that might be in use if your DM used the published settings. That's all.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Gods in D&D are fluff, and lore, unless an adventure is directly tied to the machinations or fights between deities gods are just set dressing. If you want your character to be highly religious then go to a wiki or watch videos on the religions within your setting. Otherwise religion is not important in D&D outside a few holidays, which is something the DM controls anyway.
(will add more to the big list of replies)
Not really, they need a faith or religion, a deity is not required for a belief. A concept people need to understand Nontheistic religions. The belief in the teachings of a religion without the need for a specific god. In our world [there are] are classical large beliefs that are nontheistic religions, one could also put the new age movement, and modern spiritualism and modern paganism into this category.
You could totally make a cleric of the "we are all divine beings" (type of new age belief). Clerics get their power from their beliefs made manifest. In most cases gods will add to this power, but in some cases devils have been known to do that instead. it big powerful special abilities are lore wise empowered by the object of belief. ie Channel Divinity and Divine Intervention. But you can totally make your object of belief a 'My Little Pony' Rainbow Dash doll your cleric found one day. And the Divinity abilities are literally just your stored faith in the object. Because in the worlds of D&D you can do that.
As for Paladins, sure in our world they were nothing more than warrior monks [redacted] in armor, but in D&D they are so much more. The Oath system really capture the unique thing about the worlds of D&D, really showing that people empower themselves, in the paladin case it's their faith in their oath. Clerics it's the faith in their religion, and paladins in the oath. Now can you flavor this to be tied to a religion. Absolutely yes. In my recent Decent into Avernus campaign, as the DM and because my players were off the rails, I made a key part of the story the Oath of Zariel. So I had to write it...
My version of the Oath of Zariel -
You will see, I put both the classic Oath of Devotion tenets and lots of flowery words to her god Lathander. (Sorry for comic sans, I would have used a cursive font if one was available.)
(Just so you can see the tenets of the oath, now all you need to do is write an oath, and if you want to include your religion in it, I just showed you how.)
Well look at all the Authors of D&D and where they are from. Half are from the North West USA [redacted], a few are from Canada looks at Ed Greenwood, and a couple are from the UK. Looking at Games Workshop who did a lot of work for D&D in the early years until their own wargaming system took off.
So yes, D&D's pagan mythology is designed by [people] who knew nothing of other religions besides what was said in movies, tv, and in churches. While for the most part I would categorize the creators as more secular than religious, that bias was their in the beginning, and can be seen in the lore all the way up through 4th edition.
I'm glad they are stepping back on in your face religious lore, for this more organic from the DM method. It should be up to the DM how deities in a campaign are, or are going to behave.
Just like in the Baldur's Gate series of games, which are strongly linked to the Gods known as the Dead Three, and their machinations, you can see that gods in D&D are a story tool nothing more. For a cleric, being shown a list of common deities in use for a setting by the DM is all that is needed. Unless the cleric player wants to know how best to RP such a character, in this case I would as a DM send them down the Youtube lore video rabbit hole. Lots of Mr.Rhexx, Jorphdan, AJ Pickett, Esper the Bard, Ed Greenwood, and others. ((Seriously love to listen to Ed Greenwood tell stories of the Realms, he's like Grandpa Lore at this point.))
You can also just jump over to the Lore Wikis such as the Forgotten realms wiki which is a good resource most of the times.
Also I should point out that all the creators of D&D purposely did not include any modern popular religion into any D&D setting, even though all of D&D is an Isekai with Humans of our world accidentally falling into D&D world. And with the new Species lore of humans coming from Sigil this lore went from Most Humans in the multiverse coming from Earth to All Humans coming from Sigil (ie Earth to Sigil to other places) you can see why the lack of Modern beliefs is a very clear conscious choice of the creators of the game. [redacted]
Basically gods and religion are set dressing and tool for RP, it's up to DMs to set what gods are in play, and up to Clerics how they interact an RP with that set dressing. There is no gameplay rules in 5e that require any religious beliefs. ((Yes I have often wanted to make a Militant Atheist of Order Cleric))
Oh and... FYI the Classic Setting of Darksun, has no Gods, Deities, or any higher powers. Yet they do have Clerics (although very few and most are actually secretly Preserver Wizards). Just imagine making a 5e Darksun game, not allowed any magical classes or subclasses. And Species traits which use magic are replaced with feats that have no magic. Reason number 2 why the setting wont be made official in 5e.
On monotheism within polytheism, I've always seen it as primarily a way of introducing religious conflict. If there's one religion and everybody agrees on it and the gods show up every now and again to remind everybody that it's accurate, it's hard to have a whole lot of conflict on the basis of faith. But conflict on the basis of faith (or at least with faith as a factor) is something that a lot of people want in their games. Think about how (at least in my experience) Druids are often presented as pagans, when really all religion in a polytheistic world would be pagan.
As for historical accuracy, certainly most laypeople in polytheistic societies wouldn't have devoted themselves to a single god, but priests could have, if not wholly then mostly. Laypeople could well have felt closer to some gods, as a fisherman would spend a lot more time chatting with the gods of the water than with the gods of agriculture. Also, it's possible for gods to be feared so much that they're thought of as taboo, maybe even evil. Best not say Hades's name in good company. Not that that stopped people from praying to him, though.
Something that's also worth considering is the distinction between gods and religion. When you're making the gods of a world, you aren't really setting up a religion (organized unit of spiritual belief), you're setting up the truth, and you shouldn't necessarily use religions as the basis for truth. It's okay if the gods of a world don't work like any real-world religion prescribes, because the gods aren't a religion, they're gods. Why would they have to work like we say they work? Why would they want to share their worshippers communally, when they could just not? Why wouldn't they want to have their own priests for carrying out their will?
Basically: a Cleric of a single god isn't that out of line for a polytheistic society, and while real-world polytheistic religions have never been divided up into monotheistic religions based on which dude you like the most, it's not such an inconceivable conclusion to come to in a world with gods as interventionist and competitive as in your standard D&D world, especially if the world is one of the ones where faith in a god translates to that god's power.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I don’t see where you get the sense that the standard of D&D is “a cleric of one god can’t even look in the direction of another”; mechanically- insofar as the term applies, you pick a single one for a Cleric to define their specialist powers since D&D doesn’t take a grab-bag approach to character features. There’s nothing in the rules or lore that say they can’t still pray to others when appropriate.
Lets break this down, because there is a lot of assumptions and falsehoods to this.
ALL Spells in D&D are created by the person casting the Spell, and use their own connections to the weave, or other magical sources (ie Shadow weave, technology, feywild, outer planes, etc.)
For a cleric, Nontheistic religions is perfectly acceptable, and has been since 1st Edition was published where they specified that all magic including a Clerics comes from the person casting the spell.
Now because you can be an Atheist Cleric in D&D when you Channel Divinity, Cast Commune, or other ability which should connect with a higher power, that higher power just needs to be the source of your faith. For a theist yeah that's your god, goddess, demi-god, very powerful lich, devil, demon, etc. But for the Atheist cleric, their faith in the indomitable will of humanity, the power of science, the technological understanding of the multiverse, the power of the HHGTTG, or MYLPFIM Rainbow Dash, is what they connect to aka themself. This is baked into the rules and has been since the 80s.
If you would not allow a Cleric to play Rules as Written, then I suspect you shouldn't be a DM, as at the end of the day the game is not based in reality, but is a strategy game where you can roleplay while simulating combat.
Also a spell focus aka holy symbol is required for all spell casting until players gain a feat to allow them to not use one, the spell focus replaces material components to spells which have low cost spell needs. At a point in gameplay your weapon can usually become the spell focus, this includes Paladins and Clerics. This should never be an issue to gameplay. Forcing players to hold an idol to cast is bad gameplay, and wrecks the flow of the game.
[Redacted]
Plus all clerics have access to all the same spells (other than the chosen domain spells) so it is very much like drawing upon the powers of which ever deity you need at the time. Need cast Inflict Wounds, then you are calling on the deity of death, Cure Wounds, well a prayer to the deity of life. I often have a preferred deity for my Domain, but that does not exclude the other deities and their place in the great scheme of things.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I kind of dig this concept you both have mentioned and I think my next Cleric (hopefully in 2024) will work this way.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It's not in the mechanical sense -- in 5e, they don't actually pick a god, but a domain, which could be their god's portfolio or a subset thereof, but really all we know is it's a specialization of some kind. You could potentially be a war domain cleric of a nature god. Or a priest of a war god. Or a war priest of the Whereverian pantheon. Or whatever.
But in the worldbuilding sense, it does seem to be that way for D&D settings. My impression is mostly formed by FR and Dragonlance, for those were where most of the D&D novels I read back in the day were set, and also the computer games and game supplements. But I don't think Greyhawk was any different, and I'm pretty sure that's the vibe the rulebooks created when they talked about clerics.
Stepping in to remind folk that we do not allow any comments that seek to limit or disparage how people play and also to remember to be sensitive and aware of this topic, including that there are faiths and religions that do not have or worship deities, and how it can easily stumble into breaking our rules on Minor Prohibited Content- Religious and political debates. Remember as well that if you find you are posting a chain link of replies, that you may be engaging more with the user than the topic and it might be time to step back. It is also preferable you keep such reply chains short.
As for this topic mechanically, I will note that Paladins have never explicitly needed deities except in 4e, have been explicitly allowed to be nontheistic in 2e (Complete Paladin's Handbook), 3.5 and 5e. Likewise Clerics that do no worship gods have been explicit in 2e (Complete Priest's Handbook), 3.5 (SRD), and 5e (SRD/PHB). Settings can also vary. Mechanically the game has allowed for settings with little to no explicit existence of deities and allowed ambiguity in how they interact with the setting for a while now. Preference to how much you include or do not include the gods is personal and vary. You can express your preferences without disparaging others.
As for where this lore comes in I do imagine we'll see in more so in the DMG or in setting specific content.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support