D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Sadras]

My posts on this topic have been about two things:

(1) Disagreeing with @Hussar that classic D&D implies and supports polytheism in some fashion that is different from its support for monotheism. I think this is focusing too much on Appendix IV and references to gods in the plural, and not enough on the practical difficulties of making classic clerics and paladins works as priests of Poseidon, Aphrodite, Baldur, Isis, etc.

The only thing more I will say on this matter is, I remember when (and keep in mind I was young) I was looking at Moldvay's Basic and other AD&D manuals I was always perplexed as to why they were using Christian-related imagery as the game resonated strongly with mythology/sword-sorcery fantasy for me, implying polytheism. Anyway that is neither here nor there - just something I remembered.

(2) Trying to explain - based on reading @Yaarel's posts - what I think s/he wants a monotheistic game to look like, namely (a) no clerics or distinctive miracle workers, and (b) an approach to resolution that permits the ingame events to be interpreted by the PCs, and by their players at the table who are making sense of the shared fiction, as expressions of divine will and providence made manifest through "ordinary" happenings.

As I've already posted, 2(a) is not something of personal concern to me as my fantasy games routinely have distinctive miracle workers. But 2(b) is interesting to me because I think it's a very important element in making play of a truly faithful PC viable (regardless of monotheism vs polytheism), and is something I often see ignored or denied on these boards (eg upthread someone posted that the divine will is always a matter for the GM - well, 2(b) contradicts that!).

I agree with you this option is interesting and worth exploring a mechanic for. I don't necessarily agree it is a matter solely for the GM - it really depends on the game/style of the table I guess.

Funny enough, one item in my bucket list is to run a Dracula-Vlad the Impaler set on earth and have a faith based score of the characters where they 'can do stuff' through the mechanic (so monotheism, mundane classes...etc). I even did an in-depth research on Romanian history and actually snuck in a vacation to Romania while travelling in Europe with my wife (we visited surrounding countries so it was easy )

And its not like she didn't know. Pretty easy to figure out after the 2nd+ museum, castle or cathedral!

 

[Mirtek]

So the more the game supports obviously non-monotheistic priests (via domains, for instance) the harder to take them out of the game.

but there's nothing inherently non-monotheistic about domains. All it takes are:
a) polytheistic game: different deities gant different domains
b) monotheistic game: the only deity is granting all domains

 

[pemerton]

but there's nothing inherently non-monotheistic about domains. All it takes are:
a) polytheistic game: different deities gant different domains
b) monotheistic game: the only deity is granting all domains

Sure. But some of the domains - Nature, Tempest, Trickery most obviously - seem more redolent of polytheistic than monotheistic traditions.

 

[Maxperson]

The reference to following "a god" is from Moldvay Basic. And, as I've already posted, it is addressed to player and referees - it tells us (via the indefinite article) that the rule system contemplates the existence of the divine, but not any particular divinity. It doesn't tell us whether or not the gameworld is, by default, polytheistic or monotheistic.

The fact that a group of 5 clerics can all choose not just "a god", but a different "god or a goddess" means that there must be multiple gods and goddesses. It would be impossible for that to occur in a default monotheistic society. It doesn't tell the DM to figure out monotheism or polytheism, it simply offers up multiple gods and goddesses for clerics with that statement.

(It does take for granted that their are Chaotic clerics, the analogue of what used to be called "anti-clerics", but it is easy to conceive of the "dark gods" they worship as not really gods at all in any strict sense. Prototype warlocks, if you like - with obvious allusions to real-world, mediaeval understandings of witchcraft mixed with various cultists of dark gods from pulp stories.)

That's even more of a stretch. "You have to choose a god or a goddess, but if you are chaotic the god or goddess is not really a god or goddess.". Moldvay specifies that you are not a cleric unless you have dedicated yourself to a god or goddess. It does not give the option for witchcraft or a warlock entity. A god or goddess. You've just strengthened our side this considerably.

No one is asserting that monotheism is the default. I'm just saying that it is clearly on the table, just as much as polytheism is. The classes support it, the game rules don't get in the way of it. Whereas polytheism is hard if you don't want a cleric of Poseidon and a cleric of Hermes to look identical, because the rules of the classic game provide no resources for differentiating them.

Polytheism is only that way because they were novice game designers at that point, not because it wasn't the default.

What support is missing? We have warrior-saint/crusader-type PCs in two different mechanical variants (paladin and cleric). That's all that's required!

True! Nobody is saying that it wasn't easy to switch the game to monotheism.

By the way, I looked through the AD&D PHB for discussions of clerics and gods. Here's what I found:

This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times. . . . The cleric can be of any alignment save (true) neutral . . ., depending upon that of the deity the cleric serves. All clerics have certain holy symbols which aid them and give power to their spells. All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/or pointed weapons which shed blood. All clerics have their own spells, bestowed upon them by their deity for correct and diligent prayers and deeds. . . .

Oddly, it never actually says that a cleric must serve one or more gods. It presupposes it. (As usual, Moldvay is a clearer rules text than AD&D.) And while there is talk of "the gods" and "a cleric's deity (or deities)", the actual conception of what a cleric's religion looks like is drawn entirely from a pulpy idealisation of mediaval Europe. This is a game that I think is trivial to run in a non-polytheistic gameworld.

Erm, the relevant sentence you cut out of that first paragraph in between "knighthood of medieval times..." and "The cleric can be of any alignment..." is this.

"The cleric is dedicated to a deity, or deities, and at the same time a skilled combatant at arms."

The cleric IS dedicated to a deity or deities. That very clearly is a "must serve one or more gods.", and it's pretty shady arguing for you to have cut it out of the paragraph.

 

[pemerton]

The fact that a group of 5 clerics can all choose not just "a god", but a different "god or a goddess" means that there must be multiple gods and goddesses. It would be impossible for that to occur in a default monotheistic society. It doesn't tell the DM to figure out monotheism or polytheism, it simply offers up multiple gods and goddesses for clerics with that statement.

This is the first time I've heard you advocating that players are in charge of deciding the pantheon of the campaign world, as part of their PC building.

Erm, the relevant sentence you cut out of that first paragraph in between "knighthood of medieval times..." and "The cleric can be of any alignment..." is this.

"The cleric is dedicated to a deity, or deities, and at the same time a skilled combatant at arms."

Good point! I missed it because it's hidden after a sentence about hit dice size!

 

[Maxperson]

This is the first time I've heard you advocating that players are in charge of deciding the pantheon of the campaign world, as part of their PC building.

I'm not advocating that the players are in charge of the pantheon. I'm saying that it's in the player portion where clerics pick their gods. Unless the DM changes it, they can all pick different gods per Moldvay RAW. The DM would have to change the game to monotheism and inform the players of the change for it to be different.

Good point! I missed it because it's hidden after a sentence about hit dice size!

Thanks!

 

[Darkness]

Now, since [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] has refused to answer any direct questions, I really have to conclude that this is just a trolling. It's got all the hallmarks - unsubstantiated claim about an edition; unsubstantiated claims about earlier editions; and complete refusal to clarify. Yup, it's green and has warts. Well done you sir for trolling a thread. Congratulations.

Don't accuse your fellow posters of trolling, please. If you're wrong, you insulted an innocent poster. If you're right, you gave the troll what he wants - attention. So either way, nothing good comes of it.

 

[Lanefan]

My own view is that, as a game provides options, there is a cost (probably best thought of as a social cost, but in some contexts it might also be a conceptual cost or a completeness cost) to taking those options off the table.

So are you saying it's better that a game provide fewer or no options? That...kinda...doesn't make sense, particularly for something like D&D that's trying to spread the biggest tent it can.

(2) Trying to explain - based on reading [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION]'s posts - what I think s/he wants a monotheistic game to look like...

I've asked him/her for this a few times and still haven't seen a response. Lots of posts here and elsewhere about what's not wanted but nothing about what his-her ideal game would look like or how it would play.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

So are you saying it's better that a game provide fewer or no options?

Better/I] in what sense? I meant what I said - if a game provides options (in the case of D&D, say, a particular class choice) and you want to take that away, there's probably a cost. That's a prediction, not a judgement.

 

[cbwjm]

So are you saying it's better that a game provide fewer or no options? That...kinda...doesn't make sense, particularly for something like D&D that's trying to spread the biggest tent it can.

I've asked him/her for this a few times and still haven't seen a response. Lots of posts here and elsewhere about what's not wanted but nothing about what his-her ideal game would look like or how it would play.

Lanefan

I'm not even sure if they want a game with monotheism since they want a version of D&D with no gods mentioned anywhere, that would mean no singular god as well.* It's a pretty unrealistic requirement in my opinion since D&D has had gods in it for much of its history so I can understand that they would provide some example pantheons. I can't recall what they say in the cleric class, I know in previous editions that gods were mentioned although some also mention following a philosophy.






*Unless this is like the No Homers club which is allowed to have one.