D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[pemerton]

What challenge is here? Does the player actually believe in the existence of these false gods? If not, then they cannot possibly believe in their efficacy nor should it be a violation of their piety

The theological and like merits of the issue I leave to [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION].

But I am working from this post:

Do I want a monotheistic campaign setting? The short answer is, yes.

<snip>

In a monotheistic game setting, the Divine normally intervenes only subtly and indirectly, because, the Divine desires humans to make the world a better place by means of human effort. The risk to humans is real. The good that humans do is real. Normally God is hidden. God is most ‘visible’ when other humans are doing good things. In other words, if the DM wants to supply the team with help via some NPCs or items whose opportune timing is ‘miraculous’, that can be fine and fun. But in terms of actual game rules, monotheism is part of the background flavor without any need for mechanical rules.

As I read that post, the divinity in the gameworld manifests just as (the monotheist we are discussing believes that) it does in the real world. In both cases, it is via providential events and human goodness. And so the monotheistic player is not, in playing his/her character, obliged to entertain or affirm the existence of any false god.

The actual gameplay challenges I identified upthread - one is about how to handle clerics (probably they have to go altogether - miracle-workers with a special connection to the divinity seem to be at odds with the providential/"via human goodness" account of the manifestation of the divine), and the other is about how to allow ingame events to be interpreted by players in a providential fashion (which rules out a certain sort of "hard sim" understanding of the randomness of the dice rolls corresponding to or reflecting the randomness of the gameworld).

As I also posted, the first of these challenges is not one I've ever tried to meet - my fantasy games typically have miracle workers drawing powers from divine beings. But the second is quite important to me in my RPGing, because I see it as necessary if a player is able to play a truly faithful PC, as opposed to a PC who naively believes in providence when the world is, in fact, a Conan-esque world of cold indifference to human concerns.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I will disagree.

If a philosophy is the source of their power, then the source of their power is not a deity.

IMO deity has a specific meaning. I of course agree that they CAN and DO have varying sources, many of which are not gods (nor deities...)

I'm not making a judgement on the word itself, - just the way that it is used in 5e.

In the lists of "deities" in the PHB, there are some religions that are not gods/goddesses, but philosophies, ancestors, and other divine power sources.

 

[KahlessNestor]

The Valar aren't gods. There is only creator ("The One", Eru Iluvatar). The Valar are analogous to angels.

You could make a similar argument for Ao and the FR deities, then. The Silmarillion clearly gives the Valar a part in Creation with Iluvatar, and each one has a sort of "domain" that they added to the song of creation.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Middle Earth had only one god named Eru Iluvatar. Eru means "The One". The Valar were Archangels and the Maia were the lesser angels. He created them to help create the universe.

I agree with everything else you said there, but I thought I'd point that out.

I know this, but I think it's analagous to Ao. And the Valar are no different power-wise than any FR deity. They're certainly more "god" than "angel" in D&D terms.

 

[Maxperson]

True, but, being in service to "a" god, certainly implies polytheism. If you have "a" god, and not "the" god, you can very easily have multiple gods. And the fact that you can be in service to "a god or goddess" strongly implies that both exist simultaneously and that you choose one or the other to be in service to.

In any case, that line is hardly the only piece of evidence. The fact that EVERY SINGLE D&D setting has been polytheistic since day 1 (was Blackmoor polytheistic - there was a later City of the Gods module, so, I guess so). Arguing that D&D has ever supported a monotheistic set up is ignoring virtually every single publication for the past forty or so years.

Not every publication in the last 40 years. I'm not sure if it was given as an option in 1e or 2e, but the 3e Deities and Demigods gave monotheism as an option for your game.

 

[Maxperson]

I know this, but I think it's analagous to Ao. And the Valar are no different power-wise than any FR deity. They're certainly more "god" than "angel" in D&D terms.

Maybe. They could also be Solars in D&D terms, which have been described as almost godlike in power, and at least one said to have been capable of being D&D gods had they wished to go that route.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Never in my life did I meet a person worshipping the concept of monotheism itself. Sure plenty of people worship a monothoistic deity, but if they're deeply religious it doesn't matter whether D&D replaces their deity with one different fictional deity or multiple fictional deities

As long as it's not their deity it's idolatry to them

Not really. Some of us monotheists are perfectly capable of recognizing a game for what it is.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

Not every publication in the last 40 years. I'm not sure if it was given as an option in 1e or 2e, but the 3e Deities and Demigods gave monotheism as an option for your game.

I guess that's my fault for overstating.

But I'm thinking that a couple of pages in a supplement isn't really a whole lot of support. And again, none of the published settings are monotheistic.

Be that as it may, I'm fairly confident in my point here. DND has always been polytheistic. I'm still kinda wondering why 5e is being singled out here.

 

[Mirtek]

Not really. Some of us monotheists are perfectly capable of recognizing a game for what it is.

Obviously not, or there would not be a Problem with multiple fake deities vs. a single fake deity.

I could even understand if the concept of multiple fake deities would be Seen as less offensive (as makes them even less divine in the eyes of a monotheist than a single monotheistic fake deity faking the true god too much for comfort), but i can't wrap my head around how it could be the other way rund (aka I am fine with just any deity whatsoever, if only she's monotheistic)

 

[KahlessNestor]

Because it landed this week in the middle of this topic:

https://manifest.zone/04-religion/

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app