So I think we can agree that as a general rule clerics have to choose a deity. That's the design of the class. However, in your particular setting, it doesn't have to be that way. That's a bit of a truism, by the way. In my setting I can do whatever I want. Players might not have to choose a race, because there would only be 1. Or they might all start with a feat, since they're demigods or whatever. In that case, such an argument simply serves to end almost all forum discussions. Which is right. Obviously in my game I do what I want, and that's what the DMG tells you. Don't you want gods? Do not include them in your game. Do you want to have only one religion? Nothing happens. Do you want your clerics to serve ideas? It's your world, do what you want.
But you have to understand that you are changing the game. Is there something wrong with it? No. But then you can't use that as an argument to say that a class works one way or another. In a particular way, in fact, you could make it work however you want. That's what the homebrew subforum is for, I understand.
I'm afraid that we cannot agree that as a general rule clerics have to choose a deity. They don't. It used to be the design of the class, in previous editions. Which, I might point out, has been changed to remove this requirement. Which, I might also point out, wasn't done by me. This lack of requirement fits into all settings that require the use of a DM, not just mine, not just yours, not just applicable to AL or tournament. This is not a niche rule for "just homebrew" or a specific setting. Just a small footnote, this isn't my homebrew. It's actually RAW.
By allowing the player to choose the manner in which their character devotes themselves to their domain, we aren't changing the game. We're allowing it to be played without setting a requirement that didn't exist in this edition to begin with. This game has changed somewhere in the ballpark of 8 or 9 times over the course of it's life, and is poised to change again. If it does not change, there can be no improvement, only stagnation and the eventual fading away of this portion of the hobby. From my perspective, someone is making the argument that a class has to work one way, and only one way. That argument is fundamentally flawed and subsequently incorrect.
If you were to set this requirement for the entirety of the D&D game, every player, every DM, no exceptions, the game becomes immediately rigid, nearly to the point of being brittle. Players with Cleric PCs must choose a deity and that deity has to exist in every game, everywhere. That deity must be in control of the same domain in every game, everywhere. The player must consider how to interact with said deity in order to appease them to gain, or maintain, their divine gifts and abilities. If a player doesn't feel comfortable with any of it, then they just don't play a cleric. They must choose another class or not play the game at all. Simultaneously, every DM, everywhere has to allow the entirety of this pantheon and the domains that are presented.
I'll admit, there is some hyperbole in there, but not as much as some would hope for. I will conceede the idea that if you want to require your players to act out the rituals to their PC's deity in order to appease them, you can do that too. It still doesn't make it RAW. It does make it homebrew, which isn't a four-letter word and yes, it does have it's own forum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
There are two basic reasons why a cleric might not worship a god, a boring one and an interesting one, and both of them are pretty dependent on DM approval.
The boring reason is that the source of their power isn't a god. This would be because in the setting for the game there are forces other than the gods which can provide the necessary power.
The more interesting reason is that a cleric gets power from a god because the god believes in the cleric, not because the cleric believes in the god. If a god feels strongly enough that granting you power will serve their ends, they might do so even if you aren't aware of their existence.
Imagine a character that partied too hard, got blackout drunk, stumbled into the feywild and disappeared for a year and a day, and then wakes up in a field with a hangover, but is now a fey pact warlock. Half the fun would be not knowing who precisely you stuck a bargain with. Like a Dude Who's My Patron?
But you are choosing a patron if you do that. Another thing is that your character does not know it. I played a character like this recently.
There are two basic reasons why a cleric might not worship a god, a boring one and an interesting one, and both of them are pretty dependent on DM approval.
The boring reason is that the source of their power isn't a god. This would be because in the setting for the game there are forces other than the gods which can provide the necessary power.
The more interesting reason is that a cleric gets power from a god because the god believes in the cleric, not because the cleric believes in the god. If a god feels strongly enough that granting you power will serve their ends, they might do so even if you aren't aware of their existence.
Yes, that is true. But here what is being discussed, beyond the title of the thread, is whether or not the clerics have to choose a deity when creating the character. There are those who argue that they can choose a mountain, a flower, or simply a concept, and there are even those who argue that they do not have to choose anything at all.
There are two basic reasons why a cleric might not worship a god, a boring one and an interesting one, and both of them are pretty dependent on DM approval.
The boring reason is that the source of their power isn't a god. This would be because in the setting for the game there are forces other than the gods which can provide the necessary power.
The more interesting reason is that a cleric gets power from a god because the god believes in the cleric, not because the cleric believes in the god. If a god feels strongly enough that granting you power will serve their ends, they might do so even if you aren't aware of their existence.
Yes, that is true. But here what is being discussed, beyond the title of the thread, is whether or not the clerics have to choose a deity when creating the character. There are those who argue that they can choose a mountain, a flower, or simply a concept, and there are even those who argue that they do not have to choose anything at all.
I can appreciate that you are sharing your opinion here.
It seems that what you are proposing is that there is only one way. What's being showcased here is the various ways that the RAW allows for this to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
There are two basic reasons why a cleric might not worship a god, a boring one and an interesting one, and both of them are pretty dependent on DM approval.
The boring reason is that the source of their power isn't a god. This would be because in the setting for the game there are forces other than the gods which can provide the necessary power.
The more interesting reason is that a cleric gets power from a god because the god believes in the cleric, not because the cleric believes in the god. If a god feels strongly enough that granting you power will serve their ends, they might do so even if you aren't aware of their existence.
Yes, that is true. But here what is being discussed, beyond the title of the thread, is whether or not the clerics have to choose a deity when creating the character. There are those who argue that they can choose a mountain, a flower, or simply a concept, and there are even those who argue that they do not have to choose anything at all.
I can appreciate that you are sharing your opinion here.
It seems that what you are proposing is that there is only one way. What's being showcased here is the various ways that the RAW allows for this to happen.
I don't understand why such an aggressive response, so I'm going to leave the topic since it seems that there are people who are bothered by it. I don't understand why, actually, some of you get angry. The only thing I am saying is that in the PHB it is explained very clearly. Then, obviously, everyone at their table does what they want (which is what the rest of the sources say). You can also play races that don't exist in any official source, if you want. And whatever else you like.
There are two basic reasons why a cleric might not worship a god, a boring one and an interesting one, and both of them are pretty dependent on DM approval.
The boring reason is that the source of their power isn't a god. This would be because in the setting for the game there are forces other than the gods which can provide the necessary power.
The more interesting reason is that a cleric gets power from a god because the god believes in the cleric, not because the cleric believes in the god. If a god feels strongly enough that granting you power will serve their ends, they might do so even if you aren't aware of their existence.
Yes, that is true. But here what is being discussed, beyond the title of the thread, is whether or not the clerics have to choose a deity when creating the character. There are those who argue that they can choose a mountain, a flower, or simply a concept, and there are even those who argue that they do not have to choose anything at all.
I can appreciate that you are sharing your opinion here.
It seems that what you are proposing is that there is only one way. What's being showcased here is the various ways that the RAW allows for this to happen.
I don't understand why such an aggressive response, so I'm going to leave the topic since it seems that there are people who are bothered by it. I don't understand why, actually, some of you get angry. The only thing I am saying is that in the PHB it is explained very clearly. Then, obviously, everyone at their table does what they want (which is what the rest of the sources say). You can also play races that don't exist in any official source, if you want. And whatever else you like.
I don't know if I'm the best person to answer this, since I get accused of being "aggressive" even when I'm not trying to be. But, I think sometimes speaking in a very 'matter of fact' manner can be mistaken for hostility, even when there is no ill will present. Speaking as a 3rd party reader, I didn't pick up on hostility or "anger" from his comment, merely a very direct rebuttal.
I suspect it stems from the nature of the disagreement being had here. If you say "A player MUST choose a god" and are arguing this case, then to the side who reads the rules and sees no such requirement it could feel like you're trying to impose some sort of artificial restriction on people that doesn't exist, that maybe you're trying to control other people's gameplay when there really isn't any valid reason to do so. When people have quoted objective evidence that shows the DMG clearly leaves these sorts of restrictions up to individual DMs, it can feel odd to see someone continue to argue that "No No these restrictions apply to everyone's tables always!". You know? Like, what is the motivation for that? I certainly couldn't answer. Everyone will arrive at their own conclusions to those questions, I guess.
I agree with you that the PHB makes it clear that players should be asking questions about their cleric's relationship with divinity. But, the only point of issue here is when we insist that the PHB says that the answers to those questions needs to be, well, anything in particular. It asks quite a few of them, and you're left to fill in the blank. Or, just not answer it. And, all that goes out the window when you examine what the DMG is telling DMs, who run the game. That they're free to design whatever divinity system their setting needs. Ultimately it is a DM call. And the questions in the PHB are purely helpful tips to get players thinking about their character.
Ultimately it is a DM call. And the questions in the PHB are purely helpful tips to get players thinking about their character.
I think this statement reflects the reason a lot of people don't agree on topics such as the one being discussed in this thread. A lot of people see the books as "purely helpful tips". Even among those who see the books as rulebooks, it is not universally agreed upon which parts of the books are considered rules (is everything between first and last page a rule of some sort? Does the text need to cut out fluff for it to be considered rules? Are spell descriptions considered rules? Are class descriptions considered rules?).
Some of the answers to these questions might seem obvious. However, when people take part in a heated discussion everything is called into question, and often arguments are hand-waved if the rules they refer to aren't considered explicit and concise or are written in the wrong section/paragraph/sentence, even if the game designers support the argument in a clear manner on another platform. In this discussion, as in any other, I think it'd be helpful to make sure the participants are on the same page about the very basic concepts, such as "what are considered rules in D&D?".
Regardless, I believe the DMG states the rules on the topic of clerics and deities more clearly, explicitly and concisely than the PHB does, even though I still believe the PHB is also very clear and says more or less the opposite:
DMG As far as the game’s rules are concerned, it doesn’t matter if your world has hundreds of deities or a church devoted to a single god. In rules terms, clerics choose domains, not deities, so your world can associate domains with deities in any way you choose.
PHB
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.
Once you’ve chosen a deity, consider your cleric’s relationship to that god.
The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity.
Choose one domain related to your deity. (You pick a deity first, and then pick a domain based on that).
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity.
etc.
Obviously, the reason why the PHB mentions deities so much is because it is a core assumption of the game that deities exist. Further, the relationship between deities and domains looks like this: Deity > Deity's Portfolio > Deity's Domain. So if you choose a domain you also choose a deity (one which has the particular domain in their portfolio). It seems to me that the PHB did a poor job of explaining how to create a cleric, if we assume the DMG has the right of it (PHB: choose deity, then domain vs DMG: choose domain, not deity). As DMs, we can of course change or remove a core assumption of the game (deities), as well as its implicated relationships with the rules.
PS: If you only get to choose a domain, not a deity, you as a player will never know who the source of your divine magic actually is, which encourages DM shenanigans. Remember, many deities have influence over the same domain, and would want you to further their interests even if you don't praise their name.
It is also necessary to understand that the DMG gives you tools to manage your games, create your own worlds, etc... It is in this context that it must be understood that it gives you absolute freedom regarding how to design your world. And, obviously, and with good judgment, it gives you alternatives so that a cleric can play in your world even if there are no gods or these are not "standard" (such as there being only one, or that they are more similar to concepts or wills, or whatever).
And, of course, in that context of "it's your world, do what you think is best", which is perfect, there is no discussion possible. But neither in this case nor in most discussions of the game.
That's why I said that as a general rule I think we should agree that the clerics should choose a deity. That is the design of the class, and that is how it is explained in the PHB. That does not mean that in your game you can do something else. You're no less free for assuming that if in your game, for whatever reason, clerics don't have to choose deity, you're changing the game. You can do it, it's your game, and you're not playing bad for doing that. But you are changing the core of the class. Covered by the DMG and therefore by an official source? Of course. But even if it wasn't, you're not doing anything wrong either.
And just one more thing, why do examples of deities always appear in the domains, and not other alternative options? Because the core of the class are the deities. It's what defines you as a cleric. Still, as has been said many times in this thread, you can change this in your game. But that doesn't make it any less true that the class is designed for you to have devotion to a deity, which is the one that gives you your cleric powers.
Choose one domain related to your deity. (You pick a deity first, and then pick a domain based on that).
It doesn't help to misquote the PHB though. Even just cherry-picking snippets eliminates the context. We gotta be careful when presenting something as a quote that it is indeed a quote, otherwise we could inadvertently be spreading misinformation.
For example, that ^ bullet point doesn't say the stuff in parenthesis, you've added it. The bit preceding it isn't even the full sentence but you're presenting it as though it was. What it actually says is:
"Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War."
This essentially means 'Pick one of these domains'. This rule just also happens to contain fluff that the domains are associated with deities. Which is nice worldbuilding, but doesn't really impact what the player needs to do here. They need to pick a domain.
Obviously, the reason why the PHB mentions deities so much is because it is a core assumption of the game that deities exist. Further, the relationship between deities and domains looks like this: Deity > Deity's Portfolio > Deity's Domain. So if you choose a domain you also choose a deity (one which has the particular domain in their portfolio). It seems to me that the PHB did a poor job of explaining how to create a cleric, if we assume the DMG has the right of it (PHB: choose deity, then domain vs DMG: choose domain, not deity). As DMs, we can of course change or remove a core assumption of the game (deities), as well as its implicated relationships with the rules.
The default assumption in core settings is that gods exist and cleric serve them, sure. But the game isn't "assumed" to need to conform to these default settings, which is why it falls into DM purview. And why clearer explanation can be found in the DMG, since it will ultimately be up to the DM to make this sort of call. The PHB even explicitly tells the cleric player to consult their DM for deity selection.
We can find that in the bit you cut out after one of your above bulletpoint "quotes". It says:
"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. Appendix B includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."
This is why cutting the context out can lead to misunderstandings about the rules, as here it points you directly to the one person who is indeed supposed to be able to answer this question for you as a would-be cleric player, your DM.
PS: If you only get to choose a domain, not a deity, you as a player will never know who the source of your divine magic actually is, which encourages DM shenanigans. Remember, many deities have influence over the same domain, and would want you to further their interests even if you don't praise their name.
This sounds like fun. I'm all for it. How can anyone even be sure they do know which "god" or "being" they actually serve anyway? Maybe all the gods are a ruse by some even more powerful mischievous entity who's just really good and pulling off impersonations? Who's to say the gods are even the source of divine magic at all? And if someone is saying so, how do you know they're not lying to you for their own reasons, or just wrong? Fun stuff.
That's why I said that as a general rule I think we should agree that the clerics should choose a deity. That is the design of the class, and that is how it is explained in the PHB.
The PHB tells you to consult your DM, who is supposedly familiar with the DMG. You can't really pick a deity without doing this, either. You'll need to consult them about your cleric's faith at some point. They'll be able to give you some notion of what your valid options are. So, arguing what the options are in a vacuum doesn't make any sense since the books tell you to ask your DM and tell your DM how to determine the answer.
I think that many pages ago, even before I intervened, that we are saying the same thing but from a different perspective. And sometimes we just get lost in the sematics.
For my part, the issue is already clear. Now, what I do say is that it is very tiring to find people who are unable to reach meeting points. Unable to see things from the other's perspective. And in this specific case, if you think about it carefully, it's a pure matter of preceptivity. We're saying the same thing, only giving more value to what the PHB explains, or the freedom of the DM (or a specific setting) to modify it.
Choose one domain related to your deity. (You pick a deity first, and then pick a domain based on that).
It doesn't help to misquote the PHB though. Even just cherry-picking snippets eliminates the context. We gotta be careful when presenting something as a quote that it is indeed a quote, otherwise we could inadvertently be spreading misinformation.
For example, that ^ bullet point doesn't say the stuff in parenthesis, you've added it. The bit preceding it isn't even the full sentence but you're presenting it as though it was. What it actually says is:
"Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War."
While I agree that I should've been more clear that I added the clarifying parenthesis myself (I should've used brackets, not parenthesis), I do believe it is okay to not include text irrelevant to the point one tries to make, that is not included in the sentence, and that doesn't change the reading of the text (like certain parentheses or listings of stuff that doesn't matter). There's no need to bog down an argument and quote stuff that doesn't need to be there because it has no influence at all on how the text can be interpreted.
This essentially means 'Pick one of these domains'. This rule just also happens to contain fluff that the domains are associated with deities. Which is nice worldbuilding, but doesn't really impact what the player needs to do here. They need to pick a domain.
Until you and others in the discussion agree on what is "fluff" and what are "rules", I think handwaving parts of the text is a dangerous practice that doesn't align with your efforts to prevent the spread of misinformation.
Obviously, the reason why the PHB mentions deities so much is because it is a core assumption of the game that deities exist. Further, the relationship between deities and domains looks like this: Deity > Deity's Portfolio > Deity's Domain. So if you choose a domain you also choose a deity (one which has the particular domain in their portfolio). It seems to me that the PHB did a poor job of explaining how to create a cleric, if we assume the DMG has the right of it (PHB: choose deity, then domain vs DMG: choose domain, not deity). As DMs, we can of course change or remove a core assumption of the game (deities), as well as its implicated relationships with the rules.
The default assumption in core settings is that gods exist and cleric serve them, sure. But the game isn't "assumed" to need to conform to these default settings, which is why it falls into DM purview. And why clearer explanation can be found in the DMG, since it will ultimately be up to the DM to make this sort of call. The PHB even explicitly tells the cleric player to consult their DM for deity selection.
We can find that in the bit you cut out after one of your above bulletpoint "quotes". It says:
"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. Appendix B includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."
This is why cutting the context out can lead to misunderstandings about the rules, as here it points you directly to the one person who is indeed supposed to be able to answer this question for you as a would-be cleric player, your DM.
I simply don't share your view on when it is okay to not include text in a quote. I believe it is okay to not include text if it has nothing to do with the point you wish to address in the quote, and the sentence is complete without the text you choose not to include. If you believe otherwise, I apologise for making you upset. But I have to ask: If you don't believe it is okay to leave out text that appears several sentences later, and has nothing to do with your point, when do you believe it is okay to leave out text? After a paragraph? A page?
If it is very important for you to have a list of domain types attached to the word "domain" in order to understand what a domain actually is, then I apologise for not including that sentence in the quote. It was simply not important to the point I was making: my point was the sequential relationship between the choosing of a deity and a domain.
Likewise, the reason why I didn't include the sentence, "Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign" , which appeared a couple of sentences later in the paragraph you called into question, was because it had nothing to do with my point, my point being: the PHB states that one of the most important questions to consider when creating a cleric is what deity to serve and what principles to embody. Whether or not the DM has a say in what deities, if any, exist in the world had nothing to do with my point.
I do agree that the process that you are describing is a posibility. I've always held that standpoint. I've even stated as much.
The semantics are the important part of the discussion as they provide the vocabulary and logic behind the meaning of a word, sentence, phrase or text. There are several here that have tried to point out that the choosing of a specific deity is not a requirement. It's allowed per the DM's appointment of a pantheon. The only absolute requirement for the class selection process is the domain. Much like choosing a fighter's Martial Archetype is a requirement, but choosing the school and particular teacher are not. The same example exists in every class progression. You choose the pool of mechanical benifits that works best with your character concept and fill in the framework of your concept with the specifics of how you serve that table lamp that is your deity. If your PC chooses the symbol of Helm emblazoned on a handkerchief as their deity because their conformation bias tells them that's where the power stems from, what does that hurt? How would that change this game? And how would the designers list all of the possibilities that a single person might choose as an alternate "deity" in a pantheon list? Including the designers when the books were published. I'm pretty sure that we can find examples of this exact thing in real life when people find the face of a religious figure on their toast.
It is exceptionally tiring to find someone who will take only the bits that support the conformation bias that their perspective hinges on and then tries to sell this as the rule. My stance on this has yet to change: You run it your way at your table - OK. That doesn't make it RAW.
If you cannot find reason and logic in any of that, then the only thing we can agree on is to respectfully disagree.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
The short answer is 'it depends'. In same game worlds, yes. In other game worlds, no. In Faerun, the gods are known to exist. In Eberron, the gods might or might not exist. On Athas, the gods do not exist.
The only person capable of answering this question is the DM of the game in question.
Xanathar's specifically calls out the possibility of clerics of a pantheon, ideal, philosophy, or force, so it's 100% complete and total RAW.
I simply don't share your view on when it is okay to not include text in a quote. I believe it is okay to not include text if it has nothing to do with the point you wish to address in the quote, and the sentence is complete without the text you choose not to include. If you believe otherwise, I apologise for making you upset. But I have to ask: If you don't believe it is okay to leave out text that appears several sentences later, and has nothing to do with your point, when do you believe it is okay to leave out text? After a paragraph? A page?
When your goal is to have a complete understanding of the rules, you shouldn't be leaving out any of it, really. I mean, we're welcome to intentionally disregard stuff, that's one of the Rule Zero sorts of things. 5e empowers DMs to freely ignore whatever they want. But, if we're trying to hold a conversation about the rules more directly, not about any one DMs specific table but more about what the rules say and what they mean, we really should not be ignoring any of it. So, don't disregard any sentences, or any paragraphs. Not if they're contextually relevant to the discussion.
Each sentence in a paragraph builds on the ideas being discussed within it. Ignoring a sentence that has direct contextual meaning just leads to misunderstandings. Lets create an example, pretend for a moment this was a rules excerpt:
Your character cannot make melee attacks. They can, however, make melee attacks with longswords.
Okay, simple example. One paragraph, only two sentences. The first one, if taken in isolation, could very easily lead people to conclude that their character simple could never, ever, make melee attacks. So if they then saw a dude using a longsword to attack with they'll be all like "You can't do that!!1!" and even just quote that one line saying "Your character cannot make melee attacks.", and to a casual observer it'll even seem like they're right. But, they're not. They've ignored the additional context that helps explain the entirety of the situation, that "They can, however, make melee attacks with longswords."
I know, silly example. It was just to illustrate the fact that clipping context can lead us to bad conclusions.
When the rules say:
"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. Appendix B includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."
and you clip out all the extra context and only post:
"As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity"
it can lead you to a bad conclusion, in the same way as the longsword hypothetical. One of the super key parts of that whole paragraph was that you're supposed to consult your DM. That your DM will be able to help you with this step.
Why? Because quite frankly it is literally impossible to create a cleric and choose a deity without input form your DM. You don't even know what gods do or don't exist unless you get their input. How can you possibly choose one when you don't even yet know which list you're selecting from? Can you pick Zeus? DM knows. Can you pick Moradin? Only DM knows. Can you pick Asmodeus? Only the DM knows. Can you worship polka dots as if they were a god? Here too, DM knows.
And the DM? He has additional guidance to consult for how to come up with this answer. The DMG.
I simply don't share your view on when it is okay to not include text in a quote. I believe it is okay to not include text if it has nothing to do with the point you wish to address in the quote, and the sentence is complete without the text you choose not to include. If you believe otherwise, I apologise for making you upset. But I have to ask: If you don't believe it is okay to leave out text that appears several sentences later, and has nothing to do with your point, when do you believe it is okay to leave out text? After a paragraph? A page?
When your goal is to have a complete understanding of the rules, you shouldn't be leaving out any of it, really. I mean, we're welcome to intentionally disregard stuff, that's one of the Rule Zero sorts of things. 5e empowers DMs to freely ignore whatever they want. But, if we're trying to hold a conversation about the rules more directly, not about any one DMs specific table but more about what the rules say and what they mean, we really should not be ignoring any of it. So, don't disregard any sentences, or any paragraphs. Not if they're contextually relevant to the discussion.
Each sentence in a paragraph builds on the ideas being discussed within it. Ignoring a sentence that has direct contextual meaning just leads to misunderstandings. Lets create an example, pretend for a moment this was a rules excerpt:
Your character cannot make melee attacks. They can, however, make melee attacks with longswords.
Okay, simple example. One paragraph, only two sentences. The first one, if taken in isolation, could very easily lead people to conclude that their character simple could never, ever, make melee attacks. So if they then saw a dude using a longsword to attack with they'll be all like "You can't do that!!1!" and even just quote that one line saying "Your character cannot make melee attacks.", and to a casual observer it'll even seem like they're right. But, they're not. They've ignored the additional context that helps explain the entirety of the situation, that "They can, however, make melee attacks with longswords."
I know, silly example. It was just to illustrate the fact that clipping context can lead us to bad conclusions.
When the rules say:
"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. Appendix B includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign."
and you clip out all the extra context and only post:
"As you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity"
You berate me for spreading misinformation and not including the whole paragraph of text, yet in the same breath you literally misquote me on the single sentence I addressed from the paragraph? The irony...
Sure, a sentence within a paragraph builds on the one before it. Yet it doesn't mean all sentences in the paragraph are always adding relevant information that is equally important for the point. A list of examples can be left out if it adds nothing of relevance to the discussion.
Example: Imagine I ask someone to stir the pot after they have poured the ingredients into it, and I then list all the ingredients to make sure we're on the same page. If the person I asked to do this then passes on the responsibility to someone else, and he wants to make sure the orderof things is done right, he doesn't have tomention what ingredients needs to be added to the pot. Because it is besides the point, it is not what he wanted to address, it is not relevant to the conversation. If the new guy wants additional information about another aspect of the process, he is welcome to ask, but can't expect that everything is included from the get-go.
I don't feel like continuing this discussion Rav, but if it is very important for you to continue it, feel free to write me in private so this thread doesn't get derailed any further.
There has been no mention of being a polytheist (if so, I missed it - sorry). It seems to me that, akin to historic polytheist religions, most folks would venerate (or fear) all of the gods, not just one. I think a valid playstyle is to choose a domain and venerate them all. You are still a spokesperson/cleric for 'The Gods!' Perhaps a different one of them listens when you need spells, likely one tied to your domain or maybe just the god/goddess of magic loves spells being used in the world. There are multiple gods for each domain in Faerun for example. Bane, Tyr, Torm, etc. - all can cover War domain. "I ask that the gods help me to defeat my enemies in battle." RP too, you can invoke a God as needed into a situation. "Lethander please help me to heal these broken people" or "Eldath, please help me purify this water." In some ways it makes more sense than having one God. Why would Bane give a rat's ass about me purifying water. I mean, ok I could need to water my soldiers or cavalry horses, but you get the gist.
Another valid option is: You don't know. Ask the DM to decide. This type of scenario was mentioned before. I started worshiping this bug/puddle, and low and behold magic came upon me. I don't know which God is feeding me through the bug/puddle, but my DM sure does. How shocked I may be when I learn the truth... Enter the epic story twist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm afraid that we cannot agree that as a general rule clerics have to choose a deity. They don't. It used to be the design of the class, in previous editions. Which, I might point out, has been changed to remove this requirement. Which, I might also point out, wasn't done by me. This lack of requirement fits into all settings that require the use of a DM, not just mine, not just yours, not just applicable to AL or tournament. This is not a niche rule for "just homebrew" or a specific setting. Just a small footnote, this isn't my homebrew. It's actually RAW.
By allowing the player to choose the manner in which their character devotes themselves to their domain, we aren't changing the game. We're allowing it to be played without setting a requirement that didn't exist in this edition to begin with. This game has changed somewhere in the ballpark of 8 or 9 times over the course of it's life, and is poised to change again. If it does not change, there can be no improvement, only stagnation and the eventual fading away of this portion of the hobby. From my perspective, someone is making the argument that a class has to work one way, and only one way. That argument is fundamentally flawed and subsequently incorrect.
If you were to set this requirement for the entirety of the D&D game, every player, every DM, no exceptions, the game becomes immediately rigid, nearly to the point of being brittle. Players with Cleric PCs must choose a deity and that deity has to exist in every game, everywhere. That deity must be in control of the same domain in every game, everywhere. The player must consider how to interact with said deity in order to appease them to gain, or maintain, their divine gifts and abilities. If a player doesn't feel comfortable with any of it, then they just don't play a cleric. They must choose another class or not play the game at all. Simultaneously, every DM, everywhere has to allow the entirety of this pantheon and the domains that are presented.
I'll admit, there is some hyperbole in there, but not as much as some would hope for. I will conceede the idea that if you want to require your players to act out the rituals to their PC's deity in order to appease them, you can do that too. It still doesn't make it RAW. It does make it homebrew, which isn't a four-letter word and yes, it does have it's own forum.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
There are two basic reasons why a cleric might not worship a god, a boring one and an interesting one, and both of them are pretty dependent on DM approval.
The boring reason is that the source of their power isn't a god. This would be because in the setting for the game there are forces other than the gods which can provide the necessary power.
The more interesting reason is that a cleric gets power from a god because the god believes in the cleric, not because the cleric believes in the god. If a god feels strongly enough that granting you power will serve their ends, they might do so even if you aren't aware of their existence.
But you are choosing a patron if you do that. Another thing is that your character does not know it. I played a character like this recently.
Yes, that is true. But here what is being discussed, beyond the title of the thread, is whether or not the clerics have to choose a deity when creating the character. There are those who argue that they can choose a mountain, a flower, or simply a concept, and there are even those who argue that they do not have to choose anything at all.
I can appreciate that you are sharing your opinion here.
What isn't readily apparent is how your opinion is helpful in furthering the discussion about RAW: As far as the game’s rules are concerned, it doesn’t matter if your world has hundreds of deities or a church devoted to a single god. In rules terms, clerics choose domains, not deities, so your world can associate domains with deities in any way you choose. I might suggest this isn't even an argument at this point and that this last comment is an attempt to stand on a position of authority without any authority. This might be a good opportunity to accept that the rules-as-written allow for more than one way to achieve a cleric's domain choice and how they follow their religion. If you allow only one way at your table, it is within RAW and I recognize your right as a DM to adjudicate that way. This ability to restrain player choice at your table does not transform into a requirement to do so for everyone else.
It seems that what you are proposing is that there is only one way. What's being showcased here is the various ways that the RAW allows for this to happen.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I don't understand why such an aggressive response, so I'm going to leave the topic since it seems that there are people who are bothered by it. I don't understand why, actually, some of you get angry.
The only thing I am saying is that in the PHB it is explained very clearly. Then, obviously, everyone at their table does what they want (which is what the rest of the sources say). You can also play races that don't exist in any official source, if you want. And whatever else you like.
I don't know if I'm the best person to answer this, since I get accused of being "aggressive" even when I'm not trying to be. But, I think sometimes speaking in a very 'matter of fact' manner can be mistaken for hostility, even when there is no ill will present. Speaking as a 3rd party reader, I didn't pick up on hostility or "anger" from his comment, merely a very direct rebuttal.
I suspect it stems from the nature of the disagreement being had here. If you say "A player MUST choose a god" and are arguing this case, then to the side who reads the rules and sees no such requirement it could feel like you're trying to impose some sort of artificial restriction on people that doesn't exist, that maybe you're trying to control other people's gameplay when there really isn't any valid reason to do so. When people have quoted objective evidence that shows the DMG clearly leaves these sorts of restrictions up to individual DMs, it can feel odd to see someone continue to argue that "No No these restrictions apply to everyone's tables always!". You know? Like, what is the motivation for that? I certainly couldn't answer. Everyone will arrive at their own conclusions to those questions, I guess.
I agree with you that the PHB makes it clear that players should be asking questions about their cleric's relationship with divinity. But, the only point of issue here is when we insist that the PHB says that the answers to those questions needs to be, well, anything in particular. It asks quite a few of them, and you're left to fill in the blank. Or, just not answer it. And, all that goes out the window when you examine what the DMG is telling DMs, who run the game. That they're free to design whatever divinity system their setting needs. Ultimately it is a DM call. And the questions in the PHB are purely helpful tips to get players thinking about their character.
I got quotes!
I think this statement reflects the reason a lot of people don't agree on topics such as the one being discussed in this thread. A lot of people see the books as "purely helpful tips". Even among those who see the books as rulebooks, it is not universally agreed upon which parts of the books are considered rules (is everything between first and last page a rule of some sort? Does the text need to cut out fluff for it to be considered rules? Are spell descriptions considered rules? Are class descriptions considered rules?).
Some of the answers to these questions might seem obvious. However, when people take part in a heated discussion everything is called into question, and often arguments are hand-waved if the rules they refer to aren't considered explicit and concise or are written in the wrong section/paragraph/sentence, even if the game designers support the argument in a clear manner on another platform. In this discussion, as in any other, I think it'd be helpful to make sure the participants are on the same page about the very basic concepts, such as "what are considered rules in D&D?".
Regardless, I believe the DMG states the rules on the topic of clerics and deities more clearly, explicitly and concisely than the PHB does, even though I still believe the PHB is also very clear and says more or less the opposite:
Obviously, the reason why the PHB mentions deities so much is because it is a core assumption of the game that deities exist. Further, the relationship between deities and domains looks like this: Deity > Deity's Portfolio > Deity's Domain. So if you choose a domain you also choose a deity (one which has the particular domain in their portfolio). It seems to me that the PHB did a poor job of explaining how to create a cleric, if we assume the DMG has the right of it (PHB: choose deity, then domain vs DMG: choose domain, not deity).
As DMs, we can of course change or remove a core assumption of the game (deities), as well as its implicated relationships with the rules.
PS: If you only get to choose a domain, not a deity, you as a player will never know who the source of your divine magic actually is, which encourages DM shenanigans. Remember, many deities have influence over the same domain, and would want you to further their interests even if you don't praise their name.
It is also necessary to understand that the DMG gives you tools to manage your games, create your own worlds, etc... It is in this context that it must be understood that it gives you absolute freedom regarding how to design your world. And, obviously, and with good judgment, it gives you alternatives so that a cleric can play in your world even if there are no gods or these are not "standard" (such as there being only one, or that they are more similar to concepts or wills, or whatever).
And, of course, in that context of "it's your world, do what you think is best", which is perfect, there is no discussion possible. But neither in this case nor in most discussions of the game.
That's why I said that as a general rule I think we should agree that the clerics should choose a deity. That is the design of the class, and that is how it is explained in the PHB. That does not mean that in your game you can do something else. You're no less free for assuming that if in your game, for whatever reason, clerics don't have to choose deity, you're changing the game. You can do it, it's your game, and you're not playing bad for doing that. But you are changing the core of the class. Covered by the DMG and therefore by an official source? Of course. But even if it wasn't, you're not doing anything wrong either.
And just one more thing, why do examples of deities always appear in the domains, and not other alternative options? Because the core of the class are the deities. It's what defines you as a cleric. Still, as has been said many times in this thread, you can change this in your game. But that doesn't make it any less true that the class is designed for you to have devotion to a deity, which is the one that gives you your cleric powers.
It doesn't help to misquote the PHB though. Even just cherry-picking snippets eliminates the context. We gotta be careful when presenting something as a quote that it is indeed a quote, otherwise we could inadvertently be spreading misinformation.
For example, that ^ bullet point doesn't say the stuff in parenthesis, you've added it. The bit preceding it isn't even the full sentence but you're presenting it as though it was. What it actually says is:
This essentially means 'Pick one of these domains'. This rule just also happens to contain fluff that the domains are associated with deities. Which is nice worldbuilding, but doesn't really impact what the player needs to do here. They need to pick a domain.
The default assumption in core settings is that gods exist and cleric serve them, sure. But the game isn't "assumed" to need to conform to these default settings, which is why it falls into DM purview. And why clearer explanation can be found in the DMG, since it will ultimately be up to the DM to make this sort of call. The PHB even explicitly tells the cleric player to consult their DM for deity selection.
We can find that in the bit you cut out after one of your above bulletpoint "quotes". It says:
This is why cutting the context out can lead to misunderstandings about the rules, as here it points you directly to the one person who is indeed supposed to be able to answer this question for you as a would-be cleric player, your DM.
This sounds like fun. I'm all for it. How can anyone even be sure they do know which "god" or "being" they actually serve anyway? Maybe all the gods are a ruse by some even more powerful mischievous entity who's just really good and pulling off impersonations? Who's to say the gods are even the source of divine magic at all? And if someone is saying so, how do you know they're not lying to you for their own reasons, or just wrong? Fun stuff.
I got quotes!
I got quotes!
I think that many pages ago, even before I intervened, that we are saying the same thing but from a different perspective. And sometimes we just get lost in the sematics.
For my part, the issue is already clear. Now, what I do say is that it is very tiring to find people who are unable to reach meeting points. Unable to see things from the other's perspective. And in this specific case, if you think about it carefully, it's a pure matter of preceptivity. We're saying the same thing, only giving more value to what the PHB explains, or the freedom of the DM (or a specific setting) to modify it.
While I agree that I should've been more clear that I added the clarifying parenthesis myself (I should've used brackets, not parenthesis), I do believe it is okay to not include text irrelevant to the point one tries to make, that is not included in the sentence, and that doesn't change the reading of the text (like certain parentheses or listings of stuff that doesn't matter). There's no need to bog down an argument and quote stuff that doesn't need to be there because it has no influence at all on how the text can be interpreted.
Until you and others in the discussion agree on what is "fluff" and what are "rules", I think handwaving parts of the text is a dangerous practice that doesn't align with your efforts to prevent the spread of misinformation.
I simply don't share your view on when it is okay to not include text in a quote. I believe it is okay to not include text if it has nothing to do with the point you wish to address in the quote, and the sentence is complete without the text you choose not to include. If you believe otherwise, I apologise for making you upset. But I have to ask: If you don't believe it is okay to leave out text that appears several sentences later, and has nothing to do with your point, when do you believe it is okay to leave out text? After a paragraph? A page?
If it is very important for you to have a list of domain types attached to the word "domain" in order to understand what a domain actually is, then I apologise for not including that sentence in the quote. It was simply not important to the point I was making: my point was the sequential relationship between the choosing of a deity and a domain.
Likewise, the reason why I didn't include the sentence, "Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign" , which appeared a couple of sentences later in the paragraph you called into question, was because it had nothing to do with my point, my point being: the PHB states that one of the most important questions to consider when creating a cleric is what deity to serve and what principles to embody. Whether or not the DM has a say in what deities, if any, exist in the world had nothing to do with my point.
I do agree that the process that you are describing is a posibility. I've always held that standpoint. I've even stated as much.
The semantics are the important part of the discussion as they provide the vocabulary and logic behind the meaning of a word, sentence, phrase or text. There are several here that have tried to point out that the choosing of a specific deity is not a requirement. It's allowed per the DM's appointment of a pantheon. The only absolute requirement for the class selection process is the domain. Much like choosing a fighter's Martial Archetype is a requirement, but choosing the school and particular teacher are not. The same example exists in every class progression. You choose the pool of mechanical benifits that works best with your character concept and fill in the framework of your concept with the specifics of how you serve that table lamp that is your deity. If your PC chooses the symbol of Helm emblazoned on a handkerchief as their deity because their conformation bias tells them that's where the power stems from, what does that hurt? How would that change this game? And how would the designers list all of the possibilities that a single person might choose as an alternate "deity" in a pantheon list? Including the designers when the books were published. I'm pretty sure that we can find examples of this exact thing in real life when people find the face of a religious figure on their toast.
It is exceptionally tiring to find someone who will take only the bits that support the conformation bias that their perspective hinges on and then tries to sell this as the rule. My stance on this has yet to change: You run it your way at your table - OK. That doesn't make it RAW.
If you cannot find reason and logic in any of that, then the only thing we can agree on is to respectfully disagree.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
The short answer is 'it depends'. In same game worlds, yes. In other game worlds, no. In Faerun, the gods are known to exist. In Eberron, the gods might or might not exist. On Athas, the gods do not exist.
The only person capable of answering this question is the DM of the game in question.
Xanathar's specifically calls out the possibility of clerics of a pantheon, ideal, philosophy, or force, so it's 100% complete and total RAW.
When your goal is to have a complete understanding of the rules, you shouldn't be leaving out any of it, really. I mean, we're welcome to intentionally disregard stuff, that's one of the Rule Zero sorts of things. 5e empowers DMs to freely ignore whatever they want. But, if we're trying to hold a conversation about the rules more directly, not about any one DMs specific table but more about what the rules say and what they mean, we really should not be ignoring any of it. So, don't disregard any sentences, or any paragraphs. Not if they're contextually relevant to the discussion.
Each sentence in a paragraph builds on the ideas being discussed within it. Ignoring a sentence that has direct contextual meaning just leads to misunderstandings. Lets create an example, pretend for a moment this was a rules excerpt:
Okay, simple example. One paragraph, only two sentences. The first one, if taken in isolation, could very easily lead people to conclude that their character simple could never, ever, make melee attacks. So if they then saw a dude using a longsword to attack with they'll be all like "You can't do that!!1!" and even just quote that one line saying "Your character cannot make melee attacks.", and to a casual observer it'll even seem like they're right. But, they're not. They've ignored the additional context that helps explain the entirety of the situation, that "They can, however, make melee attacks with longswords."
I know, silly example. It was just to illustrate the fact that clipping context can lead us to bad conclusions.
When the rules say:
and you clip out all the extra context and only post:
it can lead you to a bad conclusion, in the same way as the longsword hypothetical. One of the super key parts of that whole paragraph was that you're supposed to consult your DM. That your DM will be able to help you with this step.
Why? Because quite frankly it is literally impossible to create a cleric and choose a deity without input form your DM. You don't even know what gods do or don't exist unless you get their input. How can you possibly choose one when you don't even yet know which list you're selecting from? Can you pick Zeus? DM knows. Can you pick Moradin? Only DM knows. Can you pick Asmodeus? Only the DM knows. Can you worship polka dots as if they were a god? Here too, DM knows.
And the DM? He has additional guidance to consult for how to come up with this answer. The DMG.
I got quotes!
You berate me for spreading misinformation and not including the whole paragraph of text, yet in the same breath you literally misquote me on the single sentence I addressed from the paragraph? The irony...
Sure, a sentence within a paragraph builds on the one before it. Yet it doesn't mean all sentences in the paragraph are always adding relevant information that is equally important for the point. A list of examples can be left out if it adds nothing of relevance to the discussion.
Example: Imagine I ask someone to stir the pot after they have poured the ingredients into it, and I then list all the ingredients to make sure we're on the same page. If the person I asked to do this then passes on the responsibility to someone else, and he wants to make sure the order of things is done right, he doesn't have to mention what ingredients needs to be added to the pot. Because it is besides the point, it is not what he wanted to address, it is not relevant to the conversation. If the new guy wants additional information about another aspect of the process, he is welcome to ask, but can't expect that everything is included from the get-go.
I don't feel like continuing this discussion Rav, but if it is very important for you to continue it, feel free to write me in private so this thread doesn't get derailed any further.
There has been no mention of being a polytheist (if so, I missed it - sorry). It seems to me that, akin to historic polytheist religions, most folks would venerate (or fear) all of the gods, not just one. I think a valid playstyle is to choose a domain and venerate them all. You are still a spokesperson/cleric for 'The Gods!' Perhaps a different one of them listens when you need spells, likely one tied to your domain or maybe just the god/goddess of magic loves spells being used in the world. There are multiple gods for each domain in Faerun for example. Bane, Tyr, Torm, etc. - all can cover War domain. "I ask that the gods help me to defeat my enemies in battle." RP too, you can invoke a God as needed into a situation. "Lethander please help me to heal these broken people" or "Eldath, please help me purify this water." In some ways it makes more sense than having one God. Why would Bane give a rat's ass about me purifying water. I mean, ok I could need to water my soldiers or cavalry horses, but you get the gist.
Another valid option is: You don't know. Ask the DM to decide. This type of scenario was mentioned before. I started worshiping this bug/puddle, and low and behold magic came upon me. I don't know which God is feeding me through the bug/puddle, but my DM sure does. How shocked I may be when I learn the truth... Enter the epic story twist.