I hope this excerpt from Xanathar’s Guide to Everything will clear up this argument.
SERVING A PANTHEON, PHILOSOPHY, OR FORCE
The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a Divine Domain associated with that deity. The cleric’s magic flows from the god or the god’s sacred realm, and often the cleric bears a holy symbol that represents that divinity.
Some clerics, especially in a world like Eberron, serve a whole pantheon, rather than a single deity. In certain campaigns, a cleric might instead serve a cosmic force, such as life or death, or a philosophy or concept, such as love, peace, or one of the nine alignments. Chapter 1 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide explores options like these, in the section “Gods of Your World.”
Talk with your DM about the divine options available in your campaign, whether they’re gods, pantheons, philosophies, or cosmic forces. Whatever being or thing your cleric ends up serving, choose a Divine Domain that is appropriate for it, and if it doesn’t have a holy symbol, work with your DM to design one.
The cleric’s class features often refer to your deity. If you are devoted to a pantheon, cosmic force, or philosophy, your cleric features still work for you as written. Think of the references to a god as references to the divine thing you serve that gives you your magic.
While Xanathar's represents optional rules, the PHb speaks of clerics to say that:
Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.
Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes. ...
RAW the gods exist and clerics are affiliated to them.
Eberon is other optional content that presents an idea to disagree.
While Xanathar's represents optional rules, the PHb speaks of clerics to say that:
Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.
Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes. ...
RAW the gods exist and clerics are affiliated to them.
Eberon is other optional content that presents an idea to disagree.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that because Xanathar’s Guide and Eberron are “optional,” they are not RAW. This is simply flat-out false. They are both RAW, and everything in the Player’s Handbook is also optional.
While Xanathar's represents optional rules, the PHb speaks of clerics to say that:
Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.
Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes. ...
RAW the gods exist and clerics are affiliated to them.
Eberon is other optional content that presents an idea to disagree.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that because Xanathar’s Guide and Eberron are “optional,” they are not RAW. This is simply flat-out false. They are both RAW, and everything in the Player’s Handbook is also optional.
PHb, DMG and Monster Manual present the core rules otherwise referred to as the official rules,
Other books such as Xanathar’s Guide and Eberron contain optional rules.
The difference is clearly differentiated in the introduction of Xanathar's:
Written for both players and Dungeon Masters, this source offers options to enhance campaigns in any world, whether you’re adventuring in the Forgotten Realms, another official D&D setting, or a world of your own creation. The optionshere build on the official rules contained within the Player’s Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Think of this source as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign — this is not a fourth core rulebook — but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game.
Chapter 1offers character options that expand on those offered in the Player’s Handbook.Chapter 2 is a toolkit for the DM that provides new resources for running the game and designing adventures, all of it building on the Monster Manual and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Chapter 3 presents new spells for player characters and spellcasting monsters to unleash.
Appendix A provides guidance on running a shared campaign, similar to the activities staged by the D&D Adventurers League, and appendix B contains a host of tables that allow you to quickly generate names for the characters in your D&D stories.
As you peruse the many options herein, you’ll come across observations from Xanathar itself. Like the beholder’s roving mind, your reading will take you to places in the game familiar and new. May you enjoy the journey!
UNEARTHED ARCANA
Much of the material in this source originally appeared in Unearthed Arcana, a series of online articles we publish to explore rules that might officially become part of the game. Some Unearthed Arcana offerings don’t end up resonating with fans and are set aside for the time being. The Unearthed Arcana material that inspired the options in the following chapters was well received and, thanks to feedback from thousands of you, has been refined into the official forms presented here.
The Core Rules
This source relies on the rules in the three core rulebooks. The game especially makes frequent use of the rules in chapters 7–10 of the Player’s Handbook: “Using Ability Scores,” “Adventuring,” “Combat,” and “Spellcasting.” That book’s appendix A is also crucial; it contains definitions of conditions, like invisible and prone. You don’t need to know the rules by heart, but it’s helpful to know where to find them when you need them.
If you’re a DM, you should also know where to look things up in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, especially the rules on how magic items work (see chapter 7 of that book). The introduction of the Monster Manual is your guide on how to use a monster’s stat block.
Again, you are saying things that are just straight-up wrong. All the rules published by WotC are official. The line between “core rules” and additional rules is not significant. Further, this thread is not even about rules.
The DM can handle it however they want, so long as they are entirely transparent with their players. Cosmology is among the things that should be discussed in session zero - how divine powers work in the setting, the nature of the planes, and so on. As long as everyone is on the same page and there is no vagueness or gray area, it’s fine.
The players need to understand how the gods or lack thereof work in the world. Beyond that it’s fine, assuming homebrew of course. If using a campaign setting, just follow the campaign setting’s rules.
The DM can handle it however they want, so long as they are entirely transparent with their players. Cosmology is among the things that should be discussed in session zero - how divine powers work in the setting, the nature of the planes, and so on. As long as everyone is on the same page and there is no vagueness or gray area, it’s fine.
The players need to understand how the gods or lack thereof work in the world. Beyond that it’s fine, assuming homebrew of course. If using a campaign setting, just follow the campaign setting’s rules.
Why does it have to be so transparent? In real life, how much does anyone know about various world religions? Not merely local religion but all those in the world? And even then, they would know only what various churches teach, not what the truth really is, i.e. whether there is, in reality, a God, multiple Gods, which 'cosmic rules' are in play, etc. Heck, people in real life do not have full transparency on the laws of physics, let alone cosmology. There are aspects of physics still not fully understood even by the world's top physicists.
So why would players have full transparency that equates to more knowledge than they need to reasonably play their characters? Full knowledge of mechanics that will apply to their characters, sure, but full transparency? No, that does not fly.
The players do not got to know all the cosmic truths on day 1. They are out there for their characters to discover, or not, depending on their interests and actions.
I think we simply disagree on this. D&D is a game with magic in it. Player characters exist in the setting of the game. The players should always be given full transparency of the cosmology so they can play an appropriate level of awareness, relative to their skills, in part, but also to avoid bizarre issues in-game.
If a player wants to play a cleric they need to know if they are worshipping a god or force that could cut them off from spellcasting if they fail to follow their edicts for example. They need to know if their worship of an alignment requires them to act on its behalf or not. They need to know if there are multiple planes of existence or a single other world (see DMG homebrew setting cosmology section) so they can coherently discuss these matters in-game. They need to know what happens to souls after death in that game world, or if that is a mystery, why.
Transparency makes a game better always and that should happen at session zero. Nothing is added by being cryptic save a likelihood of bad game events due to a lack of understanding and communication, which is entirely the DM’s responsibility.
Again, you are saying things that are just straight-up wrong. All the rules published by WotC are official. The line between “core rules” and additional rules is not significant. Further, this thread is not even about rules.
All I said was the following in agreement and admittance that core rules say that gods exist in 5e.
While Xanathar's represents optional rules, the PHb speaks of clerics to say that:
Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.
Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes. ...
RAW the gods exist and clerics are affiliated to them.
Eberon is other optional content that presents an idea to disagree.
You then picked a pointless fight with this which was concluded when I said:
Written for both players and Dungeon Masters, this source offers options to enhance campaigns in any world, whether you’re adventuring in the Forgotten Realms, another official D&D setting, or a world of your own creation. The optionshere build on the official rules contained within the Player’s Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Think of this source as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign — this is not a fourth core rulebook — but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game.
Chapter 1offers character options that expand on those offered in the Player’s Handbook.Chapter 2 is a toolkit for the DM that provides new resources for running the game and designing adventures, all of it building on the Monster Manual and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Chapter 3 presents new spells for player characters and spellcasting monsters to unleash.
Appendix A provides guidance on running a shared campaign, similar to the activities staged by the D&D Adventurers League, and appendix B contains a host of tables that allow you to quickly generate names for the characters in your D&D stories.
As you peruse the many options herein, you’ll come across observations from Xanathar itself. Like the beholder’s roving mind, your reading will take you to places in the game familiar and new. May you enjoy the journey!
UNEARTHED ARCANA
Much of the material in this source originally appeared in Unearthed Arcana, a series of online articles we publish to explore rules that might officially become part of the game. Some Unearthed Arcana offerings don’t end up resonating with fans and are set aside for the time being. The Unearthed Arcana material that inspired the options in the following chapters was well received and, thanks to feedback from thousands of you, has been refined into the official forms presented here.
The Core Rules
This source relies on the rules in the three core rulebooks. The game especially makes frequent use of the rules in chapters 7–10 of the Player’s Handbook: “Using Ability Scores,” “Adventuring,” “Combat,” and “Spellcasting.” That book’s appendix A is also crucial; it contains definitions of conditions, like invisible and prone. You don’t need to know the rules by heart, but it’s helpful to know where to find them when you need them.
If you’re a DM, you should also know where to look things up in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, especially the rules on how magic items work (see chapter 7 of that book). The introduction of the Monster Manual is your guide on how to use a monster’s stat block.
The DM can handle it however they want, so long as they are entirely transparent with their players. Cosmology is among the things that should be discussed in session zero - how divine powers work in the setting, the nature of the planes, and so on. As long as everyone is on the same page and there is no vagueness or gray area, it’s fine.
The players need to understand how the gods or lack thereof work in the world. Beyond that it’s fine, assuming homebrew of course. If using a campaign setting, just follow the campaign setting’s rules.
Why does it have to be so transparent? In real life, how much does anyone know about various world religions? Not merely local religion but all those in the world? And even then, they would know only what various churches teach, not what the truth really is, i.e. whether there is, in reality, a God, multiple Gods, which 'cosmic rules' are in play, etc. Heck, people in real life do not have full transparency on the laws of physics, let alone cosmology. There are aspects of physics still not fully understood even by the world's top physicists.
So why would players have full transparency that equates to more knowledge than they need to reasonably play their characters? Full knowledge of mechanics that will apply to their characters, sure, but full transparency? No, that does not fly.
The players do not got to know all the cosmic truths on day 1. They are out there for their characters to discover, or not, depending on their interests and actions.
I think we simply disagree on this. D&D is a game with magic in it. Player characters exist in the setting of the game. The players should always be given full transparency of the cosmology so they can play an appropriate level of awareness, relative to their skills, in part, but also to avoid bizarre issues in-game.
If a player wants to play a cleric they need to know if they are worshipping a god or force that could cut them off from spellcasting if they fail to follow their edicts for example. They need to know if their worship of an alignment requires them to act on its behalf or not. They need to know if there are multiple planes of existence or a single other world (see DMG homebrew setting cosmology section) so they can coherently discuss these matters in-game. They need to know what happens to souls after death in that game world, or if that is a mystery, why.
Transparency makes a game better always and that should happen at session zero. Nothing is added by being cryptic save a likelihood of bad game events due to a lack of understanding and communication, which is entirely the DM’s responsibility.
See the bolded above. The possibility of being cut off is indeed a mechanic that applies to that character.
Other than that, you are insisting that the DM must either have a very simply 'this you see around you is all that exists' or write everything in advance in elaborate detail above and beyond what is needed on a practical level to play, including the full details and solutions to any and all prophecies not just planned from the start of the campaign but that ever will be, and generally write a much more detailed full source book than anything WotC or even TSR before them have ever written.
Basics, such as whether the Cleric's power could be cut off and a good sense of how that might happen, sure.
Full transparency, no. Impractical and even if done, would not make it a better campaign in any way, any more than the players getting full transparency on local politics, or much else about the campaign.
There are good arguments on both sides.
In real-world conditions, we have in-world claims regarding the existence of gods as found in holy writings as per the 2600 BC Kesh Temple Hymn from ancient Sumer and other examples.
In 5e players have access to fourth-wall-breaking, metagame accessible texts as written by WotC about 5e settings but out of typical 5e settings largely in California.
These metagame accessible texts contain core rules that, for instance, state:
Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.
Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes. ...
If a DM wants to homebrew to go against these 5e certainties then there could be a valid reason to let players know of such changes in advance.
If however, that DM considered the actual existence of gods to just be fluff to explain, for instance, the origin of clerical power, there can be valid justification to skirt over additional introductory content if s/he doesn't deem it particularly relevant or beneficial for participant enjoyment of their game.
This has become a weird, purposeless discussion about what DM's should or shouldn't do, or what is official, or semi-official, and none of it makes the slightest difference to any game that has ever been played, or will be played.
Either a DM says: These are the gods, clerics must worship one
Or they say something different and you work that out with them.
In my game world, I let my players create the gods that they want to worship. One of them worships an ever raging storm. Another worships the concept of mirages. NPCs they've encountered have worshipped a city, flowers, and a path along the coast.
I know that the clerics gimic is that they use power granted by deitys to heal Ally's and harm enemy's,but does a cleric HAVE to worship a god? Could I,for example,have a cleric who worships Strad,or the ocean? From what I understand,clerics get their power from their devotion,so I would rule that they don't need to worship a god,but I want to know if there is a official stance on the matter.
(Yeah,I know the warlock exists,but deitys like the raven queen can make both warlocks and clerics,so if a god can make both,my thought is,could a powerful mage/undead make a cleric?
... Also,I know what a famous DM has allowed for a certain cleric,but I want to know if that was RAW,RAI,or homebrew/DM handwave. ...
Matthew Mercer's The Traveller a product of DM adjudication (of content later mentioned) which has also entered into optional rules RAW. That's the kind of thing that may happen for a superstar DM that gets their own WotC book published.
In the Explorer's Guide to WIldmount explanation of the Pantheon of Exandria we read that: "The Divine Gate, established during the Divergence, is a powerful barrier between the Material Plane and the divine realms. ..." A further barrier explanation is given for the distance of the gods.
... edit:i ask mainly because l have a character idea of a cleric who worships some kind of undead (strad was my first idea,but maybe vecna) but wanted to know if i would have to settle for the raven queen (the cleric is a goth,and would be grave or death domain,though it would likely have to be death if i chose a undead -_0_-) if i didnt want to rely on the dm haveing to allow it.
As a player you have a handbook that describes Clerics as wielders of "divine magic,.. the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. and that The gods ... grant this power ... only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling."
As a DM "it’s up to you to decide where on the spectrum [of "settings, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara ... Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Planescape] you want your world to fall within The Big Picture.
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. ...
Even Mercer didn't go this far, though he could have.
You are wrong. DMG clearly states that is not the case, despite the wording in the PHB defaulting to the assumption you have one. "In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them" - DMG pg 13
I personally have a half-orc cleric who does not have follow a god. She gains her abilities through ancestor worship.
You are wrong. DMG clearly states that is not the case, despite the wording in the PHB defaulting to the assumption you have one. "In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them" - DMG pg 13
I personally have a half-orc cleric who does not have follow a god. She gains her abilities through ancestor worship.
Those ancestors could function identically to how a god might, though, including consequences if the cleric seems to be disrespecting their ancestors somehow.
"Impersonal forces of magic" is kind of problematic, though. Why would that not be a divine warlock or possibly even sorcerer?
If the DM says it isn't a problem, then it isn't a problem.
I had a paladin who I flavoured as gaining power from the land itself and I roleplayed in a Captain Britain/Captain America way. I would allow a cleric to do something similar. Mechanically it's fine.
You are wrong. DMG clearly states that is not the case, despite the wording in the PHB defaulting to the assumption you have one. "In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them" - DMG pg 13
I personally have a half-orc cleric who does not have follow a god. She gains her abilities through ancestor worship.
Those ancestors could function identically to how a god might, though, including consequences if the cleric seems to be disrespecting their ancestors somehow.
"Impersonal forces of magic" is kind of problematic, though. Why would that not be a divine warlock or possibly even sorcerer?
If the DM says it isn't a problem, then it isn't a problem.
I had a paladin who I flavoured as gaining power from the land itself and I roleplayed in a Captain Britain/Captain America way. I would allow a cleric to do something similar. Mechanically it's fine.
Captain Britain has suffered power loss from issues over his connection with Britain though.
If the DM does not want it to be a problem, it isn't a problem either way. There is functionally no difference between that and following an actual deity who does not care.
Thor and other gods have had all sorts of problems at various times but, who cares, we're working with fiction and myth.
There is functionally no difference between this and following an actual deity who does care. Channel Divinity snd Divine Intervention will still involve dice rolls and Commune still gives a set number of questions...
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.
Sorry for the necro, but I saw this post and found within me a need to point out how silly it is me. From my perspective, your argument contradicts itself. You say they have to worship a deity then state that religions in which the deity aren't just known to be involved are fine. That's not worshipping the deity. The fact of the matter is that some official settings specifically allow exceptions, and once that precedent is set, there's no reason (other than DM approval) that it cannot happen in any other setting. You later (in another post) state that a new religion can be formed by one cleric, but that it gives birth to a new deity. Sounds a lot like lore you've basically made up and are pushing as official while simultaneously dismissing actual official lore. I think what you mean to say is "At my table...Clerics absolutely require a deity; they literally are not Clerics without this.".
By that logic, druids worship the god of nature. They don't. Logic flawed.
Yes they do. Druids worship nature gods. Even those who worship nature itself actually worship nature gods in their most primitive and savage form. Actually, any D&D character should worship gods, and thematically it's recommended to have a personal god. Atheism in D&D makes no sense except in specific settings where gods have no presence (such as Dark Sun).
In the case of Clerics it's mandatory by rules to have a god. It's that god that gives her magic and his abilities.
If you do not know anything about the leader of your country, do not even know they exist, but are nevertheless very nationalistic based on their leadership, how is your faith in your country not actually faith in said leader? (not using any given real world country as a model here and in fact this analogy works best with a true dictatorship).
Not knowing your faith is in the God specifically, not even knowing that the God exists does not change that the worship is, in actuality, worship of that God.
If you worship a rose without knowing that the rose is actually a god, do you somehow not worship that god? Would a deity by any other name be less divine?
This is begging the question. It presupposes that gods exist, and in settings where they do, I agree with you. But whether or not gods exist is dependent on setting and DM. If you worship a rose without knowing that the rose is actually a god, you're still worshiping a god. But if you worship a god without knowing that that god doesn't actually exist, you're not getting your power from a god.
By that logic, druids worship the god of nature. They don't. Logic flawed.
Yes they do. Druids worship nature gods. Even those who worship nature itself actually worship nature gods in their most primitive and savage form. Actually, any D&D character should worship gods, and thematically it's recommended to have a personal god. Atheism in D&D makes no sense except in specific settings where gods have no presence (such as Dark Sun).
In the case of Clerics it's mandatory by rules to have a god. It's that god that gives her magic and his abilities.
No, nature clerics (usually) worship nature gods. Druids are much more flexible, and that's built in to the lore of the druid class. A lot do worship nature gods, and just as many don't.
The rest of your post is just nonsense. You present a false dichotomy between worshiping a god and atheism; you can acknowledge that gods exist but still elect not to worship any of them, and there's absolutely nothing about that that doesn't make sense. Further, atheism makes sense in most settings. An atheist in the Forgotten Realms doesn't believe that Lathander doesn't exist. They believe that Lathander isn't a god. And honestly, that's an extremely sensible belief to have. "Gods" in the Forgetten Realms can die. There's an extremely solid philosophical and theological case to be made that that in and of itself means that they can't be "real" gods. And finally, there is absolutely no rules text anywhere in an officially published 5th edition book that says it's mandatory that clerics have a good, and indeed, in several places it's explicitly stated that clerics are free to not have one.
But all of that has been pretty firmly established by this thread, so again, please let it die.
According to the rules clerics need to worship a god. At least, until today. If in future Wizards remove that lock like he has done with race alignments, or like he did in the past with paladins, then you can make a cleric who prays to a concept. But today it is mandatory to choose a god if you are a cleric (with the rules in hand, of course. At your table you can do whatever you want).
And besides, it makes sense that it should be. If you don't pray to a god, why are you a cleric? If you don't play an instrument, why are you a bard? If you don't do "magic" with mundane objects, why are you an artifice? If we remove these things, which also do not bother, everything is simply a mechanical corset and gray porridge for everyone.
And let me get back to that. What problem, if any, is there that the rules force you to pray to a god? That's pure flavor for your character, and sets your class apart from the others. You can do what you do, because your god has chosen you as his instrument to accomplish his agenda. And he has chosen you, because you have faith in him. That gives incredible flavor, and fantastic acting opportunities. I don't see the problem, and why would someone object to choosing a god. That just makes your character somewhat bland and uninteresting. And besides, with good judgment, it's against the rules.
They actually don't. Point me to where it's stated in the PHB 5E material that druids all worship a god. They get their magic from the fundamental forces of nature, though SOME might choose to worship a god. This is really basic stuff and I'm surprised to see anyone trying to debate it.
And no, it's not mandatory for clerics, because specific exceptions are made in multiple official settings. A second piece of information in D&D acts as exception to the first in 5E. So you can quote the cleric class description all you like, but until you take into account the additional material involved, you aren't seeing the whole picture. Do most Clerics in most settings worship a deity? Yes. Is it required in all official settings? No. Eberron is the best example of this, though there are others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I hope this excerpt from Xanathar’s Guide to Everything will clear up this argument.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXI?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
While Xanathar's represents optional rules, the PHb speaks of clerics to say that:
RAW the gods exist and clerics are affiliated to them.
Eberon is other optional content that presents an idea to disagree.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that because Xanathar’s Guide and Eberron are “optional,” they are not RAW. This is simply flat-out false. They are both RAW, and everything in the Player’s Handbook is also optional.
PHb, DMG and Monster Manual present the core rules otherwise referred to as the official rules,
Other books such as Xanathar’s Guide and Eberron contain optional rules.
The difference is clearly differentiated in the introduction of Xanathar's:
Using This Source
Written for both players and Dungeon Masters, this source offers options to enhance campaigns in any world, whether you’re adventuring in the Forgotten Realms, another official D&D setting, or a world of your own creation. The options here build on the official rules contained within the Player’s Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Think of this source as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign — this is not a fourth core rulebook — but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game.
Chapter 1 offers character options that expand on those offered in the Player’s Handbook. Chapter 2 is a toolkit for the DM that provides new resources for running the game and designing adventures, all of it building on the Monster Manual and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Chapter 3 presents new spells for player characters and spellcasting monsters to unleash.
Appendix A provides guidance on running a shared campaign, similar to the activities staged by the D&D Adventurers League, and appendix B contains a host of tables that allow you to quickly generate names for the characters in your D&D stories.
As you peruse the many options herein, you’ll come across observations from Xanathar itself. Like the beholder’s roving mind, your reading will take you to places in the game familiar and new. May you enjoy the journey!
The Core Rules
This source relies on the rules in the three core rulebooks. The game especially makes frequent use of the rules in chapters 7–10 of the Player’s Handbook: “Using Ability Scores,” “Adventuring,” “Combat,” and “Spellcasting.” That book’s appendix A is also crucial; it contains definitions of conditions, like invisible and prone. You don’t need to know the rules by heart, but it’s helpful to know where to find them when you need them.
If you’re a DM, you should also know where to look things up in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, especially the rules on how magic items work (see chapter 7 of that book). The introduction of the Monster Manual is your guide on how to use a monster’s stat block.
Again, you are saying things that are just straight-up wrong. All the rules published by WotC are official. The line between “core rules” and additional rules is not significant. Further, this thread is not even about rules.
The DM can handle it however they want, so long as they are entirely transparent with their players. Cosmology is among the things that should be discussed in session zero - how divine powers work in the setting, the nature of the planes, and so on. As long as everyone is on the same page and there is no vagueness or gray area, it’s fine.
The players need to understand how the gods or lack thereof work in the world. Beyond that it’s fine, assuming homebrew of course. If using a campaign setting, just follow the campaign setting’s rules.
I think we simply disagree on this. D&D is a game with magic in it. Player characters exist in the setting of the game. The players should always be given full transparency of the cosmology so they can play an appropriate level of awareness, relative to their skills, in part, but also to avoid bizarre issues in-game.
If a player wants to play a cleric they need to know if they are worshipping a god or force that could cut them off from spellcasting if they fail to follow their edicts for example. They need to know if their worship of an alignment requires them to act on its behalf or not. They need to know if there are multiple planes of existence or a single other world (see DMG homebrew setting cosmology section) so they can coherently discuss these matters in-game. They need to know what happens to souls after death in that game world, or if that is a mystery, why.
Transparency makes a game better always and that should happen at session zero. Nothing is added by being cryptic save a likelihood of bad game events due to a lack of understanding and communication, which is entirely the DM’s responsibility.
All I said was the following in agreement and admittance that core rules say that gods exist in 5e.
You then picked a pointless fight with this which was concluded when I said:
There are good arguments on both sides.
In real-world conditions, we have in-world claims regarding the existence of gods as found in holy writings as per the 2600 BC Kesh Temple Hymn
from ancient Sumer and other examples.
In 5e players have access to fourth-wall-breaking, metagame accessible texts as written by WotC about 5e settings but out of typical 5e settings largely in California.
These metagame accessible texts contain core rules that, for instance, state:
If a DM wants to homebrew to go against these 5e certainties then there could be a valid reason to let players know of such changes in advance.
If however, that DM considered the actual existence of gods to just be fluff to explain, for instance, the origin of clerical power, there can be valid justification to skirt over additional introductory content if s/he doesn't deem it particularly relevant or beneficial for participant enjoyment of their game.
This has become a weird, purposeless discussion about what DM's should or shouldn't do, or what is official, or semi-official, and none of it makes the slightest difference to any game that has ever been played, or will be played.
Either a DM says: These are the gods, clerics must worship one
Or they say something different and you work that out with them.
In my game world, I let my players create the gods that they want to worship. One of them worships an ever raging storm. Another worships the concept of mirages. NPCs they've encountered have worshipped a city, flowers, and a path along the coast.
yep, going back to the OP:
Matthew Mercer's The Traveller a product of DM adjudication (of content later mentioned) which has also entered into optional rules RAW. That's the kind of thing that may happen for a superstar DM that gets their own WotC book published.
In the Explorer's Guide to WIldmount explanation of the Pantheon of Exandria we read that: "The Divine Gate, established during the Divergence, is a powerful barrier between the Material Plane and the divine realms. ..." A further barrier explanation is given for the distance of the gods.
In this context, Mercer creates a context for Lesser Idols one of whom is The Traveler.
As a player you have a handbook that describes Clerics as wielders of "divine magic,.. the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. and that The gods ... grant this power ... only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling."
As a DM "it’s up to you to decide where on the spectrum [of "settings, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara ... Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Planescape] you want your world to fall within The Big Picture.
The DM is further assured that "Its Your World".
Shortly on we read of "Gods of Your World" and, in this context, we read of:
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. ...
Even Mercer didn't go this far, though he could have.
You are wrong.
DMG clearly states that is not the case, despite the wording in the PHB defaulting to the assumption you have one.
"In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them" - DMG pg 13
I personally have a half-orc cleric who does not have follow a god.
She gains her abilities through ancestor worship.
If the DM says it isn't a problem, then it isn't a problem.
I had a paladin who I flavoured as gaining power from the land itself and I roleplayed in a Captain Britain/Captain America way. I would allow a cleric to do something similar. Mechanically it's fine.
Thor and other gods have had all sorts of problems at various times but, who cares, we're working with fiction and myth.
There is functionally no difference between this and following an actual deity who does care. Channel Divinity snd Divine Intervention will still involve dice rolls and Commune still gives a set number of questions...
Sorry for the necro, but I saw this post and found within me a need to point out how silly it is me. From my perspective, your argument contradicts itself. You say they have to worship a deity then state that religions in which the deity aren't just known to be involved are fine. That's not worshipping the deity. The fact of the matter is that some official settings specifically allow exceptions, and once that precedent is set, there's no reason (other than DM approval) that it cannot happen in any other setting. You later (in another post) state that a new religion can be formed by one cleric, but that it gives birth to a new deity. Sounds a lot like lore you've basically made up and are pushing as official while simultaneously dismissing actual official lore. I think what you mean to say is "At my table...Clerics absolutely require a deity; they literally are not Clerics without this.".
By that logic, druids worship the god of nature. They don't. Logic flawed.
Yes they do. Druids worship nature gods. Even those who worship nature itself actually worship nature gods in their most primitive and savage form. Actually, any D&D character should worship gods, and thematically it's recommended to have a personal god. Atheism in D&D makes no sense except in specific settings where gods have no presence (such as Dark Sun).
In the case of Clerics it's mandatory by rules to have a god. It's that god that gives her magic and his abilities.
First of all, please let this thread die.
This is begging the question. It presupposes that gods exist, and in settings where they do, I agree with you. But whether or not gods exist is dependent on setting and DM. If you worship a rose without knowing that the rose is actually a god, you're still worshiping a god. But if you worship a god without knowing that that god doesn't actually exist, you're not getting your power from a god.
No, nature clerics (usually) worship nature gods. Druids are much more flexible, and that's built in to the lore of the druid class. A lot do worship nature gods, and just as many don't.
The rest of your post is just nonsense. You present a false dichotomy between worshiping a god and atheism; you can acknowledge that gods exist but still elect not to worship any of them, and there's absolutely nothing about that that doesn't make sense. Further, atheism makes sense in most settings. An atheist in the Forgotten Realms doesn't believe that Lathander doesn't exist. They believe that Lathander isn't a god. And honestly, that's an extremely sensible belief to have. "Gods" in the Forgetten Realms can die. There's an extremely solid philosophical and theological case to be made that that in and of itself means that they can't be "real" gods. And finally, there is absolutely no rules text anywhere in an officially published 5th edition book that says it's mandatory that clerics have a good, and indeed, in several places it's explicitly stated that clerics are free to not have one.
But all of that has been pretty firmly established by this thread, so again, please let it die.
SagaTympana, you are wrong.
According to the rules clerics need to worship a god. At least, until today. If in future Wizards remove that lock like he has done with race alignments, or like he did in the past with paladins, then you can make a cleric who prays to a concept. But today it is mandatory to choose a god if you are a cleric (with the rules in hand, of course. At your table you can do whatever you want).
And besides, it makes sense that it should be. If you don't pray to a god, why are you a cleric? If you don't play an instrument, why are you a bard? If you don't do "magic" with mundane objects, why are you an artifice? If we remove these things, which also do not bother, everything is simply a mechanical corset and gray porridge for everyone.
And let me get back to that. What problem, if any, is there that the rules force you to pray to a god? That's pure flavor for your character, and sets your class apart from the others. You can do what you do, because your god has chosen you as his instrument to accomplish his agenda. And he has chosen you, because you have faith in him. That gives incredible flavor, and fantastic acting opportunities. I don't see the problem, and why would someone object to choosing a god. That just makes your character somewhat bland and uninteresting. And besides, with good judgment, it's against the rules.
They actually don't. Point me to where it's stated in the PHB 5E material that druids all worship a god. They get their magic from the fundamental forces of nature, though SOME might choose to worship a god. This is really basic stuff and I'm surprised to see anyone trying to debate it.
And no, it's not mandatory for clerics, because specific exceptions are made in multiple official settings. A second piece of information in D&D acts as exception to the first in 5E. So you can quote the cleric class description all you like, but until you take into account the additional material involved, you aren't seeing the whole picture. Do most Clerics in most settings worship a deity? Yes. Is it required in all official settings? No. Eberron is the best example of this, though there are others.