Edit: Regarding whether or not you can be a cleric that prays to and gain powers from something that is not a god, I'd say "no" as per RAW. Sure you might be part of a church that worships a demonic or celestial being, and you might fashion yourself as a cleric, but mechanics-wise you'd probably be a warlock.
This isn't what people are talking about. They're talking about like being a cleric who is super into the concept of like friendship, or similar ideas/concepts/domains, something abstract like 'life" or "light" or maybe even the color red. Who knows. but not a creature, a concept. A domain. Faith in their concept, or whatever, gives them access to divinity. Not a being.
It is a reasonable take on things. Lore-wise, many settings have divine power being sourced from the conviction of mortals.
Edit: Regarding whether or not you can be a cleric that prays to and gain powers from something that is not a god, I'd say "no" as per RAW. Sure you might be part of a church that worships a demonic or celestial being, and you might fashion yourself as a cleric, but mechanics-wise you'd probably be a warlock.
This isn't what people are talking about. They're talking about like being a cleric who is super into the concept of like friendship, or similar ideas/concepts/domains, something abstract like 'life" or "light" or maybe even the color red. Who knows. but not a creature, a concept. A domain. Faith in their concept, or whatever, gives them access to divinity. Not a being.
It is a reasonable take on things. Lore-wise, many settings have divine power being sourced from the conviction of mortals.
The very first sentence you quoted was me addressing clerics praying/worshipping and gaining their powers from something not a god (it could be a bond or a color or something else that is not a deity). While I used warlocks as an example I could just as well have said that a member of a clergy that prays to the color red and gains divine power doing so, is most likely not a cleric mechanics-wise, but rather a paladin who has a strong conviction. If the "cleric" was to truly be a cleric mechanics-wise, there would be a god that, perhaps unbeknownst to the cleric, granted him power for whatever reason.
Can you give me an example of lore that puts forces of nature or a paladin's oath at the same level of divine influence as that of a god, without being a granted by a god? I can't think of any.
Edit: Regarding whether or not you can be a cleric that prays to and gain powers from something that is not a god, I'd say "no" as per RAW. Sure you might be part of a church that worships a demonic or celestial being, and you might fashion yourself as a cleric, but mechanics-wise you'd probably be a warlock.
This isn't what people are talking about. They're talking about like being a cleric who is super into the concept of like friendship, or similar ideas/concepts/domains, something abstract like 'life" or "light" or maybe even the color red. Who knows. but not a creature, a concept. A domain. Faith in their concept, or whatever, gives them access to divinity. Not a being.
It is a reasonable take on things. Lore-wise, many settings have divine power being sourced from the conviction of mortals.
The very first sentence you quoted was me addressing clerics praying/worshipping and gaining their powers from something not a god (it could be a bond or a color or something else that is not a deity). While I used warlocks as an example I could just as well have said that a member of a clergy that prays to the color red and gains divine power doing so, is most likely not a cleric mechanics-wise, but rather a paladin who has a strong conviction. If the "cleric" was to truly be a cleric mechanics-wise, there would be a god that, perhaps unbeknownst to the cleric, granted him power for whatever reason.
Can you give me an example of lore that puts forces of nature or a paladin's oath at the same level of divine influence as that of a god, without being a granted by a god? I can't think of any.
Gods aren't the source of divine magic. I think that is where your misconception comes from. They merely have unrivaled access to that divine power. No one is suggesting gods can't grant mortals access to that same divine magic they have access to, most cases that is how it happens.
But nothing says that is how it must happen. And there are already established classes that gain access to that same divine power without a god acting as intermediary. Who's to say a cleric couldn't also? Dedication and conviction seem all that is required. Druids don't need gods. paladins don't even need gods. Only the DM who is running a campaign could say no to a godless cleric. Not you, not me.
I have no idea what setting lore people are running with. Nor do you. Trying to tell people how to run their lore is problematic, at best. If a DM runs a game with clerics who can access divine power without a god saying 'ok' then so be it, more power to them, and I'm not sure you should try to hamstring that creative freedom.
Edit: Regarding whether or not you can be a cleric that prays to and gain powers from something that is not a god, I'd say "no" as per RAW. Sure you might be part of a church that worships a demonic or celestial being, and you might fashion yourself as a cleric, but mechanics-wise you'd probably be a warlock.
This isn't what people are talking about. They're talking about like being a cleric who is super into the concept of like friendship, or similar ideas/concepts/domains, something abstract like 'life" or "light" or maybe even the color red. Who knows. but not a creature, a concept. A domain. Faith in their concept, or whatever, gives them access to divinity. Not a being.
It is a reasonable take on things. Lore-wise, many settings have divine power being sourced from the conviction of mortals.
The very first sentence you quoted was me addressing clerics praying/worshipping and gaining their powers from something not a god (it could be a bond or a color or something else that is not a deity). While I used warlocks as an example I could just as well have said that a member of a clergy that prays to the color red and gains divine power doing so, is most likely not a cleric mechanics-wise, but rather a paladin who has a strong conviction. If the "cleric" was to truly be a cleric mechanics-wise, there would be a god that, perhaps unbeknownst to the cleric, granted him power for whatever reason.
Can you give me an example of lore that puts forces of nature or a paladin's oath at the same level of divine influence as that of a god, without being a granted by a god? I can't think of any.
Gods aren't the source of divine magic. I think that is where your misconception comes from. They merely have unrivaled access to that divine power. No one is suggesting gods can't grant mortals access to that same divine magic they have access to, most cases that is how it happens.
But nothing says that is how it must happen. And there are already established classes that gain access to that same divine power without a god acting as intermediary. Who's to say a cleric couldn't also? Dedication and conviction seem all that is required. Druids don't need gods. paladins don't even need gods. Only the DM who is running a campaign could say no to a godless cleric. Not you, not me.
I have no idea what setting lore people are running with. Nor do you. Trying to tell people how to run their lore is problematic, at best. If a DM runs a game with clerics who can access divine power without a god saying 'ok' then so be it, more power to them, and I'm not sure you should try to hamstring that creative freedom.
I shouldn't have to restate my previous points whenever I write a new comment, but it seems you're taking my last comment completely out of the context I provided in my initial comment: I based my understanding on the RAW I laid out in my initial comment, and made it clear that the rules you employ of course depend entirely on the individual DM/table.
Divine Power and Divine Magic are two separate things; Divine Power is a type of influence (god, force of nature, paladin's oath), whereas Divine Magic is magic which use is being mediated by a Divine Power. My question is not about Divine Magic, it is about how the rules seem to put a paladin's oath at the same level of influence as that of a god. Perhaps an explanation is that they are not on the same level of influence, which is why paladins are only halfcasters? However following that logic would make it difficult to explain how druids can get their power from forces of nature and still be full casters (unless gods and forces of nature are on the same level of influence).
"Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity."
In RAW, no. A cleric does NOT have to follow a god.
"Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity."
In RAW, no. A cleric does NOT have to follow a god.
There still has to be some equivalent consciousness whom they pray to or else the Divine Intervention ability and the Commune spell become problematic. The cleric may not worship a deity by name, but someone is on the other end of the line if the cleric calls.
It's a really interesting point. DM's that want world's with powerful gods will develop them and, at the other extreme, other DMs may find ways to mitigate situations.
Divine Intervention involves imploring for aid with a dice roll. It can pretty much work like wish but with less certain (good and bad) results.
Commune allows you to ask up to three yes or no questions. Legend Lore can access a rundown of information about a subject and Foresight can let you see into the future.
This is not to say that a consciousness might not be involved in any of these matters but, while that consciousness could be a god, it could also be a wizard of oz type character that, for whatever reason, chose to fill in a role.
"Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity."
In RAW, no. A cleric does NOT have to follow a god.
There still has to be some equivalent consciousness whom they pray to or else the Divine Intervention ability and the Commune spell become problematic. The cleric may not worship a deity by name, but someone is on the other end of the line if the cleric calls.
No, they don’t become problematic at all. Both of those features can be handled by angels or the like (this is how they’ve worked since 3e in Eberron, where the existence of deities is treated as in the real world).
There can be a disconnect (or not) between whom or what the cleric worship or revere, and the actual source conduit for divine power through which it can cast cleric spells and channel energy otherwise.
We've even seen in the Forgotten Realms Cleric worshipping a diety but getting spells granted by another diety, since the former was dead or imprisonned.
"Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity."
In RAW, no. A cleric does NOT have to follow a god.
There still has to be some equivalent consciousness whom they pray to or else the Divine Intervention ability and the Commune spell become problematic. The cleric may not worship a deity by name, but someone is on the other end of the line if the cleric calls.
No, they don’t become problematic at all. Both of those features can be handled by angels or the like (this is how they’ve worked since 3e in Eberron, where the existence of deities is treated as in the real world).
Actually, IIRC, 1st and 2nds were on personal faith, 3rd through 5th through intermediaries and 6th and 7th direct from the deity.
But the power via angels was still the power of the god(s) to who those angels were associated.
I have no idea what you mean by 1st, 2nd, etc.
But to your second point: absolutely false. The setting ardently refuses to establish whether or not gods are real. Those angels certainly believe they wield the power of the gods they’re associated with, but the question whether or not that’s true is deliberately unanswered and ultimately doesn’t matter.
Kotath is talking about previous editions where different entities were delivering spells to a Cleric praying for based on level. I don't think 5E has this anywhere.
"Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity."
In RAW, no. A cleric does NOT have to follow a god.
There still has to be some equivalent consciousness whom they pray to or else the Divine Intervention ability and the Commune spell become problematic. The cleric may not worship a deity by name, but someone is on the other end of the line if the cleric calls.
I run a setting where the gods cannot and do not intervene, where there are differing and some even straight up false religions who believe in gods that don't even exist, and yet have zero problem handling this feature. It just duplicates the effect of spells. By RAW it says:
"The DM chooses the nature of the intervention; the effect of any cleric spell or cleric domain spell would be appropriate."
That is the opposite of problematic. The RAW is: DM decides.
That is the opposite of problematic. The RAW is: DM decides.
yup. lore and flavor in the books are suggestions. the DM (to some extent in collaboration with players) creates the world and its rules, and the only requirement for players is that they all operate within the world of that table. if your world is very attached to Forgotten Realms and the DM says if you're a Light Cleric then you have to worship Pelor and have a good alignment, that's all well and good; if your DM homebrewed the world and is agnostic to official lore, and you want to worship the ocean or even use the Cleric class as a chassis to build a secular combat medic whose powers come from their sheer compassion, that's also fine! same if you want to style your bard as an alchemist instead of a magician, or your barbarian as a martial artist who rage manifests as a meditative state. the answer to "wouldn't it be interesting if..." is almost never "no."
As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody. The Gods of the Multiverse section includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign.
Once you’ve chosen a deity, consider your cleric’s relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes? How do the temple priests of your faith regard you: as a champion or a troublemaker? What are your ultimate goals? Does your deity have a special task in mind for you? Or are you striving to prove yourself worthy of a great quest?
Clerics absolutely require a deity; they literally are not Clerics without this.
That said, there's near-infinite room for choosing which deity to follow, and there's nothing stopping you from making one up (with DM approval, as always). Your Cleric could be the one-and-only Cleric of a deity that has just ascended to Godhood, or you can be a Cleric of a deity that you're not even aware actually exists.
Like you mentioned in Eberron, some religions have no known deity, but that doesn't mean a deity isn't involved. You could have a deity that desires a world in which their tenets are spread of the peoples' own volition, and the deity chooses to grant power to exceptional individuals that live & teach those tenets.
You are absolutely correct on this. It's Player's Handbook stuff. Although, I have a sneaking suspicion quite a few of the players on these forums have read very little of the literal Player's Handbook.
As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody. The Gods of the Multiverse section includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign.
Once you’ve chosen a deity, consider your cleric’s relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes? How do the temple priests of your faith regard you: as a champion or a troublemaker? What are your ultimate goals? Does your deity have a special task in mind for you? Or are you striving to prove yourself worthy of a great quest?
Clerics absolutely require a deity; they literally are not Clerics without this.
That said, there's near-infinite room for choosing which deity to follow, and there's nothing stopping you from making one up (with DM approval, as always). Your Cleric could be the one-and-only Cleric of a deity that has just ascended to Godhood, or you can be a Cleric of a deity that you're not even aware actually exists.
Like you mentioned in Eberron, some religions have no known deity, but that doesn't mean a deity isn't involved. You could have a deity that desires a world in which their tenets are spread of the peoples' own volition, and the deity chooses to grant power to exceptional individuals that live & teach those tenets.
You are absolutely correct on this. It's Player's Handbook stuff. Although, I have a sneaking suspicion quite a few of the players on these forums have read very little of the literal Player's Handbook.
Sigred was wrong then and he's still wrong now. You're misconstruing narrative as rules. The Fighter class description includes the line "Where did you get your combat training...?" Sigred's argument here is that what that means is that a "born natural, never trained" character literally is not a fighter. This position is asinine and contrary to the foundational premise of the game.
The DMG quote posted above couldn't be clearer. These questions are narrative, not mechanical. They're up to the setting and to the DM.
Sigred was wrong then and he's still wrong now. You're misconstruing narrative as rules. The Fighter class description includes the line "Where did you get your combat training...?" Sigred's argument here is that what that means is that a "born natural, never trained" character literally is not a fighter. This position is asinine and contrary to the foundational premise of the game.
The DMG quote posted above couldn't be clearer. These questions are narrative, not mechanical. They're up to the setting and to the DM.
Self trained is a source of training, though.
I didn't say "self trained," so I'm not sure how this is relevant.
There is a conceptual basis for every class. Clerics are literally defined as channelling some higher power. This is what separates them from other casting classes and even then the lines are very blurry between cleric and warlock and begs the question as to why clerics know all clerical spells vs warlocks, who get access to next to none.
And even then there is this massive effort to reduce even warlocks to nothing but pure mechanics by playing down the relationship between patron and warlock too.
Going down that line may as well just call 5e 'mechanics for power gamers.' Some of us reject that model.
This is so far removed from anything that I've said that there's really no point in my engaging with it.
Does a dragon grant powers to a cleric? No, cause he would create a warlock.
Does an archfey grant powers to a cleric? No, cause they would create a warlock.
Only gods can give powers to clerics, and in fact even grant magic to wizards ( in mystras case ).
There are literally millions of possibilitis for lesser gods on an outer plane, be it dragons or rocks piled up on a goblin. What matters is not how your specific table plays this but how the class description states you get your powers from a deity and have connection to a god, as the designers intended - I personally think systems where you can become a god as long as you have enough followers are better - but as long as you start playing i think you should just orientate the way it is written.
If you don't want that, choose sorcerer i guess, get divine spells and cast via charisma. This thread is lost in semantic bullshit about what somebody stated but not implied or implied but not said.
The original Cleric's of the 1970s-80s were never tied to religious belief, as per: "A cleric is a human character who is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause. This cause is usually the cleric’s Alignment; for example, a cleric may be dedicated to spreading law and order. A cleric has good fighting skills, and can also learn to cast spells after gaining a Level of Experience. A first level cleric cannot cast any spells. In D&D games, as in real life, people have ethical and theological beliefs. This game does not deal with those beliefs. All characters are assumed to have them, and they do not affect the game. They can be assumed, just as eating, resting, and other activities are assumed, and should not become part of the game." ... and yet, in regard to belief values, the basic set continued with: "A cleric cannot use any weapon with a sharp edge; this is forbidden by the cleric’s beliefs!" Only internal bleeding is allowed!
I was going to reference this but you quoted it fully! Very Old versions of Basic D&D had clerics power come from alignment because old D&D was riffing off of the Moorcock fantasy Law and Chaos battle, just like how they riffed off Vance for spells. And Tolkien for the most of the rest.
Advanced D&D went a different direction with pantheons of gods like the Greek and Roman gods. It also introduced a lot of new campaign settings and those called for new gods.
I would say it’s a setting design choice, therefore. You could design a setting where clerics are required to worship gods, one where they gain power from alignment-based convictions, or one where they have either option, like Eberron.
If you are home brewing, that is. If you are using a setting like Forgotten Realms, use it a deities. If you are home brewing be very transparent with your players on how you are designing your cosmology.
The original Cleric's of the 1970s-80s were never tied to religious belief, as per: "A cleric is a human character who is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause. This cause is usually the cleric’s Alignment; for example, a cleric may be dedicated to spreading law and order. A cleric has good fighting skills, and can also learn to cast spells after gaining a Level of Experience. A first level cleric cannot cast any spells. In D&D games, as in real life, people have ethical and theological beliefs. This game does not deal with those beliefs. All characters are assumed to have them, and they do not affect the game. They can be assumed, just as eating, resting, and other activities are assumed, and should not become part of the game." ... and yet, in regard to belief values, the basic set continued with: "A cleric cannot use any weapon with a sharp edge; this is forbidden by the cleric’s beliefs!" Only internal bleeding is allowed!
I was going to reference this but you quoted it fully! Very Old versions of Basic D&D had clerics power come from alignment because old D&D was riffing off of the Moorcock fantasy Law and Chaos battle, just like how they riffed off Vance for spells. And Tolkien for the most of the rest.
Advanced D&D went a different direction with pantheons of gods like the Greek and Roman gods. It also introduced a lot of new campaign settings and those called for new gods.
I would say it’s a setting design choice, therefore. You could design a setting where clerics are required to worship gods, one where they gain power from alignment-based convictions, or one where they have either option, like Eberron.
If you are home brewing, that is. If you are using a setting like Forgotten Realms, use it a deities. If you are home brewing be very transparent with your players on how you are designing your cosmology.
I don't see much need for homebrew. There are characters and some are casters with magical powers. In one campaign I was in, a character went off early various days to make offerings to Tymora. Nothing was heard of that again and, in this case, it didn't bring any results. Even if there had been a 'response' it could have been due to a parallel influence. No homebrew was needed, just decisions by our DM.
The original Cleric's of the 1970s-80s were never tied to religious belief, as per: "A cleric is a human character who is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause. This cause is usually the cleric’s Alignment; for example, a cleric may be dedicated to spreading law and order. A cleric has good fighting skills, and can also learn to cast spells after gaining a Level of Experience. A first level cleric cannot cast any spells. In D&D games, as in real life, people have ethical and theological beliefs. This game does not deal with those beliefs. All characters are assumed to have them, and they do not affect the game. They can be assumed, just as eating, resting, and other activities are assumed, and should not become part of the game." ... and yet, in regard to belief values, the basic set continued with: "A cleric cannot use any weapon with a sharp edge; this is forbidden by the cleric’s beliefs!" Only internal bleeding is allowed!
I was going to reference this but you quoted it fully! Very Old versions of Basic D&D had clerics power come from alignment because old D&D was riffing off of the Moorcock fantasy Law and Chaos battle, just like how they riffed off Vance for spells. And Tolkien for the most of the rest.
Advanced D&D went a different direction with pantheons of gods like the Greek and Roman gods. It also introduced a lot of new campaign settings and those called for new gods.
I would say it’s a setting design choice, therefore. You could design a setting where clerics are required to worship gods, one where they gain power from alignment-based convictions, or one where they have either option, like Eberron.
If you are home brewing, that is. If you are using a setting like Forgotten Realms, use it a deities. If you are home brewing be very transparent with your players on how you are designing your cosmology.
I don't see much need for homebrew. There are characters and some are casters with magical powers. In one campaign I was in, a character went off early various days to make offerings to Tymora. Nothing was heard of that again and, in this case, it didn't bring any results. Even if there had been a 'response' it could have been due to a parallel influence. No homebrew was needed, just decisions by our DM.
I don’t understand what this response is saying, apologies. I was saying that if you are using a published setting the cosmology should follow that settings guidelines, and if you are home brewing a setting the DM should make the cosmology transparent to the players.
The original Cleric's of the 1970s-80s were never tied to religious belief, as per: "A cleric is a human character who is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause. This cause is usually the cleric’s Alignment; for example, a cleric may be dedicated to spreading law and order. A cleric has good fighting skills, and can also learn to cast spells after gaining a Level of Experience. A first level cleric cannot cast any spells. In D&D games, as in real life, people have ethical and theological beliefs. This game does not deal with those beliefs. All characters are assumed to have them, and they do not affect the game. They can be assumed, just as eating, resting, and other activities are assumed, and should not become part of the game." ... and yet, in regard to belief values, the basic set continued with: "A cleric cannot use any weapon with a sharp edge; this is forbidden by the cleric’s beliefs!" Only internal bleeding is allowed!
I was going to reference this but you quoted it fully! Very Old versions of Basic D&D had clerics power come from alignment because old D&D was riffing off of the Moorcock fantasy Law and Chaos battle, just like how they riffed off Vance for spells. And Tolkien for the most of the rest.
Advanced D&D went a different direction with pantheons of gods like the Greek and Roman gods. It also introduced a lot of new campaign settings and those called for new gods.
I would say it’s a setting design choice, therefore. You could design a setting where clerics are required to worship gods, one where they gain power from alignment-based convictions, or one where they have either option, like Eberron.
If you are home brewing, that is. If you are using a setting like Forgotten Realms, use it a deities. If you are home brewing be very transparent with your players on how you are designing your cosmology.
I don't see much need for homebrew. There are characters and some are casters with magical powers. In one campaign I was in, a character went off early various days to make offerings to Tymora. Nothing was heard of that again and, in this case, it didn't bring any results. Even if there had been a 'response' it could have been due to a parallel influence. No homebrew was needed, just decisions by our DM.
I don’t understand what this response is saying, apologies. I was saying that if you are using a published setting the cosmology should follow that settings guidelines, and if you are home brewing a setting the DM should make the cosmology transparent to the players.
I don't understand why a cosmology specifically should be transparent. Transparency is certainly an option but that's not normally how things work. It's certainly important that a DM should be truthful and straightforward with players, where necessary to correct assumptions and perhaps notify them that you're running an adapted setting but, if your players are in, say a module such as ice spire peak or lost mines, in many cases, an actual existence of gods or not won't matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This isn't what people are talking about. They're talking about like being a cleric who is super into the concept of like friendship, or similar ideas/concepts/domains, something abstract like 'life" or "light" or maybe even the color red. Who knows. but not a creature, a concept. A domain. Faith in their concept, or whatever, gives them access to divinity. Not a being.
It is a reasonable take on things. Lore-wise, many settings have divine power being sourced from the conviction of mortals.
I got quotes!
The very first sentence you quoted was me addressing clerics praying/worshipping and gaining their powers from something not a god (it could be a bond or a color or something else that is not a deity). While I used warlocks as an example I could just as well have said that a member of a clergy that prays to the color red and gains divine power doing so, is most likely not a cleric mechanics-wise, but rather a paladin who has a strong conviction. If the "cleric" was to truly be a cleric mechanics-wise, there would be a god that, perhaps unbeknownst to the cleric, granted him power for whatever reason.
Can you give me an example of lore that puts forces of nature or a paladin's oath at the same level of divine influence as that of a god, without being a granted by a god? I can't think of any.
Gods aren't the source of divine magic. I think that is where your misconception comes from. They merely have unrivaled access to that divine power. No one is suggesting gods can't grant mortals access to that same divine magic they have access to, most cases that is how it happens.
But nothing says that is how it must happen. And there are already established classes that gain access to that same divine power without a god acting as intermediary. Who's to say a cleric couldn't also? Dedication and conviction seem all that is required. Druids don't need gods. paladins don't even need gods. Only the DM who is running a campaign could say no to a godless cleric. Not you, not me.
I have no idea what setting lore people are running with. Nor do you. Trying to tell people how to run their lore is problematic, at best. If a DM runs a game with clerics who can access divine power without a god saying 'ok' then so be it, more power to them, and I'm not sure you should try to hamstring that creative freedom.
I got quotes!
I shouldn't have to restate my previous points whenever I write a new comment, but it seems you're taking my last comment completely out of the context I provided in my initial comment: I based my understanding on the RAW I laid out in my initial comment, and made it clear that the rules you employ of course depend entirely on the individual DM/table.
Divine Power and Divine Magic are two separate things; Divine Power is a type of influence (god, force of nature, paladin's oath), whereas Divine Magic is magic which use is being mediated by a Divine Power. My question is not about Divine Magic, it is about how the rules seem to put a paladin's oath at the same level of influence as that of a god. Perhaps an explanation is that they are not on the same level of influence, which is why paladins are only halfcasters? However following that logic would make it difficult to explain how druids can get their power from forces of nature and still be full casters (unless gods and forces of nature are on the same level of influence).
From the DMG, pg. 13. Forces and Philosophies
"Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity."
In RAW, no. A cleric does NOT have to follow a god.
It's a really interesting point. DM's that want world's with powerful gods will develop them and, at the other extreme, other DMs may find ways to mitigate situations.
Divine Intervention involves imploring for aid with a dice roll. It can pretty much work like wish but with less certain (good and bad) results.
Commune allows you to ask up to three yes or no questions. Legend Lore can access a rundown of information about a subject and Foresight can let you see into the future.
This is not to say that a consciousness might not be involved in any of these matters but, while that consciousness could be a god, it could also be a wizard of oz type character that, for whatever reason, chose to fill in a role.
No, they don’t become problematic at all. Both of those features can be handled by angels or the like (this is how they’ve worked since 3e in Eberron, where the existence of deities is treated as in the real world).
There can be a disconnect (or not) between whom or what the cleric worship or revere, and the actual source conduit for divine power through which it can cast cleric spells and channel energy otherwise.
We've even seen in the Forgotten Realms Cleric worshipping a diety but getting spells granted by another diety, since the former was dead or imprisonned.
I have no idea what you mean by 1st, 2nd, etc.
But to your second point: absolutely false. The setting ardently refuses to establish whether or not gods are real. Those angels certainly believe they wield the power of the gods they’re associated with, but the question whether or not that’s true is deliberately unanswered and ultimately doesn’t matter.
Kotath is talking about previous editions where different entities were delivering spells to a Cleric praying for based on level. I don't think 5E has this anywhere.
I run a setting where the gods cannot and do not intervene, where there are differing and some even straight up false religions who believe in gods that don't even exist, and yet have zero problem handling this feature. It just duplicates the effect of spells. By RAW it says:
"The DM chooses the nature of the intervention; the effect of any cleric spell or cleric domain spell would be appropriate."
That is the opposite of problematic. The RAW is: DM decides.
I got quotes!
yup. lore and flavor in the books are suggestions. the DM (to some extent in collaboration with players) creates the world and its rules, and the only requirement for players is that they all operate within the world of that table. if your world is very attached to Forgotten Realms and the DM says if you're a Light Cleric then you have to worship Pelor and have a good alignment, that's all well and good; if your DM homebrewed the world and is agnostic to official lore, and you want to worship the ocean or even use the Cleric class as a chassis to build a secular combat medic whose powers come from their sheer compassion, that's also fine! same if you want to style your bard as an alchemist instead of a magician, or your barbarian as a martial artist who rage manifests as a meditative state. the answer to "wouldn't it be interesting if..." is almost never "no."
You are absolutely correct on this. It's Player's Handbook stuff. Although, I have a sneaking suspicion quite a few of the players on these forums have read very little of the literal Player's Handbook.
Dungeonmastering since 1992!
Sigred was wrong then and he's still wrong now. You're misconstruing narrative as rules. The Fighter class description includes the line "Where did you get your combat training...?" Sigred's argument here is that what that means is that a "born natural, never trained" character literally is not a fighter. This position is asinine and contrary to the foundational premise of the game.
The DMG quote posted above couldn't be clearer. These questions are narrative, not mechanical. They're up to the setting and to the DM.
I didn't say "self trained," so I'm not sure how this is relevant.
This is so far removed from anything that I've said that there's really no point in my engaging with it.
Does a dragon grant powers to a cleric? No, cause he would create a warlock.
Does an archfey grant powers to a cleric? No, cause they would create a warlock.
Only gods can give powers to clerics, and in fact even grant magic to wizards ( in mystras case ).
There are literally millions of possibilitis for lesser gods on an outer plane, be it dragons or rocks piled up on a goblin. What matters is not how your specific table plays this but how the class description states you get your powers from a deity and have connection to a god, as the designers intended - I personally think systems where you can become a god as long as you have enough followers are better - but as long as you start playing i think you should just orientate the way it is written.
If you don't want that, choose sorcerer i guess, get divine spells and cast via charisma. This thread is lost in semantic bullshit about what somebody stated but not implied or implied but not said.
I was going to reference this but you quoted it fully! Very Old versions of Basic D&D had clerics power come from alignment because old D&D was riffing off of the Moorcock fantasy Law and Chaos battle, just like how they riffed off Vance for spells. And Tolkien for the most of the rest.
Advanced D&D went a different direction with pantheons of gods like the Greek and Roman gods. It also introduced a lot of new campaign settings and those called for new gods.
I would say it’s a setting design choice, therefore. You could design a setting where clerics are required to worship gods, one where they gain power from alignment-based convictions, or one where they have either option, like Eberron.
If you are home brewing, that is. If you are using a setting like Forgotten Realms, use it a deities. If you are home brewing be very transparent with your players on how you are designing your cosmology.
I don't see much need for homebrew. There are characters and some are casters with magical powers. In one campaign I was in, a character went off early various days to make offerings to Tymora. Nothing was heard of that again and, in this case, it didn't bring any results. Even if there had been a 'response' it could have been due to a parallel influence. No homebrew was needed, just decisions by our DM.
I don’t understand what this response is saying, apologies. I was saying that if you are using a published setting the cosmology should follow that settings guidelines, and if you are home brewing a setting the DM should make the cosmology transparent to the players.
I don't understand why a cosmology specifically should be transparent. Transparency is certainly an option but that's not normally how things work. It's certainly important that a DM should be truthful and straightforward with players, where necessary to correct assumptions and perhaps notify them that you're running an adapted setting but, if your players are in, say a module such as ice spire peak or lost mines, in many cases, an actual existence of gods or not won't matter.