D&D General If faith in yourself is enough to get power, do we need Wizards and Warlocks etc?

[Maxperson]

So a strawberry farmer who love their fruit cast goodberry? No. Because it's not easy to draw on the power of belief. Harder that becoming a godded cleric.

Cleric of Philosophy is player inclusivity option. One where the community doesn't force you to roleplay lore accurate.

It's like a warlock who never interacted every with their patron. Technically you can do it but canonically it would be rare or hard to manage.

Clerics of a Philosophy have been around in D&D since before inclusivity was really a thing. It just made sense for philosophies/religions like Buddhism or Taoism to have clerics, and once you've gone there, you have to allow D&D to create new philosophies/religions along those lines.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The power of belief in D&D has been a staple for decades.

I know, it is one of those developments I found myself resisting though.

 

[Minigiant]

Clerics of a Philosophy have been around in D&D since before inclusivity was really a thing. It just made sense for philosophies/religions like Buddhism or Taoism to have clerics, and once you've gone there, you have to allow D&D to create new philosophies/religions along those lines.

Allowing Taoism or Buddhism in your world is inclusivity itself.

But it has to be like you said, there has to be enough belief in Taoism or Buddhism in your world and it to not be divinely dead for you to tap into the power in order to become a cleric.

Which goes back to the belief in oneself. A cleric who isn't following the tenets of a major philosophy or the support of a major society staple would have to power it themselves and likely be a crazy person.

We only let players make these clerics or themselves or some minor aspect without role-playing to the extent they should be roleplay to be nice and remove the drawbacks of having to deal with such a character.

Bruce, Cleric of Bruce not roleplaying a crippling narcissist is canonically incorrect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So a strawberry farmer who love their fruit cast goodberry? No. Because it's not easy to draw on the power of belief. Harder that becoming a godded cleric.

Cleric of Philosophy is player inclusivity option. One where the community doesn't force you to roleplay lore accurate.

It's like a warlock who never interacted every with their patron. Technically you can do it but canonically it would be rare or hard to manage.

But if you don't actually make it rare or hard to manage for the player, then that functionally doesn't matter. You're to the modern narrative of "PCs are a different order of being from everyone else". Not how I want to play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Clerics of a Philosophy have been around in D&D since before inclusivity was really a thing. It just made sense for philosophies/religions like Buddhism or Taoism to have clerics, and once you've gone there, you have to allow D&D to create new philosophies/religions along those lines.

All of which have rules and doctrines to follow if you want to remain empowered, or at least they should.

 

[Maxperson]

All of which have rules and doctrines to follow if you want to remain empowered, or at least they should.

10 to 1 says I can come up with rules and doctrines for the Philosophy of the Strawberry. I can even come up with a large body of adherents. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a thing.

The point is that in a fantasy world, players/DMs should be able to come up with a philosophy for the PC cleric to follow, with tenets and such.

 

[Minigiant]

But if you don't actually make it rare or hard to manage for the player, then that functionally doesn't matter. You're to the modern narrative of "PCs are a different order of being from everyone else". Not how I want to play.

But if you don't make rare, most D&D settings don't make sense.

That's the whole premise of this thread.

 

[Deadstop]

This is why I was never able to get behind 4e's narrative here. It was so obviously designed to allow players to have their super powers with no obligations.

Or, perhaps, to allow for easier creation of stories of subversion, internecine strife, or just clerics going off and starting their own sect without the god immediately revoking powers. Or, heck, within a PC, the real-world drama of a priest who doubts or sins or starts thinking about the religion in a new way without immediate confirmation of "the right answer." Why immediately jump to "it's so people can play clerics without the obligations"?

People still play clerics because they like the fantasy of being tied to a belief system or higher power. People still play paladins because they like the idea of championing a difficult ideal. That remains true even in versions without the looming threat of power revocation.

 

[Deadstop]

Heck, the 4e "investiture/ordination" narrative is how Catholic priests (undoubtedly among the most familiar real-world clerics to Western gamers) are understood to work in real life. Now, of course, their "superpowers" are sufficiently subtle that non-Catholics quite reasonably don't think they have any. But while the Church can strip someone of the social role of the priesthood, forbidding him from active ministry and returning him to the lay state for all practical purposes, technically it can't revoke the actual powers of the priesthood. God Himself presumably could, but it's understood that He does not, for the sake of the faithful. You never have to worry that your confession or holy communion wasn't "real" because the priest has secret doubts about God or is shagging a lady on the side or whatever. God still provides the power even if the priest is being a more-unworthy-than-usual conduit for it. And even one of those laicized "ex-"priests can use his powers in a life-or-death emergency, such as if he's the only recourse for a dying person who wishes to confess and be absolved before death.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or, perhaps, to allow for easier creation of stories of subversion, internecine strife, or just clerics going off and starting their own sect without the god immediately revoking powers. Or, heck, within a PC, the real-world drama of a priest who doubts or sins or starts thinking about the religion in a new way without immediate confirmation of "the right answer." Why immediately jump to "it's so people can play clerics without the obligations"?

People still play clerics because they like the fantasy of being tied to a belief system or higher power. People still play paladins because they like the idea of championing a difficult ideal. That remains true even in versions without the looming threat of power revocation.

It's nice that you can find ways to make that narrative work for you, but a game so relentlessly focused on player empowerment and gamist concerns over setting clearly, IMO, created that rule so players could have the powers they want and there's nothing the DM can do in-universe about it.