D&D 5E Everybody's got to have a Patron deity. Where did it come from?

[Ilbranteloth]

Heh. What books?

In order for me to play 5e, I would moreorless have to rewrite a whole new Players Handbook to remove the unwanted flavor and supply a different setting flavor.

My 5e PHB is up to 130 pages (only 8 of which is spell lists/spell descriptions right now). Of course, I've done the same thing with every edition, and I'm actually working the deities into the book more since I wanted to tie the book more closely to my Forgotten Realms campaign.

But in your case, most of the stuff is the fluff that isn't part of the mechanics, and that would be easier if you wanted to do it. Plus, if you took the time to do so, you could release it on DMsGuild so others who feel the same could benefit.

I don't know how many people will like my mashup to make it more like AD&D/2e, but somebody might.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That's convoluted logic. How about quoting a published rule in any edition that requires a patron deity for other than divine casters?

Here it is again:

From Deities and Demigods (1980):

"No fantasy world is complete without the gods, mighty deities who influence the fates of men and move mortals about like chesspieces in their obscure games of power. Such figures can be perfect embodiments of the DM's control of the game. They are one of the Dungeon Master's most important tools in his or her shaping of events.

The gods serve an important purpose for players as well. Serving a deity is a significant part of AD&D, and all player characters should have a patron god. Alignment assumes its full importance when tied to the worship of a deity. The possibility of the invocation of divine wrath, should the player make a serious misstep, make alignment conduct a much more vital concern."

And both 2e in several locations, and 3e, indicated that all classes/people tend to have a patron deity.

 

[Yaarel]

My 5e PHB is up to 130 pages (only 8 of which is spell lists/spell descriptions right now). Of course, I've done the same thing with every edition, and I'm actually working the deities into the book more since I wanted to tie the book more closely to my Forgotten Realms campaign.

But in your case, most of the stuff is the fluff that isn't part of the mechanics, and that would be easier if you wanted to do it. Plus, if you took the time to do so, you could release it on DMsGuild so others who feel the same could benefit.

I don't know how many people will like my mashup to make it more like AD&D/2e, but somebody might.

You are doing it right for your campaign setting.

For me, technically, my campaign setting wouldnt be using the Forgotten Realms setting, thus couldnt use the DMs Guild.

In any case, the work and time necessary to rewrite everything is daunting, and when 5e is so unworkable, it makes me give up hope.

I have loved D&D for so long, and I respect the mechanics of 5e. The polytheism killed a good thing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Heh. What books?

In order for me to play 5e, I would moreorless have to rewrite a whole new Players Handbook to remove the unwanted flavor and supply a different setting flavor.

Yes, that is what making a completely different setting is like.

I even had to make up cities and noble lineages and magic items.



Do you know what you would have to do if they provided a completely neutral set of rules that provided no setting material at all?

The exact same thing. Literally. If you want a rulebook with zero fluff so you can write in your own fluff, then there is no difference between getting that and rewriting all the fluff currently in the book. You’re writing the same thing either way.


So.... go ahead an write an awesome campaign setting. It's a ton of work but I think it is worth it as long as you enjoy evolving your own world and filling in the blank spaces.

You are doing it right for your campaign setting.

For me, technically, my campaign setting wouldnt be using the Forgotten Realms setting, thus couldnt use the DMs Guild.

In any case, the work and time necessary to rewrite everything is daunting, and when 5e is so unworkable, it makes me give up hope.

I have loved D&D for so long, and I respect the mechanics of 5e. The polytheism killed a good thing.

I think you misunderstand what DMs Guild is. It is a place for homebrew materials of all sorts. It doesn't matter if it involves FR or not.

You seem really determined to cut off alternative avenues here, if you like the rules use them, if you want to post something to DMs Guild, do so, if you want to use something use it.

It is nice if the game provides us things we want, like new classes or races that are hard to make on our own. But, settings are a beast we can tackle ourselves, especially if we have a vision that is unusual for fantasy settings.

 

[Yaarel]

I think you misunderstand what DMs Guild is. It is a place for homebrew materials of all sorts. It doesn't matter if it involves FR or not.

You might need to doublecheck the legal fineprint for DMs Guild.

Content Guidelines: ‘You cannot create content for ... personal settings, or any other D&D setting that is not specifically’ ‘Forgotten Realms’ and ‘Ravenloft’.

http://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217028818-Content-Guidelines

For years now, WotC has been pushing polytheism and pushing hard.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's convoluted logic. How about quoting a published rule in any edition that requires a patron deity for other than divine casters?

You aren't required to find the logic compelling. For the purpose of explaining the origin of the concept, it suffices that enough other people thought it made sense.

If you buy into the premise of this thread, then that idea had to come from somewhere, and it makes sense that people might see the line on the character sheet and make assumptions. People make unfounded assumptions all the time, especially when they're twelve.

 

[FarBeyondC]

You might need to doublecheck the legal fineprint for DMs Guild.

Not Chaosmancer, but sure:

You can create system generic content. You can also create content for Forgotten Realms (Faerun) and Ravenloft.

You cannot create content for Eberron, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Dragon Lance, Zendikar, personal settings, or any other D&D setting that is not specifically listed above.

Hmm...

Comparing that to this:

Content Guidelines: ‘You cannot create content for ... personal settings, or any other D&D setting that is not specifically’ ‘Forgotten Realms’ and ‘Ravenloft’.

It seems like you missed a rather important sentence (with very relevant implications) in your summary of what the guidelines say.

Odd, wouldn't you say?

 

[SkidAce]

You know, while I do not agree with [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] at all, I gotta respect the normal, reasonable, and consistent replies they have given.

Game on!

 

[Yaarel]

For the record, Yaarel is a he.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

You might need to doublecheck the legal fineprint for DMs Guild.

Content Guidelines: ‘You cannot create content for ... personal settings, or any other D&D setting that is not specifically’ ‘Forgotten Realms’ and ‘Ravenloft’.

http://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217028818-Content-Guidelines

For years now, WotC has been pushing polytheism and pushing hard.

I know that's the case, but I've seen a lot of material on there that doesn't specifically tie to either of them. Regardless, the SRD allows you to use the SRD any way you'd like, whether you post it on DMsGuild or not. Including something for sale. Or a few paragraphs on how to utilize the monotheistic PHB with the Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft. Since you want it to be setting neutral, that should suffice.

I'm still going to disagree that they are "pushing" anything, much less "pushing hard." The game is designed around polytheism, they've maintained that consistently across all editions. The three sentences in the 3.xe PHB hardly represent a change from that. The only difference at all is that more fluff of all types has worked its way into the PHB. This includes religion.

But for fun, here are a couple of searches of the 5e and 3.5e SRDs:
http://5e.d20srd.org/search.htm?q=god (5e: 6 results, 3.5e: 84 results)
http://5e.d20srd.org/search.htm?q=gods (5e: 11 results, 3.5e 103 results)
http://5e.d20srd.org/search.htm?q=deity (5e: 18 results, 3.5e 113 results)
http://5e.d20srd.org/search.htm?q=deities (5e: 18 results, 3.5e 118 results)

Assuming no overlap (and there is) that's 53 objectionable sentences in the entire 5e SRD (vs. 418 in the 3.5e SRD). Many of them are also not objectionable. For example, here are the 6 entries with the word "god" in the 5e SRD:

"Your magic and an offering put you in contact with a god or a god's servants."
"You have spent your life in the service of a temple to a specific god or pantheon of gods"
"The being must be known to you: a god, a primordial, a demon prince, or some other being of cosmic power."
"(Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)"
"A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon."
"The GM chooses the god and associated alignment"

Of those, only one "(Even half-orcs...)" is explicitly polytheistic.

Of the other results, there is overlap and a lot of non-objectionable sentences. I only searched for a couple of deity names. St. Cuthbert comes up in one of the entries, Apollo along with a couple of other names, most that I searched didn't come up. Presumably there won't be any D&D ones because they are protected IP and not part of the SRD. If you object even to the name mythological or fantasy gods being used as examples, then you might find a few more. But it certainly is much less than even the 3.5e SRD that you say is acceptable. Hardly "pushing hard."