D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Demetrios1453]

Regarding D&D tradition.

Basic D&D officially kept religion off-camera, sotospeak. So normally, the topic of polytheism didnt even come up.

Old 0e D&D kept its polytheism in a separate splatbook, more like a booklet. Dont buy the splatbook, then no problem. It was separate from the three core booklets.

Likewise, 1e AD&D kept its polytheism in the separate splatbook, Deities & Demigods. The 1e Players Handbook had a picture of its Cleric as a monotheistic Christian (Catholic) priest wearing a crucifix, who was resurrecting a dead person.

The point is, formative D&D expected and encouraged players to create their own worlds. The official slogan was, "Your imagination is your only limit." If you want your world to have monotheism, then it has monotheism. If you want your world to have, polytheism then it has polytheism. If you want religion to be irrelevant, then it is irrelevant. The rules wanted you to do whatever you want. It rarely proscribed.

Homebrew is authentic D&D. The idea that there would be one "official" setting to rule them all, is anathema to original D&D tradition.

The increase in religious complexity over the course of D&D's history is simply due to the game becoming more complex. Everything was more simple back the start, when you only had four classes and a few races (which functioned as classes) to choose from, and none of those had any variants. More complex rules about clerical worship simply goes hand in hand with fighting-men having rangers and paladins branch off (and having their name revised in the process) and eventually acquiring archetypes (and a more complex rule set).

But, conversely, you do have a point in that the 5e PHB doesn't even mention non-polytheistic systems as an option, which is a bit strange. Looking at the 3.5e PHB, it still does assume polytheism as the default, but does give options for clerics who gain their powers from a cause or alignment, which opens the door to dualistic, monotheistic, or outright atheistic worlds and clerics within them. Obviously, it wouldn't be very hard to house-rule this for a non-standard campaign - clerics worship just one facet of the one true deity, or revere a myriad of saints of that deity, or worship causes or concepts in an agnostic or atheistic world - but again, this should have at least been brought up.

However, when it comes to this, it's not an "official" setting as such (as pretty much all settings in D&D are polytheistic), but more an "official" default for the game as a whole...

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The increase in religious complexity over the course of D&D's history is simply due to the game becoming more complex. Everything was more simple back the start, when you only had four classes and a few races (which functioned as classes) to choose from, and none of those had any variants. More complex rules about clerical worship simply goes hand in hand with fighting-men having rangers and paladins branch off (and having their name revised in the process) and eventually acquiring archetypes (and a more complex rule set).

But, conversely, you do have a point in that the 5e PHB doesn't even mention non-polytheistic systems as an option, which is a bit strange. Looking at the 3.5e PHB, it still does assume polytheism as the default, but does give options for clerics who gain their powers from a cause or alignment, which opens the door to dualistic, monotheistic, or outright atheistic worlds and clerics within them. Obviously, it wouldn't be very hard to house-rule this for a non-standard campaign - clerics worship just one facet of the one true deity, or revere a myriad of saints of that deity, or worship causes or concepts in an agnostic or atheistic world - but again, this should have at least been brought up.

However, when it comes to this, it's not an "official" setting as such (as pretty much all settings in D&D are polytheistic), but more an "official" default for the game as a whole...

Its not in the PHB, but the DMG does have a section on other types of religions and beliefs and how they would work in the context of divine magic from page 9 to 12, IIRC.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Its not in the PHB, but the DMG does have a section on other types of religions and beliefs and how they would work in the context of divine magic from page 9 to 12, IIRC.

OK, I knew it was discussed somewhere, but assumed it would be in the PHB for character creation. It does make sense to be fully covered the DMG, but a line or two in the PHB might have been a good idea...

 

[cbwjm]

OK, I knew it was discussed somewhere, but assumed it would be in the PHB for character creation. It does make sense to be fully covered the DMG, but a line or two in the PHB might have been a good idea...

It may have been, however this type of world building typically falls into the realm of the DM. If the DM creates a world where you must follow one of two conflicting divine forces to gain clerical power, players shouldn't come out and say they are a philosopher priest who gains power through his belief in the divine majesty of humanity.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prosfilaes]

Likewise, 1e AD&D kept its polytheism in the separate splatbook, Deities & Demigods. The 1e Players Handbook had a picture of its Cleric as a monotheistic Christian (Catholic) priest wearing a crucifix, who was resurrecting a dead person.

The cleric is dedicated to a deity, or deities, and at the same time a skilled combatant at arms. The cleric can be of any alignment (q.v.) save (true) neutral (see Druid hereafter) alignment, depending upon that of the deity the cleric serves.

It's actually more restrictive than later versions of D&D, since a cleric couldn't be TN, no matter what the nature or alignment of their god.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m aware of the bystander effect, but in the full context of my and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] ‘s discussion we have a high level cleric, who has to have adventured because Maxperson believes that adventuring or similar activities is the only way to gain level. This High level cleric was not a hero, he was a tomb robber, but gathered wealth and power and became the head of a church. And then when the city is under threat and the people whose faith powers himself and his deity are in trouble will simply do nothing, because he is not a hero.

Despite the fact that even if his deity and himself are relatively selfish, they are better served by helping the community. Then when the church needs followers they can point and say “Who saved you from the Pirates? Who restored the crops blighted by the necromancer? Who kept you safe from the Cult of Orcus?” and so on, and they will say that you did wonderful church of the god we all follow now instead of “Those dusty travelers who burnt down the inn and said they worshipped the god of monkey butts…” Which, I’m 80% certain some group in the realms has had a guy who claimed to worship that god at some point in the last 70 years. Just a hunch.

They have a lot to lose if they don’t and everything to gain by continuing to act like adventurers, minus the burning of bars and other shenanigans, so why wouldn’t they? They don’t even have legitimate concerns of dying from a thug with a knife like most people do, they can be just as confident fighting a group of bandits as your level 13 party is fighting bandits.

Not just a tomb robber. They could have killed ogres and such that attacked them while traveling. It takes a special kind of person to be a hero, and it's not one that just wants some PR for his temple. Heroes are rare. Adventurers are not.

 

[MackMcMacky]

The increase in religious complexity over the course of D&D's history is simply due to the game becoming more complex. Everything was more simple back the start, when you only had four classes and a few races (which functioned as classes) to choose from, and none of those had any variants. More complex rules about clerical worship simply goes hand in hand with fighting-men having rangers and paladins branch off (and having their name revised in the process) and eventually acquiring archetypes (and a more complex rule set).

But, conversely, you do have a point in that the 5e PHB doesn't even mention non-polytheistic systems as an option, which is a bit strange. Looking at the 3.5e PHB, it still does assume polytheism as the default, but does give options for clerics who gain their powers from a cause or alignment, which opens the door to dualistic, monotheistic, or outright atheistic worlds and clerics within them. Obviously, it wouldn't be very hard to house-rule this for a non-standard campaign - clerics worship just one facet of the one true deity, or revere a myriad of saints of that deity, or worship causes or concepts in an agnostic or atheistic world - but again, this should have at least been brought up.

However, when it comes to this, it's not an "official" setting as such (as pretty much all settings in D&D are polytheistic), but more an "official" default for the game as a whole...

The game rapidly became more complex and an explosion of creativity and experimentation went on before 1st Edition ever happened. I have played 1st, 2nd, 3rd (Pathfinder), and 5th edition. I have also played plenty of other systems. I don't find the latest editions particularly complex. In fact, 5th is rather simple and doesn't do certain things earlier editions did quite well and vice versa. Let's not pretend that "Gaming IQ" has magically improved in the last couple of decades. What has happened is a shift in the expectations of what table-top rp gaming is about. The designers now aren't any smarter than the early designers.

 

[MackMcMacky]

So .... I'm trying to grok this.

I can understand that someone might not like FR.

I can understand that someone might not like "polytheism flavor,' (whether it be for montheistic reasons, or because they just don't want gods in their games*).

But I'm not sure I understand what one has to do with the other. The existence of "gods" of some kind (plural) has been there as far as I can remember in terms of flavor (even going back to OD&D), and I don't find that particular to FR.

I would say that, to the extent that a campaign setting has "distant," or "remote," or "absent," or "dead" gods it's usually a specific feature of the campaign that goes against the base assumptions of D&D (such as Dark Sun).

But maybe I'm missing something in your post.



*When god hands you lemons, FIND A NEW GOD!

It makes sense if one doesn't like all campaign settings that are polytheistic.