D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[billd91]

If (distant) memory serves, a lot of the articles in Dragons of that era were in effect trial balloons for what became Unearthed Arcana. And UA, when it came out, was intended to be an addition to the core rules; though IME not everyone saw it that way at all.

Same with the Strategic Review and it's precursors for things that appeared in AD&D. That doesn't really make the articles required or baseline assumptions for the game, nor DDG any sort of assumed requirement for running a D&D game. "Official" never meant compulsory. It just meant it had been given the backing of the publisher as appropriate and suitable for inclusion in our D&D games.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If (distant) memory serves, a lot of the articles in Dragons of that era were in effect trial balloons for what became Unearthed Arcana. And UA, when it came out, was intended to be an addition to the core rules; though IME not everyone saw it that way at all.

In real life, maybe; but what about in the game? Have you never played a Cleric to a Norse or Greek deity...or to any other deity with a real-life equivalent (there's lots of 'em)?

Er...offensive how? And again, are you talking in-game or out-of-game?

Lan-"and up the mast goes a flag: square, red, with a black square in the centre"-efan

Yes UA was considered, at least by TSR, as Core. All of the hardbacks were really, although some like D&D were more explicit about the DM making decisions. On the other hand, there were far fewer rule books and the expectation that a high percentage of players would own them more reasonable.

 

[MoonSong]

Interesting collection of (mis)perceptions, most of which I would disagree with...

The super NPCs come in two flavors. In the original Gray Box, the NPCs were designed to be a higher level than any of the PCs intentionally. Not to be super powered, but because villains needed to be a challenge, and the good guys too high to be challenged. This was sort of SOP for D&D, and the approach goes back to the beginning such as where spells of higher than 7th level were originally for NPCs, not PCs. There were a lot of NPC classes for similar reasons, and they were almost always more powerful than PC classes.

The novel (and later incorporated into the supplements) super NPCs arose (I think) due to the popularity of Drizzt. Elminster was required (by contract) to appear in every book by Greenwood. So he'd have him show up for 10 minutes to save the heroes for a moment. I think that the novels is what caused the rise of the super NPC, but they really didn't need to have any part in the campaigns themselves.

Doesn't change the fact they are there and are a part of the setting.

The factions to me is one of the strongest points, and what makes the Realms different from other settings. Like the criminal organizations like the Mafia (and it's various regional differences), Yakuza, and such, they provide all sorts of underlying plot possibilities which were dramatically different from the dungeon crawl approach of the time, or the epic story approach of Dragonlance.

To me the factions facilitate poor storytelling and strain credibility. Why create a a compelling hook when Harper boss is there to give an order? How can an organization be across the whole world? It also creates a miniature version of the super NPCs issue, if those factions are everywhere why aren't they stopping this one problem?

Excessive focus on a single peninsula? Do you mean the Sword Coast of 5e? Most Realms fans seem to be complaining about that too, but that's a new development. Nearly all of Faerun has been covered in depth, with a few specific regions (Sword Coast, Waterdeep, the North (and the far North due to Drizzt), Cormyr, the Moonsea and the Dalelands all receiving extensive coverage. You have lots of options with those alone, and all with their own feel and environment.

Still, the focus is there. Most videogames (and I'd say all of recent ones) are located there.

Everybody picks a god? That's a D&D thing, not a Realms thing. The Realms is more about a true polytheism, other than Clerics, and possibly some of the other (formerly) divine classes like paladins.

From what I can see, it is a realms thing. Check the 2e phb, no mention of deities unrelated to priests/clerics, 3.x clearly marked as optional, I think that the 4e and 5e ones are almost copied verbatim. I mean, I don't see how the Realms are "true polytheism" with all gods demanding exclusivity for their followers.

Thinly fluffed revision of the real world/simplistic analogues of real world cultures, however, is an example of the poor stewardship of TSR. Greenwood's Realms was specifically not a refluffed real world (unlike Gygax's Greyhawk, whose own campaign used a map of earth with his own names). The Horde, Old Empires, Maztica, Al Qadim, etc. were all dumped into the Realms, most of which would have been other projects altogether. While they are officially part of the Realms, many Realms fans would consider them otherwise. Again this is the result of business decisions rather than setting design. And other than Old Empires, are usually given less than a footnote. The 4e changes have largely been disowned as well. Most of the core Realms bears little resemblance to locales or history of earth.

They are still there, it doesn't matter why. They've been there since before I was born.

Wow, the wall is something that really amuses me. Apparently it really, really bothers a group of people. Whatever. I think it's a cool concept, but the reality is, I consider all of the extraplanar stuff about the gods to be a separate entity. To me, the what the churches and religions believe is different and separate from what is really happening in the planes. So to me the wall may be myth, another sort of hell, that sort of thing. But to hate an entire setting because of a fictional wall I find quite amusing.

If it was just the wall, but it isn't. And it objectively is there, it is kind of a reason for everyone to pick your "personal one-true god"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, that was mature.
I disagree that it makes no sense. It makes perfect sense that good religions in a polytheistic society that have no portfolios in conflict would engage in religious conflict. It would be entirely political and competition for for followers.

So, we are in violent agreement and my laughter at such is justified

I don't see how any of that matters. It applies to just about any story out there. A group of highway robbers could be replaced by orc marauders. Kings could be replaced by a councils.

When it comes to demons and devils vs. gods, gods are not only more powerful, but they are more expansive in what they cover and more rigidly bound. Demons and devils don't have portfolios. While Orcus like undead and has a lot of power over them, he does not have nearly the breadth of coverage that a god of the undead has, nor is he going to have the same interest in spreading undeath or protecting undead that aren't under his direct power that the god would have. Orcus is also capable of doing just about whatever he wants, whenever he wants to. The god of undeath has to spend pretty much all of his time focused on his portfolios. He's a cosmic force with a job. Orcus isn't.

The demon/devil lords and gods may have the little bit of overlap you mention, but they can't truly replace the evil gods without becoming the gods. Trying to replace the gods without becoming them would be like 7-11 trying to replace Walmart while retaining the same size and breadth of items offered.

Breadth of Coverage? What does the god of Undeath do that Orcus doesn’t? Bodaks, Ghouls and Liches are all traced back to creations of Orcus, so he’s making undead. His goal is a world full of undead with no living beings remaining.

So creating, empowering and spreading Undead... what more is there? What cosmic job does the God of Undeath do that Orcus doesn’t do plus more?

But more importantly, why not consider them as gods? Why can’t Orcus hold sway over Undeath and there be no god of undeath

To use your store analogy, you’ve got a Wal-Mart, Krogers, Fulmers, and Meijers. Sure, only one of them is Wal-Mart with it’s massive corporation, but if you’ve got all four at the same intersection it just seems weird because they all offer just about the same things.

That's what the angels are for. The Solars counter the demon lords, and so on.
Because of the reasons D&D has set forth that I find quite satisfactory, but for some reason you don't. The cosmos requires demons and devils, so they stay.

“The Solars”, but we know next to nothing about them. They aren’t figures that are named or have much of a presence.

Out of curiosity I checked their MM entry. They are very powerful, and could potentially take on most of the Demon Lords from Out of the Abyss, as long as they could keep their distance and kite the Demon Lord. If they are forced into an even fight they would lose the majority of the time. Heck, Orcus actually has a decent shot if he can cast time stop, because he removes their immunity to necrotic and makes them vulnerable instead and then summons undead to attack with readied actions when the time stop ends.

But even if the Solars are the equivalent of the Demon Lords, that just makes the problem worse. The forces of good would then be five or six times more powerful than the forces of evil, so why does evil still exist? If the God of Death who hates undead and two solars under his command could waltz into the Abyss and destroy Orcus who is a source of so many undead and their evil, and he doesn’t just because... he chooses not to? That makes no sense, his cosmic job is to remove undeath from the world and he could destroy this source of undeath in the world and just chooses not to do it.

A few reasons. One is numbers. If she tried that she would succeed once or twice, then the rest would gang up and destroy her since she's a lesser goddess. Two, she has become a goddess with portfolios and has basically joined the other club. While she is called the demon queen of spiders, she is no longer a demon lord(I'm not even sure she ever was a demon lord). She is a goddess bound like other other gods are to focus on her portfolios.

So, beings that are maybe as strong as the weakest level of deity can gang up and destroy Lolth, who is a full-fledged Deity (though lesser) who also has the power and rank of a Demon Lord, because to be a Demon Lord you simply need to own a layer of the Abyss, which she does.

And her portfolios are Chaos and Evil, both of which the Abyss exemplifies. As well as Destruction and Assassination, which can be justified as her taking control of the Abyss and turning it towards her ends.

I mean, not just Lolth, a lot of the Evil Deities listed (some of them Major) could benefit from ruling the Abyss or the Hells. Heck, Bane is the God of Tyranny, why isn’t he ruling the tyrannical hells himself, it fits like a glove.

Ah, right, WoTC decided we needed demons, devils, and evil gods and they all “serve a purpose”

Frankly, it doesn’t make sense. I hate having to hand-wave “it’s just because” instead of having it be something that makes sense.

You're right that religion is only part of what bothers me. Just giving them a list of gods like the other races seems like such a cop out. *SNIP*

A lot of these are great ideas. I will say a lot of tropical lizards also eat fruits, so a fruit farm wouldn’t be too biologically weird.

I agree with this, but the politics often brings religion into the conflict, because religion moves people of faith more. Even Hitler used religion as a basis for his regime.

But you’ve got to be really careful about that stuff when god can literally send an angel to smite you for misusing his teachings.

So, I don't recall anything about the fiends being portrayed as enemies of the gods and trying to destroy what they have. Most of the time they are involved in the Blood Wars against themselves, and trying (for some reason) to get to the material plane. My reasoning has always been one of souls. If faith provides power to the gods (but not fiends), then stealing (killing) a soul not only weakens a god, but could potentially be used as power in the lower planes. Or something along those lines.

Also, the gods in the Realms are specifically not all powerful. That was one of the driving designs that Ed had at the beginning. His was based on the idea of a goddess of magic. The goddess of magic would be the most powerful, because not only could she shape magic to do anything she'd want, but she could deny the other gods the use of the magic. If that's the case, why are there other gods? So he created the chosen of Mystra, free-willed mortals that hold a bit of her magic. She can't control them, she can't take back the magic, and the magic lives in them and other places outside of her, so she can't prevent the other gods from accessing magic. So she's no longer all-powerful, and neither are the other gods. Together, perhaps, they'd have the resources to kill the fiends, but they are petty, scheming beings just like humans and can't agree on that. Moreso, they don't really care. I don't think they are that much more powerful than the fiends, if at all, and certainly not against the massed armies of the fiends. In fact, to tie into your questions as to why the fiends aren't/can't be gods, perhaps it's just because they haven't been able to be organized enough to amass enough followers. So Asmodeus, being a devil (and lawful good) has been able to take enough control of the hells, that he has achieved godhood. Lolth achieved it through the worship of a single race, in the Realms and other material planes.

The gods of the Realms are focused on Toril, because that's where their power comes from. If anything, I'd compare it to a cold war where neither side has the power to take out the other without mutual destruction. And while gods have been killed, it's become clear that that often isn't permanent.

I know that was the case in 4e, but I don’t know if I heard it before then or not.

Honestly, I can accept your logic above as something that makes more sense as to the balance between Gods and the Lower Planes.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Literally.

‘D&D peer pressure’ to pretend to worship polytheism.

Is cyberbullying next?

Well, to be fair, D&D is an RPG, which means you're playing a role of a character that lives in a fantasy world. Since religion plays such a big part in our world, it makes sense that it plays a part in most fantasy worlds.

Having said that, in 5e, the only class that even mentions a deity is the cleric. And in reality, you can easily just skip that and say "select a domain." From OD&D on, a cleric had a deity. They've removed almost everything relating to deities and alignment.

I don't see how the idea of a cleric or even a person in a fantasy world worshipping a god is inane. At least no more so than playing a game where you're fighting dragons, orcs, and gelatinous cubes. That's not to say that I think you have to do it.

5e has very strong support for home-brew. Perhaps more than any prior edition. That's probably in part due to the internet, but the DMs Guild makes it easy to produce "official" homebrew too.

I am curious, though:
First, are you interested in playing a cleric to start with?

If so, would you object to playing in a world that has gods and you are an agnositc/athiestic cleric?

Do you object to warlocks, who gain their power from other more powerful creatures?

If not, how is that different? Because it doesn't use the word "god" or "deity."

Is it polytheism that's the problem? Is monotheism OK? What about demon or elemental cults?

What if the game were set in ancient Greece?

I'm really interested in understanding, because if somebody in one of my campaigns objected to something similar I'd like to be able to address it as appropriately as possible. If nothing else, I don't want to offend you myself, or make you feel pressured.

 

[Yaarel]

Lets focus on the D&D game. Lets stay away from any reallife culture wars.

Most of us are here because we have played D&D in ways that we found enjoyable and entertaining.

All of us want to maximize the aspects of the game that are fun. And minimize the aspects of the game that are unfun.

We understand that ‘fun’ means different things for different players. We want other players to make the game their own with as little effort as possible.

Some players hate farrealms in their psionics. Some players hate Warlords in their healing. I hate polytheism in my settings.

Polytheism is, to me, moronic. To worship a person because they are powerful, would be akin to literally worshiping President Obama or President Trump. In my eyes, only an idiot would do something like this.

I lack interest in ‘exploring’ fake feelings about a fake religion that is mind-numbingly stupid.

I hate polytheism.

I want zero polytheistic flavor in my campaign settings. I hate the 5e Players Handbook for infecting everything with crappy polytheistic flavor, even to the point of baking its flavor into hard mechanics. It ubiquitous. Even the minimalist Basic D&D pdf mentions ‘gods’, ‘deities’, including reallife polytheism like the gods of Egypt by name, or the Hellenistic gods by name − dozens and dozens and dozens of times.

So far, D&D 5e is the opposite of setting neutral. And I hate that.

 

[Yaarel]

For what it is worth, the last Cleric that I played was a 3e philosophical Cleric. His flavor that I created for his spiritual tradition was the contemplation of light as an aspect of energy and consciousness.

No problem.

The campaign setting was fun. No one thought to stuff any ‘gods’ into it.

The real tension was about cantrips. The DM hated cantrips. I love cantrips, because they mechanically reinforce the magical flavor the character. By that time, I was already playing 4e. I said I wouldnt play 3e unless I can have cantrips. We negotiated. Along the lines of the Ranger ‘energy bow’ in the old D&D cartoon, I built an Elf Cleric who could wield a bow whose arrows were shafts of light. Basically normal arrows that dealt the equivalent of radiant damage (if relevant), and no need to ‘count’ arrows. This was enough of a normal weapon for the DM. It was magical enough for me, and worked well with the light theme. I was happy. He was happy.

The game turned out awesome.

 

[Shasarak]

Polytheism is, to me, moronic. To worship a person because they are powerful, would be akin to literally worshiping President Obama or President Trump. In my eyes, only an idiot would do something like this.

Of course you would not worship a President just because he is powerful. You worship because of the cool stuff he gives you for worshiping him.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I lack interest in ‘exploring’ fake feelings about a fake religion that is mind-numbingly stupid.

I feel like I'm stepping into a trap here, but this just confuses me.


Do you lack interesting in exploring fake political implications of fake kingdoms in a fake world?

Do you lack interest in exploring fake impacts of fake creatures setting up fake homes near fake villages?



I mean, one of the most powerful aspects of Fantasy and Science-Fiction Literature, Movies, Comics ect (to me at least), is the ability to explore an idea through a veil of "What if?"

Sure, its all fake, but if I want to read about real world issues I end up reading about a lot of real world suffering. I tend to find that stuff depressing, so I cover it up with Fantasy and look at the parts I want to consider while not having to go and check out history books and auto-biographies and philosophy books.


It's no more stupid than a sociology experiment, you set up a scenario and see how people react, the fact that it is all contrived doesn't mean anything unless you are hoping to gain hard scientific data which I'm not.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I’ve been frustrated with the Divine Intervention ability recently. What did you replace it with?

I came up with a new replacement, although it's a 2nd level ability to compensate for the removal of the 10th level one.

Divine Intervention
It's the same as a rogue's Cunning Action, except the actions you can use are Help, Use a Skill (replaced the Hide and Search actions in my campaign), and Use an Object actions.

The intention is to allow the cleric to use their bonus action primarily for healing or stabilizing others, but it's pretty flexible to gives them other options too.