So something in the latest Matt Colville video caught my attention, and I wondered exactly what the implications would be: a D&D setting world in which the Gods do not actively interfere in the world.
That doesn't mean that Religions and Faith don't exist - just that the Gods are not active in the world ( and possibly don't exist ).
I know that the D&D official position is that the Power of Clerics and Paladins come from faith and not their God - which makes sense to me, up to a point. However, I have a hard time swallowing that pure belief can power spells higher than 4th level ( this isn't Mage The Ascension ).
This of special interest to me, as I'm starting a new campaign, under a new home-brew campaign world. As part of the tone of the world is techno-magic and a Renaissance sense of technological optimism, creating a mostly secular setting wouldn't be a bad fit.
I'm just wondering what the implications might be.
Some I can think of off the top of my head.
Clerics as a full caster class vanish. That's obvious. I'm not sure if they could collapse into a sub-class of something else - I don't see a good fit for that.
Paladins might escape unscathed, powering their spells purely by their Faith. They blow out the 4th level spell cap ( which is purely my own take). Perhaps the Paladin collapses into a faith-based version of the Eldritch Knight?
Healing and Resurrection - this really changes things, especially for Character death. Revivify & Reincarnate become the only fall-backs. And ... I'm not sure why Bards have access to Resurrection, but if they didn't then Character death that fell outside of the bounds of Revivify would be really hard to reverse.
Druids - I think they are unaffected. To me, Druids are kind of like Jedi - using the "force of nature", rather than religious faith.
Warlocks & Sorcerers would be unaffected.
So - what other implications might their be?
I'm not totally married to the idea, but it is tempting to roll this into my new campaign world ( provided that the Players don't rebel at the idea in tomorrow's Session Zero ).
I'm curious how badly this breaks the game, or whether it could be made to work.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
This reminds me of a campaign a friend of mine ran way, way back. The idea was based around the advent of monotheism. Christ came into the world and the gods were loosing followers. the way he handled it was sort of like chatter on a radio. As faith in the monotheistic god grew there was more chatter on the radio so the prayers to other gods were harder to hear. If that makes sense. Honestly it was a long time ago and I don't remember all the specifics, but it was fun campaign!
Wait, your fine with wizards and sorcerers and warlocks... but a person believing in a faith can't manifest similar powers to the arcane casters. That is a major jump the shark...
Wizards study and learn to manipulate
Sorcerers are born with it
Warlocks make deals for it
Clerics believe in it
Different bents all the same outcomes... they do something magical.
Now, if you want to downplay religion in your game that is cool, but to eliminate a whole line of magic seems crazy. Faith is a foundation of society... number one rule of government: Control the religion, control the people.
Sorcerers tap into the inherent magic of their arcane heritage ( such as the Draconinc or Divine Heritage ), which - especially in the case of Draconic heritage - is merely leveraging an inborn ability to tap naturally occurring magical forces, which I believe is what non-intelligent magically enabled monsters/creatures are doing. When it comes down to it they are using the same power sources as Wizards. Which reminds me , No Gods = No Divine Soul sorcerers.
Warlocks, it could be argued get their power from the external source of their Patron, or they could theoretically gain their power from the world around them, using the tools given to them by their Patron, without really needed to understand those tools as Wizards do ( which seems the explanation that makes most sense to me - but that kind of makes Warlocks the script kiddies of the Arcane world ). Again they can tap into the magical energies of the natural world, but they might not understand that, or how they do it.
Druids tap into the power of Nature and the world around them ( Life, so kinda of like the Force from Star Wars, so that's why they seem Jedi-like to me ).
I've always view Bardic magic as simply a different toolset for manipulating magical energies - which really makes them a highly skinned and flavored style of Wizard ( only so far as magical abilities are concerned ).
Divine casters - as I said in my original post - could absolutely use Faith as a power source, but my personal take is that this can only take you so far. I view spell levels 6-9 as being divinely granted. Pure belief being able to manipulate reality to the level of being able to tear a hole in it ( Gate ) implies that reality is more malleable than I think would occur in any fictional universe outside of Mage the Ascension.
And this seems borne out by the fact that Warlocks' abilities - run locally by the Warlock themselves - cannot manipulate spells of higher complexity than 5th level. To me, this implies some sort of external help being supplied to Clerics for higher level spells.
You could make an argument that Clerics could tap into the powers of the natural world, as - it appears - everyone else does. That would really just make them super-charged Warlocks with a social/moral agenda and an organization. However, if that's how it's working, then Gods could not withhold spells, abilities, or powers - just as Warlock patrons cannot. And this would seem to cap Cleric abilities at 5th level spells, as Warlocks are capped.
Although, let's be brutally honest - this is a make believe universe - I can make up whatever in-game rational to create whatever effects I want. The question was never "is this a good idea", that's my call, not yours. You can not agree with that ( and you don't appear to do so ) - and that's totally fine - but that doesn't make my fun wrong :p
The OP questions were "what are the in-world implications of doing this" and "what are the mechanical problems with this"
Oh, and "Control the religion, control the people" hasn't be literally true for about a century. These days it's about control media, especially social media - which could still make that phrase figuratively true.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
with that said, I wouldn't eliminate cleric but limit it, and I would also limit all the other magic users to 5 or 6 level or lower spells...
A 9th wizard is just as bad as a cleric god intervening in the world...
If you want to limit Ressurection or Divine intervention then do so... but a 9th level cleric casting Astral Projection or Gate or Mass heal.... is no different then a wizard doing the same... just the flavor...
My point... clerics can just be viewed as tapping into the energy of the planes.... it doesn't have to be "godly" in nature, their god is just a mythos they unify behind. the real question becomes whether the Planes exist in your world... if they do then cleric should exist. Tapping into the Positive plane to heal, etc..
In the end, it is your world... do what you want
Mechanically: I would just gut high-level spells ... make it a wide magic game instead of a high magic game.... just toss more spells slots out for low levels and lose the 7, 8, 9 level spells...
Again - "What are the in world implications" and "what are the mechanical difficulties" - you keep coming back to addressing the rationale behind the choice. I'm asking about the implications of that ( possible ) choice.
If you want to say that Clerics are just Wizards with a faith-based coat of paint, that's an interpretation - and one that's perfectly valid to take - it's just not the one I subscribe to, as I think it really cheapens the flavor of Divine casters ( again, that's only my interpretation - YMMV ).
I do agree that Wizards ( and Bards, which I view as a re-skin of Wizards using different means of Magical manipulation ) stand out from the pack. Casters seem to be limited in the level of magical power they can command, unless they have external assistance ( Clerics ), and Wizard/Bards which .... what... ? ( side note, I kind of view Druids as quasi-mystical, but still ultimately knowledge based casters, so maybe they fall under the same umbrella as Wizards/Bards ).
I think the answer with those comes down - again - to the source of Power. It's not about the complexity of control - which I think could be uniform across all casters. Warlocks and Sorcerers simply don't understand the roots of their magic ( borrowed and innate as they are ) well enough to fine-tune their ability to tap into the magical energies around them to really crank up the Power. Neither do Divine casters, but they are about Faith not Understanding - and they have external help.
Wizards/Bards simply understand Arcana well enough that they can wring more raw power out of the energy sources they can tap - much in the same way that a stock-car race mechanic can wring much better performance out of a stock engine than I can out of my car, merely by knowing what to do to the engine.
Whether or not I do this depends on the answers to the questions I'm asking about in-world implications and mechanical problems - it may be that the damage to the game is a larger problem than the narrative interest in exploring this interpretation ( and also on how my Players feel about a campaign setting with that twist ).
Don't get me wrong - while I might not agree with your interpretations ( any more than you seem to agree with mine :) ), but I still I appreciate the feedback!
People who disagree with our points-of-view either force us to refine them, or even abandon them - so it's all still valuable feedback.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Do demons and devils exist in your world? Does anything planar? Divine power doesn't have to come from "Gods" ... it can come from faith in any being... If devils and demons can have an influence on your world, then I surmise angels and fey and everything else can have some influence. The only thing missing is true "Deities", what about Demigods?
I think you have a lot more to adjust than just removing gods and clerics... you have to make all kinds of decisions on the existential ...
Warlocks and Sorcerers simply don't understand the roots of their magic ( borrowed and innate as they are ) well enough to fine-tune their ability to tap into the magical energies around them to really crank up the Power. Neither do Divine casters, but they are about Faith not Understanding - and they have external help.
Only skimmed the thread, but this leapt out at me as problematic.
While many priests, clerics, and so on probably get by just fine with "X is so because the gods will it," most true theological scholars. . . in game terms, most high-level clerics. . . would put effort into sorting out such riddles, because those are exactly the kinds of questions difficult worshipers will ask, especially in difficult times. And as representatives of their gods on the material plane, clerics need to have answers ready. Beyond a certain point, gods should probably be unknowable, but that doesn't mean that their followers shouldn't try to question why things are the way they are, why the gods might want things that way, what the hidden purposes and lessons might be, and so on. Why do the gods only allow clerics to cast cure spells, instead of anyone who worships them? How come paladins can Lay Hands and Smite, but Clerics can't? Why are you limited to a certain number of divine spells per day, why can only have a few of them ready to use at a time, why do you have to deepen your understanding of and connection to your god before you can use mightier spells? If the gods wanted change affected on the world, shouldn't they grant all their clerics, or everyone, access to all the abilities to do? Heck, why do the gods need clerics in the first place, why don't they just send celestials to do things, or come down and do them in person? These and many, many more are questions that are certainly debated, answered, the answers questioned and refined, ad infinitum throughout the history of any D&D world. And when a grieving parent asks a cleric why the cleric could raise their barely-civilized Half-Orc adventuring companion from the dead, but their god didn't lift a finger to save or resurrect their child, the cleric better have one doozy of an answer available.
So I would argue that clerics in a D&D world know as much about how divine magic works as wizards do about how arcane magic works. Yes, a cleric isn't rewarded with study in the direct way that a wizard is, but that doesn't mean clerics don't put any thought into how and why they can do what they do. I don't want to tread too closely to real-world analogues, but don't think strictly in terms of a Dark Ages mindset, where knowledge and learning were anathema to religion (even that isn't strictly true to the real Dark Ages). Religion has as often been about preserving, recovering, and expanding knowledge.
Beyond that, narratively, what is the impact of this world with distant gods, or no gods at all? If the gods are so distant/nonexistent that Clerics don't get high-level spells, does that mean angels don't exist either? If there are no angels, are there demons and devils? If so, what does that say about the world? If Clerics just stop being a class, does that limit how many priests there are to the various gods, and does that in turn limit how many religious people there are in the world? Are people just not religious in general? Is that why the gods are distant/nonexistent? Do people worship Wizards and Sorcerers instead, since they wield godlike powers?
As for the mechanics. . . I haven't completely internalized the mechanics of 5th edition yet, but right off the bat, Clerics become a much weaker class, and Paladins become nearly pointless. I'm not even sure that Bards and Druids step up to fill the gap (assuming Druids' divine magic isn't getting nerfed, too), as I'm not sure which high-level spells are unique to the Cleric class. At low levels, a party could make do with Bard or Druid healers, but at higher levels? Dunno. You'll also probably be missing out on some options for dealing with high-end enemies. Again, don't know if other casters can completely pick up the slack in that department.
Simplest plan would be to cap Cleric levels at 8 or 9, and any character or NPC who sits at that level is considered an absolute high priest of one of those near forgotten religions. The people know that if you seek a return from death then you dont go to the temples, but to the druids' ancient groves of reincarnation or to those rare bards who can weave a song powerful enough to draw the soul back to the body.
Leave the Paladins unchanged, but reskin their oath to definitely not be to a god (why would you swear an oath to something that almost certainly doesn't exist). Their oaths are personal and still sort of sacred, but powerful enough to resound across the universe and collect power from vestiges of the divine and celestial or other such fluff.
There need be no other severe impacts on the game or the world, just you as the DM can then ensure that you dont introduce too many magic items (holy relics) or creatures (big celestials) that undercut the feel of this godless universe.
Do demons and devils exist in your world? Does anything planar? Divine power doesn't have to come from "Gods" ... it can come from faith in any being... If devils and demons can have an influence on your world, then I surmise angels and fey and everything else can have some influence. The only thing missing is true "Deities", what about Demigods?
I think you have a lot more to adjust than just removing gods and clerics... you have to make all kinds of decisions on the existential ...
I don't disagree with you here - this definitely falls under the "in world implications" that I'd have to consider, were I do try this.
Since - at least so far - I'm picturing Warlocks as part of the world, the line can certainly get fuzzy.
I think the difference here is that Deities and Demigods have a moral imperative and ideology. They are interested in making the world different.Warlock Patrons - as I interpret them - are interested in a particular agenda or task.
Your campaign's Goddess of Justice wants to make the world a just place. An Arch-fey Parton might only be interested in having his Warlocks open a gate to allow him to pass into the prime material plane.
I admit it's not as cut-and-dried as that - you could theoretically have an Arch-fey Patron interested in causing chaos - at what point does that make them different from a God of Chaos - or is there any difference?
I think there may be, based on scope of agenda, and power of their local agents - but it's pretty slippery.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Simplest plan would be to cap Cleric levels at 8 or 9, and any character or NPC who sits at that level is considered an absolute high priest of one of those near forgotten religions. The people know that if you seek a return from death then you dont go to the temples, but to the druids' ancient groves of reincarnation or to those rare bards who can weave a song powerful enough to draw the soul back to the body.
Leave the Paladins unchanged, but reskin their oath to definitely not be to a god (why would you swear an oath to something that almost certainly doesn't exist). Their oaths are personal and still sort of sacred, but powerful enough to resound across the universe and collect power from vestiges of the divine and celestial or other such fluff.
There need be no other severe impacts on the game or the world, just you as the DM can then ensure that you dont introduce too many magic items (holy relics) or creatures (big celestials) that undercut the feel of this godless universe.
I think this makes a lot of sense.
If we're interpreting the limits of Warlocks and Sorcerers to be an indication of the limits of internally-powered-and-not-expertly-understood wielding of Magic, then capping Clerics to a level where they run up against the limit of spell complexity that they can power from internal faith alone, seems logical.
Paladins could become a little scary under this system ( not saying that's bad ), as you could have a Paladin of any strongly held secular ethos. Paladin oaths could become similar to the Paths of Enlightenment mechanic in Vampire the Masquerade. You could certainly have Paladins that would be considered good by traditional morality, and you could have relatively neutral ethos paths, like the idealized view of Bushido ( Paladin / Samurai, anyone? ), but you could conceivably have a Paladin given over to a Nietzschian will-to-power type of ethical path.
I think that definitely falls under in game implications to consider!
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'll be honest I think the in-world issues are irrelevant. You can make up any excuse for them, as long as you're consistent. You could have a world that's killed all its gods, but the previous entities loyal to those gods still exist. I personally run my campaigns with the idea that a god is a god more based on their amount of worshipers, and godhood isn't inherent. In this system, even belief in a lesser being could grand the features for divine casters.
I also view divine casters as being gifted power by their deity, and in a world with no major deities, would personally exclude clerics (paladins are a bit different to me but this could go for them too). However, since clerics are kinda important to party dynamics, consider thus: Why not just flavor cleric magic differently. Make them basically warlocks to keep the raw healing possibilities available.
Paladins could become a little scary under this system ( not saying that's bad ), as you could have a Paladin of any strongly held secular ethos. Paladin oaths could become similar to the Paths of Enlightenment mechanic in Vampire the Masquerade. You could certainly have Paladins that would be considered good by traditional morality, and you could have relatively neutral ethos paths, like the idealized view of Bushido ( Paladin / Samurai, anyone? ), but you could conceivably have a Paladin given over to a Nietzschian will-to-power type of ethical path.
I think that definitely falls under in game implications to consider!
They kind of already are. 5e already quietly did away with the requirement for Paladins to be even slightly good or lawful, or associated with gods. The only remaining suggestions are flavor text and the assumption that holy water and radiant damage are associated with good things. A lawful evil Oath of Conquest or even the Crown are already terrifying. A chaotic Oath of Ancients is a veritable fey trickster and chaotic Oath of Vengeance is a nightmare. And an Oathbreaker is a fully functional chaotic evil paladin, not any sort of "you lose your powers until you get back on the right track" situation from previous editions.
If the limitation of divine magic is due to a cleric’s personal faith being inadequate to power high level spells, could the higher level spells be accessed by combining the faith of many believers?
If the limitation of divine magic is due to a cleric’s personal faith being inadequate to power high level spells, could the higher level spells be accessed by combining the faith of many believers?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Paladins could become a little scary under this system ( not saying that's bad ), as you could have a Paladin of any strongly held secular ethos. Paladin oaths could become similar to the Paths of Enlightenment mechanic in Vampire the Masquerade. You could certainly have Paladins that would be considered good by traditional morality, and you could have relatively neutral ethos paths, like the idealized view of Bushido ( Paladin / Samurai, anyone? ), but you could conceivably have a Paladin given over to a Nietzschian will-to-power type of ethical path.
I think that definitely falls under in game implications to consider!
They kind of already are. 5e already quietly did away with the requirement for Paladins to be even slightly good or lawful, or associated with gods. The only remaining suggestions are flavor text and the assumption that holy water and radiant damage are associated with good things. A lawful evil Oath of Conquest or even the Crown are already terrifying. A chaotic Oath of Ancients is a veritable fey trickster and chaotic Oath of Vengeance is a nightmare. And an Oathbreaker is a fully functional chaotic evil paladin, not any sort of "you lose your powers until you get back on the right track" situation from previous editions.
And I've never really like that ( in my day, Paladins were divine warriors, devoted to a God, and we liked it! .... stay off my lawn .... ) but it's not really escapable under the idea of a completely secular setting.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
If the limitation of divine magic is due to a cleric’s personal faith being inadequate to power high level spells, could the higher level spells be accessed by combining the faith of many believers?
Now there's an interesting idea!
Taking this idea one step farther though becomes slightly problematic given some of your previous constraints. If many believers can produce this kind of magic through rituals or other means, what is to say that one individual of extremely strong faith would not be able to produce the same raw power? If that type of power is completely inaccessible it is one thing, but it becomes a question of degrees that may be hard to maintain consistency over the course of a campaign. In the end, you are in charge, but you want to make it consistent enough that players can rely on it and understand it.
it does a good job of explaining how all magic works... and shows cleric and wizard both get magic in the same way based in dnd lore.
No it doesn't.
That video mentioned Clerics and Paladins exactly once (1) and only mentioned that their maximum power levels were were also limited by Mystra. You can make implications that Clerics can tap "the weave" and that's how they are limited. You can also make the implication that she was a God and thus can impose her will on the relationship between humans and the Divine, even thought Clerics and Paladins use a completely different source of Magic.
Which one is true for your world? That's up to you ( and to me, for my world ). See my comments above about this being a totally make believe universe an you can make up any rationale for any effects you want.
Despite the facts that Appeal to False Authority arguments are logical fallacies, and that the video author is in no way is/was a TSR/WoTC designer ( and it wouldn't really matter if he had been ), I'll concede that if your interpretation of the way Divine magic works is that Clerics power spells the same way that Wizards do, and they are the ones supply the needed control of those energies, then the withdrawal of Divine presence from the campaign world would have no effect on Clerics, since they're really just re-skinned Wizards under those assumptions. Under that assumption, Gods really don't do anything for Clerics beyond providing a flavor, an ethos, and a social club.
Under those assumptions, there are little to no necessary in world implications.
Personally, I think those assumptions take all the flavor - and the point - out of the Cleric class - but that's only my interpretation.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So something in the latest Matt Colville video caught my attention, and I wondered exactly what the implications would be: a D&D setting world in which the Gods do not actively interfere in the world.
That doesn't mean that Religions and Faith don't exist - just that the Gods are not active in the world ( and possibly don't exist ).
I know that the D&D official position is that the Power of Clerics and Paladins come from faith and not their God - which makes sense to me, up to a point. However, I have a hard time swallowing that pure belief can power spells higher than 4th level ( this isn't Mage The Ascension ).
This of special interest to me, as I'm starting a new campaign, under a new home-brew campaign world. As part of the tone of the world is techno-magic and a Renaissance sense of technological optimism, creating a mostly secular setting wouldn't be a bad fit.
I'm just wondering what the implications might be.
Some I can think of off the top of my head.
So - what other implications might their be?
I'm not totally married to the idea, but it is tempting to roll this into my new campaign world ( provided that the Players don't rebel at the idea in tomorrow's Session Zero ).
I'm curious how badly this breaks the game, or whether it could be made to work.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
This reminds me of a campaign a friend of mine ran way, way back. The idea was based around the advent of monotheism. Christ came into the world and the gods were loosing followers. the way he handled it was sort of like chatter on a radio. As faith in the monotheistic god grew there was more chatter on the radio so the prayers to other gods were harder to hear. If that makes sense. Honestly it was a long time ago and I don't remember all the specifics, but it was fun campaign!
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Wait, your fine with wizards and sorcerers and warlocks... but a person believing in a faith can't manifest similar powers to the arcane casters. That is a major jump the shark...
Wizards study and learn to manipulate
Sorcerers are born with it
Warlocks make deals for it
Clerics believe in it
Different bents all the same outcomes... they do something magical.
Now, if you want to downplay religion in your game that is cool, but to eliminate a whole line of magic seems crazy. Faith is a foundation of society... number one rule of government: Control the religion, control the people.
I think it's a question of where does the Power comes from - not the tools to manipulate magical energy, but the source of those magical energies.
Wizards manipulate naturally occurring magical forces.
Sorcerers tap into the inherent magic of their arcane heritage ( such as the Draconinc or Divine Heritage ), which - especially in the case of Draconic heritage - is merely leveraging an inborn ability to tap naturally occurring magical forces, which I believe is what non-intelligent magically enabled monsters/creatures are doing. When it comes down to it they are using the same power sources as Wizards. Which reminds me , No Gods = No Divine Soul sorcerers.
Warlocks, it could be argued get their power from the external source of their Patron, or they could theoretically gain their power from the world around them, using the tools given to them by their Patron, without really needed to understand those tools as Wizards do ( which seems the explanation that makes most sense to me - but that kind of makes Warlocks the script kiddies of the Arcane world ). Again they can tap into the magical energies of the natural world, but they might not understand that, or how they do it.
Druids tap into the power of Nature and the world around them ( Life, so kinda of like the Force from Star Wars, so that's why they seem Jedi-like to me ).
I've always view Bardic magic as simply a different toolset for manipulating magical energies - which really makes them a highly skinned and flavored style of Wizard ( only so far as magical abilities are concerned ).
Divine casters - as I said in my original post - could absolutely use Faith as a power source, but my personal take is that this can only take you so far. I view spell levels 6-9 as being divinely granted. Pure belief being able to manipulate reality to the level of being able to tear a hole in it ( Gate ) implies that reality is more malleable than I think would occur in any fictional universe outside of Mage the Ascension.
And this seems borne out by the fact that Warlocks' abilities - run locally by the Warlock themselves - cannot manipulate spells of higher complexity than 5th level. To me, this implies some sort of external help being supplied to Clerics for higher level spells.
You could make an argument that Clerics could tap into the powers of the natural world, as - it appears - everyone else does. That would really just make them super-charged Warlocks with a social/moral agenda and an organization. However, if that's how it's working, then Gods could not withhold spells, abilities, or powers - just as Warlock patrons cannot. And this would seem to cap Cleric abilities at 5th level spells, as Warlocks are capped.
Although, let's be brutally honest - this is a make believe universe - I can make up whatever in-game rational to create whatever effects I want. The question was never "is this a good idea", that's my call, not yours. You can not agree with that ( and you don't appear to do so ) - and that's totally fine - but that doesn't make my fun wrong :p
The OP questions were "what are the in-world implications of doing this" and "what are the mechanical problems with this"
Oh, and "Control the religion, control the people" hasn't be literally true for about a century. These days it's about control media, especially social media - which could still make that phrase figuratively true.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Your world can be as you wish...
with that said, I wouldn't eliminate cleric but limit it, and I would also limit all the other magic users to 5 or 6 level or lower spells...
A 9th wizard is just as bad as a cleric god intervening in the world...
If you want to limit Ressurection or Divine intervention then do so... but a 9th level cleric casting Astral Projection or Gate or Mass heal.... is no different then a wizard doing the same... just the flavor...
My point... clerics can just be viewed as tapping into the energy of the planes.... it doesn't have to be "godly" in nature, their god is just a mythos they unify behind. the real question becomes whether the Planes exist in your world... if they do then cleric should exist. Tapping into the Positive plane to heal, etc..
In the end, it is your world... do what you want
Mechanically: I would just gut high-level spells ... make it a wide magic game instead of a high magic game.... just toss more spells slots out for low levels and lose the 7, 8, 9 level spells...
Again - "What are the in world implications" and "what are the mechanical difficulties" - you keep coming back to addressing the rationale behind the choice. I'm asking about the implications of that ( possible ) choice.
If you want to say that Clerics are just Wizards with a faith-based coat of paint, that's an interpretation - and one that's perfectly valid to take - it's just not the one I subscribe to, as I think it really cheapens the flavor of Divine casters ( again, that's only my interpretation - YMMV ).
I do agree that Wizards ( and Bards, which I view as a re-skin of Wizards using different means of Magical manipulation ) stand out from the pack. Casters seem to be limited in the level of magical power they can command, unless they have external assistance ( Clerics ), and Wizard/Bards which .... what... ? ( side note, I kind of view Druids as quasi-mystical, but still ultimately knowledge based casters, so maybe they fall under the same umbrella as Wizards/Bards ).
I think the answer with those comes down - again - to the source of Power. It's not about the complexity of control - which I think could be uniform across all casters. Warlocks and Sorcerers simply don't understand the roots of their magic ( borrowed and innate as they are ) well enough to fine-tune their ability to tap into the magical energies around them to really crank up the Power. Neither do Divine casters, but they are about Faith not Understanding - and they have external help.
Wizards/Bards simply understand Arcana well enough that they can wring more raw power out of the energy sources they can tap - much in the same way that a stock-car race mechanic can wring much better performance out of a stock engine than I can out of my car, merely by knowing what to do to the engine.
Whether or not I do this depends on the answers to the questions I'm asking about in-world implications and mechanical problems - it may be that the damage to the game is a larger problem than the narrative interest in exploring this interpretation ( and also on how my Players feel about a campaign setting with that twist ).
Don't get me wrong - while I might not agree with your interpretations ( any more than you seem to agree with mine :) ), but I still I appreciate the feedback!
People who disagree with our points-of-view either force us to refine them, or even abandon them - so it's all still valuable feedback.
Appreciated :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Do demons and devils exist in your world? Does anything planar? Divine power doesn't have to come from "Gods" ... it can come from faith in any being... If devils and demons can have an influence on your world, then I surmise angels and fey and everything else can have some influence. The only thing missing is true "Deities", what about Demigods?
I think you have a lot more to adjust than just removing gods and clerics... you have to make all kinds of decisions on the existential ...
Only skimmed the thread, but this leapt out at me as problematic.
While many priests, clerics, and so on probably get by just fine with "X is so because the gods will it," most true theological scholars. . . in game terms, most high-level clerics. . . would put effort into sorting out such riddles, because those are exactly the kinds of questions difficult worshipers will ask, especially in difficult times. And as representatives of their gods on the material plane, clerics need to have answers ready. Beyond a certain point, gods should probably be unknowable, but that doesn't mean that their followers shouldn't try to question why things are the way they are, why the gods might want things that way, what the hidden purposes and lessons might be, and so on. Why do the gods only allow clerics to cast cure spells, instead of anyone who worships them? How come paladins can Lay Hands and Smite, but Clerics can't? Why are you limited to a certain number of divine spells per day, why can only have a few of them ready to use at a time, why do you have to deepen your understanding of and connection to your god before you can use mightier spells? If the gods wanted change affected on the world, shouldn't they grant all their clerics, or everyone, access to all the abilities to do? Heck, why do the gods need clerics in the first place, why don't they just send celestials to do things, or come down and do them in person? These and many, many more are questions that are certainly debated, answered, the answers questioned and refined, ad infinitum throughout the history of any D&D world. And when a grieving parent asks a cleric why the cleric could raise their barely-civilized Half-Orc adventuring companion from the dead, but their god didn't lift a finger to save or resurrect their child, the cleric better have one doozy of an answer available.
So I would argue that clerics in a D&D world know as much about how divine magic works as wizards do about how arcane magic works. Yes, a cleric isn't rewarded with study in the direct way that a wizard is, but that doesn't mean clerics don't put any thought into how and why they can do what they do. I don't want to tread too closely to real-world analogues, but don't think strictly in terms of a Dark Ages mindset, where knowledge and learning were anathema to religion (even that isn't strictly true to the real Dark Ages). Religion has as often been about preserving, recovering, and expanding knowledge.
Beyond that, narratively, what is the impact of this world with distant gods, or no gods at all? If the gods are so distant/nonexistent that Clerics don't get high-level spells, does that mean angels don't exist either? If there are no angels, are there demons and devils? If so, what does that say about the world? If Clerics just stop being a class, does that limit how many priests there are to the various gods, and does that in turn limit how many religious people there are in the world? Are people just not religious in general? Is that why the gods are distant/nonexistent? Do people worship Wizards and Sorcerers instead, since they wield godlike powers?
As for the mechanics. . . I haven't completely internalized the mechanics of 5th edition yet, but right off the bat, Clerics become a much weaker class, and Paladins become nearly pointless. I'm not even sure that Bards and Druids step up to fill the gap (assuming Druids' divine magic isn't getting nerfed, too), as I'm not sure which high-level spells are unique to the Cleric class. At low levels, a party could make do with Bard or Druid healers, but at higher levels? Dunno. You'll also probably be missing out on some options for dealing with high-end enemies. Again, don't know if other casters can completely pick up the slack in that department.
Simplest plan would be to cap Cleric levels at 8 or 9, and any character or NPC who sits at that level is considered an absolute high priest of one of those near forgotten religions. The people know that if you seek a return from death then you dont go to the temples, but to the druids' ancient groves of reincarnation or to those rare bards who can weave a song powerful enough to draw the soul back to the body.
Leave the Paladins unchanged, but reskin their oath to definitely not be to a god (why would you swear an oath to something that almost certainly doesn't exist). Their oaths are personal and still sort of sacred, but powerful enough to resound across the universe and collect power from vestiges of the divine and celestial or other such fluff.
There need be no other severe impacts on the game or the world, just you as the DM can then ensure that you dont introduce too many magic items (holy relics) or creatures (big celestials) that undercut the feel of this godless universe.
I don't disagree with you here - this definitely falls under the "in world implications" that I'd have to consider, were I do try this.
Since - at least so far - I'm picturing Warlocks as part of the world, the line can certainly get fuzzy.
I think the difference here is that Deities and Demigods have a moral imperative and ideology. They are interested in making the world different.Warlock Patrons - as I interpret them - are interested in a particular agenda or task.
Your campaign's Goddess of Justice wants to make the world a just place. An Arch-fey Parton might only be interested in having his Warlocks open a gate to allow him to pass into the prime material plane.
I admit it's not as cut-and-dried as that - you could theoretically have an Arch-fey Patron interested in causing chaos - at what point does that make them different from a God of Chaos - or is there any difference?
I think there may be, based on scope of agenda, and power of their local agents - but it's pretty slippery.
Definitely some things to think on, here.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think this makes a lot of sense.
If we're interpreting the limits of Warlocks and Sorcerers to be an indication of the limits of internally-powered-and-not-expertly-understood wielding of Magic, then capping Clerics to a level where they run up against the limit of spell complexity that they can power from internal faith alone, seems logical.
Paladins could become a little scary under this system ( not saying that's bad ), as you could have a Paladin of any strongly held secular ethos. Paladin oaths could become similar to the Paths of Enlightenment mechanic in Vampire the Masquerade. You could certainly have Paladins that would be considered good by traditional morality, and you could have relatively neutral ethos paths, like the idealized view of Bushido ( Paladin / Samurai, anyone? ), but you could conceivably have a Paladin given over to a Nietzschian will-to-power type of ethical path.
I think that definitely falls under in game implications to consider!
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'll be honest I think the in-world issues are irrelevant. You can make up any excuse for them, as long as you're consistent. You could have a world that's killed all its gods, but the previous entities loyal to those gods still exist. I personally run my campaigns with the idea that a god is a god more based on their amount of worshipers, and godhood isn't inherent. In this system, even belief in a lesser being could grand the features for divine casters.
I also view divine casters as being gifted power by their deity, and in a world with no major deities, would personally exclude clerics (paladins are a bit different to me but this could go for them too). However, since clerics are kinda important to party dynamics, consider thus: Why not just flavor cleric magic differently. Make them basically warlocks to keep the raw healing possibilities available.
If you need it, I can homebrew it.
They kind of already are. 5e already quietly did away with the requirement for Paladins to be even slightly good or lawful, or associated with gods. The only remaining suggestions are flavor text and the assumption that holy water and radiant damage are associated with good things. A lawful evil Oath of Conquest or even the Crown are already terrifying. A chaotic Oath of Ancients is a veritable fey trickster and chaotic Oath of Vengeance is a nightmare. And an Oathbreaker is a fully functional chaotic evil paladin, not any sort of "you lose your powers until you get back on the right track" situation from previous editions.
If the limitation of divine magic is due to a cleric’s personal faith being inadequate to power high level spells, could the higher level spells be accessed by combining the faith of many believers?
Now there's an interesting idea!
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
And I've never really like that ( in my day, Paladins were divine warriors, devoted to a God, and we liked it! .... stay off my lawn .... ) but it's not really escapable under the idea of a completely secular setting.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Taking this idea one step farther though becomes slightly problematic given some of your previous constraints. If many believers can produce this kind of magic through rituals or other means, what is to say that one individual of extremely strong faith would not be able to produce the same raw power? If that type of power is completely inaccessible it is one thing, but it becomes a question of degrees that may be hard to maintain consistency over the course of a campaign. In the end, you are in charge, but you want to make it consistent enough that players can rely on it and understand it.
Watch this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kiGBXhpQAUg
it does a good job of explaining how all magic works... and shows cleric and wizard both get magic in the same way based in dnd lore.
No it doesn't.
That video mentioned Clerics and Paladins exactly once (1) and only mentioned that their maximum power levels were were also limited by Mystra. You can make implications that Clerics can tap "the weave" and that's how they are limited. You can also make the implication that she was a God and thus can impose her will on the relationship between humans and the Divine, even thought Clerics and Paladins use a completely different source of Magic.
Which one is true for your world? That's up to you ( and to me, for my world ). See my comments above about this being a totally make believe universe an you can make up any rationale for any effects you want.
Despite the facts that Appeal to False Authority arguments are logical fallacies, and that the video author is in no way is/was a TSR/WoTC designer ( and it wouldn't really matter if he had been ), I'll concede that if your interpretation of the way Divine magic works is that Clerics power spells the same way that Wizards do, and they are the ones supply the needed control of those energies, then the withdrawal of Divine presence from the campaign world would have no effect on Clerics, since they're really just re-skinned Wizards under those assumptions. Under that assumption, Gods really don't do anything for Clerics beyond providing a flavor, an ethos, and a social club.
Under those assumptions, there are little to no necessary in world implications.
Personally, I think those assumptions take all the flavor - and the point - out of the Cleric class - but that's only my interpretation.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.