D&D 5E Traits, Flaws, and Bonds L&L May 5th

[Derren]

Do real world non-hierarchical religions or devotions use the word 'priest' to define someone who works in it?

Protestant Christians certainly do. Jews and Buddhists also have priests (obviously with other names, but the function is the same).

 

[the Jester]

But would they use the title 'Priest' then?

Protestant Christians certainly do. Jews and Buddhists also have priests (obviously with other names, but the function is the same).

Neopaganism is the example which I was thinking of, and many sects explicitly embraces the terms "priest/ess" and "high priest/ess".

 

[Umbran]

Do real world non-hierarchical religions or devotions use the word 'priest' to define someone who works in it?

Well, no. But then, the majority of people on the planet are not native English speakers.

An Italian Catholic doesn't call their priest a "priest", even though in function the person's in the same basic role. We should probably instead ask if real world non-hierarchical religions have people who work in them who fill the role we refer to as 'priests'?

 

[bogmad]

Protestant Christians certainly do. Jews and Buddhists also have priests (obviously with other names, but the function is the same).

Do they though? Most non-Catholic Christians I know in the states might refer to a "preacher" or even "reverend" from time to time, but most have some connotation that priest refers specifically to Catholics or non-Christian religions.

Except for the Episcopals, they're the protestant exception.

[EDIT: more to the point of the thread] The thing with "priest" is that it denotes a stricter hierarchy and structure. In a real world example, any so-inclined believer can go around and decide that he's a "preacher" and no one thinks too much of it more or less, but a guy who calls himself a "priest" without being granted the title by a specific organization seems more unhinged.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, no. But then, the majority of people on the planet are not native English speakers.

An Italian Catholic doesn't call their priest a "priest", even though in function the person's in the same basic role. We should probably instead ask if real world non-hierarchical religions have people who work in them who fill the role we refer to as 'priests'?

The relevant thing I've been presuming is that "priest" implies some ability to enact rituals. Across cultures, there are three major events that always call for some ritual: birth, death, and fertility (human/otherwise). So "priests" in this general sense do naming ceremonies, weddings, harvest ceremonies, funerals, coming-of-age ceremonies, birth rites, death rites, etc. That's their function in a professional sense, that's their specialization, that's what the society they're in wants them to do, to preside over these uncertain times and get the invisible cloud-people to give it luck.

In a D&D sense, this can imply that they are Divine in some respect (a cleric, or a shaman, or perhaps even a druid?), but it need not. There might be more Wizards who are Priests of Boccob than there are Clerics who are Priests of Boccob -- that is, when you're a follower of Boccob, and you want to name your kid, you take it to a wizard (class: wizard, profession: priest) and she casts a Divination spell and BAM, there's your name. Actual clerics of Boccob might be more like librarians or "defenders of knowledge," so they're who you go to when rumors of lost lore appear in the ruins in the blue dragon's vast wasteland (class: cleric, profession: scribe). A similar distinction might be made for Obad-Hai (druids with the priest profession do most of the priest-ing, while clerics serve more as ambassadors to cities in order to protect the wilderness, with their profession as perhaps Diplomat), or Kord (fighters with priest do the rites, clerics are referees in competitions!).

In a non-hierarchical society within D&D, the majority of the Priests (those with the Profession of Priest, who do the ritual stuff) probably aren't Clerics (due to Clerics in D&D being associated with a certain level of tech -- heavy armor and metallurgy and whatnot), and probably aren't Acolytes, either (due to the implication of "training" for a particular religious role not making sense without much of a religious hierarchy controlling access). Maybe they're more Tribal (background)/Ranger (class)/Priest (profession), and their chief is Tribal (background)/Barbarian (class)/Governor (profession), and their best hunter is Tribal (background)/Ranger (class)/Hunter (profession).

 

[Kobold Stew]

The relevant thing I've been presuming is that "priest" implies some ability to enact rituals.<snip>
In a D&D sense, this can imply that they are Divine in some respect (a cleric, or a shaman, or perhaps even a druid?), but it need not. <snip>

I'm starting with this, because based on it, I think we are on the same page 100%.

The biggest issue I see in your previous message, which set out different possibilities, is this:

If we're going with some flavor of the second possibility, that certain downtime actions are only available to those with a specific "profession," then putting those professions in with backgrounds limits the potential to tell stories about questioning Acolytes and fallen Nobles and Commoners who rise above their station. If we wanted to give these characters useful options, we'd have to allow them to "swap professions" anyway, so why wed these things to backgrounds if they're not really part of the background mechanics?

I agree, and I think such a mechanic is trivial to design.

Already the basic rules allow you to design your own mix-and-match backgrounds (p. 2 "Creating a background"). I see no reason there couldn't be a simple mechanism for switching these things.

Examples:
* Characters may invest two months of downtime to change one of the background skills with which they are proficient (or to change one proficiency, or to change the background trait).
* [and/or] Characters may invest two years of downtime to exchange one background for another (including a new, custom-designed one).

So yes, there should be ways to "swap professions" if that's what people want to do in play. Commoners can rise up from their station; butchers can learn to paint; thugs can learn to sail. All this is possible.

This supports the way I've been thinking about backgrounds in 5e, and how I've been talking about them this morning.

 

[Ratskinner]

I like the general idea. I was a bit disappointed by the description of these as "non-mechanical" aspects of character generation, and as mere "roleplaying guidelines". I think there is a lot of scope to use these to build mechanical systems on - for instance, when you're about to realise your "bond", or when you're forced to violate your "ideal", then things in the game have become a Big Deal, and it would be nice for this to be reflected somehow in the mechanics. (Eg in either case you can reroll one roll in the situation; but if you're violating your ideal then if you fail a roll the GM can also introduce some sort of complication into the situation to reflect that.)

I wouldn't really expect much more out of the "Role-playing" part of D&D, ruleswise. Yes, I'd (maybe) personally prefer it if the game evolved along those lines, but I don't think that the rest of D&D really works well as a "story game"... and well, Fate & Cortext+ exist nowadays, so there's that. Nowadays, I think D&D works best as a much more "gamey" (if perhaps not Gamist) experience. Which isn't surprising, really, that's kinda what was originally intended to be, AFAICT.

 

[Li Shenron]

I really like the general idea of including many mechanics-free roleplaying devices into the core game. Mechanics are a good thing, but a RPG is much more than mechanics alone. I am tired by editions that are mostly only about mechanics, and I am even more tired by gamers who claim they don't need non-mechanical stuff "because I can make it up myself": those are almost invariably the players who end up playing the same PC over and over again.

Anyway, the traits/bonds/flaws/values system is totally optional. It's both a roleplaying aid for players and NPC creation aid for the DM. Without mechanics, nobody forces anybody to use it. Add mechanics, and it won't be easily optional anymore.

"Priest" "Guild Thief" and "Soldier" (others too, but those are the big three) are crucial backgrounds to have, because they say -- clearly -- that these things exist in the world separate from Clerics, Rogues, and Fighters. The separation of background and class was so enriching: one could have a Wizard Solider, a Cleric Guild Thief, a Rogue Priest.

For me, this was a huge advance. Clerics now did not need to be the one who would conduct weddings in the village, for example. For the first time, there was a mechanic that separated your place in society from the class you chose, and it has led to some fantastic role-play opportunities for me and my players.

I completely agree. Even tho backgrounds are technically optional, because a player can opt to freely picking skills & tools proficiencies, they are a great addition.

Background can also have surprising additional uses... You can have an NPC with a background but no class. Just assign ability scores, pick a background and set an approximate "virtual level" for the purpose of determining the proficiency bonus, and the NPC is good to go. No need to make your world-famous master chef a 20th level fighter or (even worse) a 20th level commoner.

In 5e, background don't seem to fill that role of "profession."

Yes they do, although they are "professions" in the broad sense of "how you make your living". That includes stuff as the guild thief (you make a living by one or more illegal activity), the thug (you make a living by extorting money or dirty jobs by commission), the bounty hunter (you make a living by collecting bounties), the sage (you make a living by selling your knowledge or they just make donations to you).

I think the further distinction between backgrounds and professions would be useless.

I don't think focusing on backgrounds as "what you were before adventuring" rather than "what you are when not adventuring" is a good idea. The second interpretation is more consistent with the fact that you actually keep progressing in those proficiencies.

 

[Ratskinner]

The only 'mechanics' you might see is a FATE-style module allowing points to be earned and spent via portrayal of personality aspects. Which will be optional, so only groups choosing to use it will be affected.

I'm fairly certain that something of that sort will be one of optional ...whatsitcalled?..."Advanced" or "Standard" rules.

However, I will also give [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION]* some credit here. In Fate, aspects are sort of self-limiting. That is, you must mechanically take a hit for the aspect being used against you (either as a compel or having it invoked against you) to earn the Fate point. If an aspect is too "good", you won't earn many Fate points to spend on it. Conversely, if an aspect is too "bad" you'll have a difficult time finding ways to invoke it to your advantage. The standard line is that aspects are better if they are interesting and thus engage the GM and other players as well.

This whole process works in Fate, because the mechanics (reasonably) equally in all types of scene; social, exploration, combat, etc. D&D is very much not that way. So, if (in the theorized system) you earn points through "free" roleplay that you can later use in "expensive" combat, its a safe bet that there will be some background/trait choices that are commonly far easier to (ab)use in that way than others (even after table differences are accounted for.) I played in two different groups that tried to add aspects & Fate points to different flavors of 3e and this was one of the problems we encountered. So, unless there's an associated module that regulates role-play/story in such a way as to make a "hit" there cost as much as the benefit in combat earns....and I ain't exactly holding my breath for that, given their other design goals and decisions.

*I feel like that guy in the beer commercial: "I don't often agree with ForeverSlayer, but when I do..."

 

[pemerton]

I wouldn't really expect much more out of the "Role-playing" part of D&D, ruleswise.

<snip>

I think D&D works best as a much more "gamey" (if perhaps not Gamist) experience.

I tend to find that the latter can get in the way of the former if the former is not in some way tethered to the mechanics. If the game forces me to choose between keeping my character alive, and sticking to my conception of my character, then it is forcing an invidious choice. (And also practically begging the GM to start fudging/railroading to remove the invidious choice.)

I don't think you disagree with my general point. I guess what I'm saying is that, if the game is all about playing Beek Gwenders and Fonkin Hoddypeak in White Plume Mountain, then this background stuff seems redundant. But if the background stuff is meant to matter, then let's make it matter.