D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[GMforPowergamers]

I also hate all powerful good aligned characters... it makes the world feel more superhero and less fantasy...

I often call Elminster, Blackstaff, and the 7 sister the Justice League Mystra (or midnight depending on if you know about that switch)

 

[Mercule]

But like real world allies, things are often far more complicated (and temporary). We were allies with Russia during WWII after all.

Agreed. I think you nailed it. The real world is more complicated. Really, even, say, Greyhawk is more complicated. The Realms simplifies everything as far as it can without falling apart, sometimes further.

That seems to be part of the draw.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Agreed. I think you nailed it. The real world is more complicated. Really, even, say, Greyhawk is more complicated. The Realms simplifies everything as far as it can without falling apart, sometimes further.

That seems to be part of the draw.

I don't think it simplifies it. At least not in my campaign. I think the difference is it's a lot more independent organizations, the Zhentarim, Banites, Cult of the Dragon, Red Wizards, Night Masks, etc. Some are more localized than others. But instead of them being states, city-states, or countries, the activity is between non-govermental groups.

When you think about it, that's ingenious, since it means that much of the intrigue and events tend to avoid changing the political landscape. The countries and city-states and such don't necessarily change. It also brings the intrigue down to a level that the PCs can interact with more directly.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not sure why there needs to be conflict or war between two good religions. Remember, the loss of followers diminishes the power of a god. There is already conflict between good gods and evil gods, so even more conflict would be something to be avoided.

If you follow the tangent back you’ll find Ilbranteloth started talking about the Wall, forced polytheism came up, and then people started talking about how most conflicts in the realms are still Religious conflicts.

Except there is no “religious conflict” between the gods of good, it makes no sense. There is political conflict between them and there is competition, but it’s like the family fighting over the pumpkin pie during Thanksgiving. Everyone wants the bigger slices, but you don’t get into a fistfight if someone else gets more than you.

Now, the Evil gods are in conflict, but that’s where my narrative concerns come into play. They don’t have a story purpose that isn’t covered by the other forces, and the limits on their power seem to not be enforced by the mechanics of the game.

Well, the demon lords and archdevils can't almost challenge the gods. They can almost challenge a demigod, the weakest and smallest class of god. Most gods could destroy them with a flick of a finger.

Then, as [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] said, why do the Demon Lords and Archdevils still exist? Why is Orcus still a threat and creating undead if Kelemvor could just smash him and his kingdom to pieces?

There needs to be a reason beyond “They just don’t feel like it” or the world falls apart and the gods are cast in an even worse light than they already are.

Actually, scratch that, why doesn’t Lolth control the Abyss then? OR Tiamat the Nine Hells? They both reside in those realms and are both goddesses, if they are so much more powerful than the other denizens of those realms then why haven’t they taken control?

In this world, we have multiple, monotheistic religions that claim the others are wrong and potentially evil. I've never really figured out how that translates into mass murder, but digging too far into that would probably violate some rules of the forums.

In the Realms (and most other D&D worlds), there generally aren't any religions that claim a monopoly on "the truth about good and evil". They may disagree, but can be allies, as can their followers. Much like real world NATO soldiers could fight beside each other: The American, Brit, and German may all believe their nation is a bit better than the others, but they can still be friends and share a common goal. They may even feel that it's in everyone's best interest to have the others specialize in certain things. Heck, there's even espionage between the groups, but it's rarely at the level of actively destabilizing the others and the soldiers in the field can still get along (usually).

If you look at real world pantheons -- specifically, Greek and Egyptians -- you see a combination of peaceful coexistence and territorial strife. Zeus, Dionysus, Aphrodite, and Hera could all be venerated in the same city, by the same folks with no problem. Apollo, Athena, and Ares all had areas where they were venerated or vilified -- Athena and Apollo, especially, didn't mix and Athena won the PR war. Heck, even Set was considered a good, protector god in some areas of Egypt.

Anyway, the Realms model has very active, undeniable gods coupled with an absolute system of good and evil that comes with detection spells. So, it has the luxury of using just the happy coexistence of gods and simplifying the relationships. I'd be very interested in seeing a setting with the breadth of gods found in the Realms and Greyhawk, but with the alignment squishiness of Eberron. That's not what the Realms (or any standard-issue D&D world) gives, though.

I seem to be phrasing things poorly, because your example of NATO is exactly what I’m talking about. Despite the fact that we Americans are clearly superior to the British (I kid, I kid) no one on either side of the pond is going to say America and Britain are “in conflict” on a regular basis.

That’s why I disagreed with the sentiment that most of the major conflicts in the Realms are based on Religion. Over half the religious forces in the Realms are not in conflict, competition maybe, but not conflict.

They are in Conflict with the Evil Gods, but the Evil gods are this weird thing, where other than saying “I couldn’t have an evil cleric if I didn’t have an evil god because Asmodeus can’t grant clerical abilities to his cultists” they overlap quite majorly with the Demons and Devils. Heck, aren’t quite a few Evil Gods like Tiamat and Lolth denizens of the Hells and the Abyss respectively? Lolth even has though Yocochol demons (the yellow slime looking ones) in the MM that are specifically demons that she made, and her priestesses sometimes sleep with demons to make those Draegoloth things, but we must draw a distinct difference between the two groups.

Essentially, I can see Conflict between the good gods and the evil gods, but the evil gods and the demons and devils all fill the exact same narrative niche, and I don’t know why we can’t just make the two groups synonymous. Mephistopheles is perhaps slightly weaker than Torm, but if the two got into a fight it would be a contest Mephistopheles could potentially win, even if the odds are incredibly low. And this doesn’t change the power structure of the world as much as it just tidies things up and makes it clear how dangerous these beings are, then we don’t need a god of murder, we’ve got plenty of foul monstrous things to advocate murder and assassination without it.

The only god I see working as an evil god is Bane, because Tyranny and iron-fisted rule is something that can be made somewhat neutral in terms of LAW and people could logically go out and try and convert people by talking about unity and the rule of law, whereas advocating for Bhaal sounds more like “And after you murder people, you go and murder more people” which isn’t going to attract a lot of followers.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agreed. I think you nailed it. The real world is more complicated. Really, even, say, Greyhawk is more complicated. The Realms simplifies everything as far as it can without falling apart, sometimes further.

That seems to be part of the draw.

I think most RPG settings tend to simplify things. It varies from setting to setting for sure, but they all are designed with the intent of being accessible to players and DMs. If things are too complex, then that is a barrier to people using the setting, as others have pointed out about the lore in FR. For players and DMs that want more complexity in their setting, they can add the level that they like, whether they draw on existing lore or make up their own material. And for ones who want less, they can remove anything they don't like.

You can run an entire campaign in the area immediately around Phandelver, for example, which is the tiniest portion of the Realms as a whole. Or if you prefer, you can create a campaign that involves all the areas of the Realms in some globe-hopping manner.

But with just about any setting, if you pull at the strings a bit, things tend to unravel.

The reason I like any setting is because they're starting points. My campaign involves Greyhawk, the Realms, Golarion, Athas, and a homebrew world. I use what I like from each, and ignore the rest.....none of them are perfect, each has plenty that I can't stand. But each has enough that I like that I'm willing to use them and focus on the good things.

So as rich as they may be, they're kind of like templates....I take what I like as the base, and then add my own stuff to get the desired complexity.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'd say you are right about Lawful Evil groups attracting Neutral and Chaotic individuals, but the devil is in the details. Nazi's didn't kill people for no reason. They believed in racial superiority and the stated goal of the Third Reich was to put the entire world under their rule (which was the best rule because racial superiority) to prevent future wars and conflicts and lead to a glorious future. Evil and wrong, yes, but the leadership had a goal beyond "murder as many people as possible"

Yes, the leadership might have had goals beyond murder as many people as possible. On the other hand, they didn't seem to have trouble finding plenty of other people to do the murdering for them. And I'm not talking about the soldiers on the battlefields, just the ones behind the lines whose sole job was to round up and kill people. The sheer number of people that were willing to participate in such genocide (and the fact that it continues to happen again and again) is a pretty good sign that there are a lot of people who are willing to turn to hate given the right opportunity.

The church of Bane has the same situation, but without the benefit of a government backing them. What's their mission? Find and kill every faithful of Cyric. Of course, even if the body is found, it was a faithful of Cyric, so how hard is the local law enforcement going to pursue that?

The Mafia is even more defensible from that perspective. They are business people. Sure, you can hire people who like to cause pain and suffering and like to murder people, but if you murdering people causes problems for the family, you get axed. They care about profits first and foremost and if they can do so without killing and maiming people then they will.

You can see rational people following those paths, that's why a lot of literature has mobsters or sometimes even Nazi's (Jojo's Bizarre Adventure) as characters who help the hero. They aren't good or nice people, but they do things that benefit themselves, however a church of murder for the sake of murder... it doesn't work. The closest you can get is making your god more powerful and what does making the Mad god of Lies and suffering more powerful net you, more suffering? I guess the higher-ups could be taking advantage of the god to improve their own power and not because they are true believers but it begins to get a weird set up.

Absolutely. The current Banite Zhentarim leader of Llorkh in my campaign is modeled after characters in Boardwalk Empire and Game of Thrones. Whether it's Hitler or a mob boss, to get to that level you have to have an enormous amount of charisma and skill. Corruption can easily run rampant when you are Lord of a frontier town or even a city state. There's larger state or federal government to act as protector to the populace. They gain in power because they are willing to do whatever it takes to get there, but most of the time its by greasing the right palms - sex and money go a very, very long way. It's all about building a solid loyal inner circle, and using deceit, murder, fear, and violence to take out competition.

As both the Nazi's and the Italian mafia have shown, tying that to religious beliefs is much stronger. Of course, that's also part of what justified the crusades too.

A church of murder works very well when the purpose of the church is to infiltrate any official position that can legally murder. Mercenaries, bounty hunters, the local guard and watch. Oh, and adventurers. This is a land with frontier law, and the death penalty can be applied by the arms of the law. And while magic can determine guilt and innocence to some degree, the law can give a lot of leeway. Like the act of drawing steel is enough to warrant deadly force.

It seems to me that the SS is the perfect model for the church of murder. Even the government of Russia, and certainly other dictatorships or near dictatorships provide plenty of opportunities for such a church. And frankly, if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia I think Europe would look very different today.

I think that WWII era germany is a perfect model for Zhentil Keep or Thay. Perhaps Thay is more like Cold War era Russia. The Lord of Murder doesn't have to be openly, or even secretly worshipped everywhere. Just those two places alone. In addition, being a polytheistic religion, a Banite could nod to Bhaal when committing a murder. For that matter, the act of murder alone might be considered a sacrifice to Bhaal on its own. Just as planting a tree is homage to Mielikki.

And it isn't difficult to worship the gods we're talking about? I mean, you aren't going to go to Sunday Brunch at the house of the guy who worships the god of killing people are you? Or the God of causing other people suffering? How about the guy who worships the God of Poisoners?

These gods are Evil, most places reject them and hunt them down. Worshipping Bhaal seems just as evil and bad as following Bel or Mephistophles.

On to the point about power though, that is not exactly the case is it?

About as difficult as Satanists in our world. And to many religions, Satan is seen as the only threat to God's people. While Asmodeus is often seen as a direct port of Satan to D&D, I'd say Bane is a better match in terms of the amount of power he's given.

Also, most polytheistic religions had evil gods, or at least gods that represented the nature of evil in the world. All aspects of life and the world are typically ascribed to the gods in one way or another. And while the rules have created gods for every intelligent race, perhaps Gruumsh is really an aspect of Bhaal. Or when the Uthgardt barbarians war with each other, that Myrkul is the god they call, but by a different name?

The MM lists Cultist Fanatics, who would be the standard leaders for Demon Cults, as having cleric spells. And Volo's lists Fiend Pact Warlocks as people who may associate with Fiendish Cults, while giving them completely different stats.

Well to start, 5e doesn't use the concept of divine magic in the same way it used to. If you were to compare them, a cleric is quite different in their scope of powers than a warlock (although of course they have to be balanced for game purposes). A cleric has far more magical resources at their disposal, though.

Having said that, perhaps it serves Cyric's purposes to provide such power to those who worship Asmodeus? Spreading lies, deceit, and madness are his goals, no?

I'll admit, it is weak evidence, and I don't have much in the way of old adventures to look up NPCs in, but aren't there a lot of "Cult Leaders" for demonic or GOO beings that ended up using cleric stats? The separation tends to be more a construct for Player Characters than one for saying that Demon Lords and Archdevils can't imitate divine powers. After all, we know from Unearthed Arcana that Bel has Hellknights which are Paladins of Conquest, the lines are a bit fuzzy. As to being able to enter the mortal world freely... they don't actually do that very often, and how can Asmodeus approach someone to offer a pact of power if he couldn't send a sliver of himself into the world to tempt them?

I couldn't answer for 4e, but earlier than that I don't think so. Fiends have generally been used as mercenaries by others (an evil wizard opening a gate, for example). But not able to grant abilities, particularly clerical abilities, to anybody.

Personally? Strengthening the restrictions on beings like gods to enter the mortal realms is a very very good thing, especially at my table. I've got one player who loves to try and call on his deity to help him all the time. And I mean directly help him. Help him kill this thing by showing up and killing it, help him find this item by showing up and handing it to him, Help him solve this puzzle by showing up and telling him the answer, ect. He chose an Aasimaar Zealot barbarian, so as a celestial blooded figure with divine power sent on a mission he feels they should leverage all their power to help him.

"No, they aren't going to" was met with arguments. So, slowly he learned about the veil and the contract that prevents the Divine from touching the world directly. So it was "No, they can't, your power can't pierce the veil separating the worlds to allow them to act". He still didn't like it, and tried to argue around it, but with a solid reason that kept his pride in check, I was able to move on much more smoothly.

He's a bit of a pain at times, but he's a real good friend, and a decent player when he plays the game instead of trying to be the main character of a superhero story.

Reading back over this, I seem to be rambling more than usual. Time for bed!

The gods never enter my campaigns directly, and even my version of "the chosen" is a lot different from what's been published. Greenwood himself has said they aren't anything at all like the superheroes portrayed in TSR and later releases (because TSR wanted something different). Of course, the chosen tend not to be a part of my campaigns directly either.

I've also removed the Divine Intervention ability from the 5e cleric. I don't see the gods acting that directly in the world. The power creep stuff came from TSR, Ed's vision is "looking over the shoulders of “just plain folks” struggling to survive and flourish in the midst of whatever wildness is going on."

That's exactly what I prefer. I don't like the superhero thing (and have never been a comics or superhero fan). I like to see how ordinary people can do extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances. Like Lord of the Rings.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I also hate all powerful good aligned characters... it makes the world feel more superhero and less fantasy...

I often call Elminster, Blackstaff, and the 7 sister the Justice League Mystra (or midnight depending on if you know about that switch)

The original design of the Chosen was quite different:

"That is, Mystra (yes, the name comes from the word “mystery,” because I wanted magic to be mysterious, its details never all known or knowable, but a matter of secrets and personal experimentation; one of Mystra’s sobriquets from the outset was Our Lady of Mysteries) could only hold and contain so much power, or she would collapse or explode into a wild release of raw magical force, which I envisaged as a silver fire (so that’s why another of Mystra’s nicknames is “Our Lady of Silver,” and the Seven Sisters, of Mystra’s bloodline, all have silver hair, tresses that they can move and use like tentacles). She had to vest little pockets of her divine energy, this silver fire, in various mortals. And dare not try to seize it from them, or compel them magically, because doing so would cause the very leakage of silver fire, destroying the mortal, Mystra herself, and most of the world (the Realms) she was goddess of. Hence, the Chosen—free-willed mortals who Mystra tried to raise and train to serve her, but who could defy her (as Sammaster, founder of the Cult of the Dragon, did) or more often go insane under the stress of life and service as a Chosen (many Chosen have suffered this fate, and arguably, Elminster and the Seven aren’t sane; gamers who decry their “randy” natures should realize that they are among the most lonely and grief-ridden individuals in existence, having been attacked and betrayed so often for what they are, and having outlived all their loved ones many times over, so they hunger for human intimacy)."

This was in response to the question Ed asked himself: "If you have a god as a member of a superhero team (for example, Thor was an Avenger, and Hercules one of the Defenders), what exactly do you need any of the others in the team for? And who, beyond another god or god-power-scale being, provides any satisfying opposition to a god, if big onstage battles are an integral part of the storytelling?"

Instead, TSR wanted something different: "Yes, the Chosen had all too ripe a potential to become superheroes, brawling their way across a world and snatching the spotlight away from player characters—particularly when other writers and designers tossed aside the unique nature of the Chosen of Mystra and decided “Chosen” meant “mortal champion of a deity, that the deity infuses with superpowers and sends on missions,” and that every deity should have multiple Chosens, and the arms race was on."

 

[Azzy]

elminster being basicly a molester that you can't do anything about...

Seems legit.

 

[Azzy]

Well, the demon lords and archdevils can't almost challenge the gods. They can almost challenge a demigod, the weakest and smallest class of god. Most gods could destroy them with a flick of a finger.

When the 1e Dieties & Demigods came out, codifying the rules for gods, archdevils, demon princes, and such were treated as "lesser gods" in terms of abilities.

 

[Yaarel]

I appreciate how the 1e Deities & Demigods was a separate opt-in-for-those-who-want-it splatbook that I can easily ignore without headaches of its baked in flavor infecting everything else.