Do I want a monotheistic campaign setting? The short answer is, yes. The long answer is, be careful what one wishes for. If the defacto definition of ‘D&D monotheism’ would be the DM is ‘God’ and decides what the Infinite thinks, then that too would objectionable. God is infinite; the DM is less so. Basically, Divine Infinity exists beyond the fabric of space-time, simultaneously past, present, and future. 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.
This is one possible monotheistic campaign. But just because there is one god doesn't mean that they have to be a detached god. Nor does a polytheistic religion require the gods to be active in the campaign world. It would be just as simple to design a world where there are no gods, yet there are religions - monotheistic, polytheistic, spirit-based - that are the mortal beings interpretation of the world, with the concept of gods created by them. One could even justify the existence of clerical magic as a function of faith, rather than granted by the gods.
What I want from D&D, and what would make me happy, is a setting-neutral Players Handbook. On behalf of the player, and on behalf of the DM.
This I agree with, although probably for different reasons. I would go a step further and remove most of the fluff, such as the nature of the different races. Those gaps would be filled by campaign setting books. So the elves on one world can be different than another. But the reality is, I can just ignore the fluff given in the PHB on elves, and use that from whatever setting I decide to use. Or make my own.
For the player, I want the player to always decide the spirituality of their own character. Like gender and sexuality, spirituality is an aspect of the deep identity of a reallife human. You cant mess around with the spirituality of a reallife player, unless you have permission from the player, and an opt-in from the player. Similarly, you cant force straight player to play a gay character, or a gay player to play a straight character. You can invite a player to experiment because they might find that entertaining, but if they say, no, it stops there, or the game becomes unfun for that player. You cant force a deeply monotheistic player to pretend to commit idolatry. It becomes unfun. It is nonnegotiable. The player needs a safe space to create a character on the players terms. I want any rules and flavor that the player consults in D&D to be gentle, and to support player choice.
As a DM I agree that I should never force a player to do something that they aren't comfortable doing. However, I have a bit of a more complex perspective on player choice. I think that the rules have shifted
too much to player's choice. It's often difficult as a DM to set campaign rules regarding races and classes, for example. I don't have dragonborn in my campaign. That's often a sore point, particularly when running a public campaign like at a local store. I have a long-standing campaign world, and the races, cultures, history, etc. is well established. I'm extending an invitation to run a campaign for whoever would like to come join me in that world. I make it very clear ahead of time, providing a book of house rules and player information packet letting the players know what their character knows. My expectation is that when you show up at the table, you're ready to play in
that campaign. It gives a specific list of acceptable races and classes (monks aren't allowed, for example, and it is a Forgotten Realms setting, but my specific campaign). When somebody shows up with a dragonborn monk, and a warforged artificer, it becomes a problem. I'm the bad guy because I'm not supporting player choice.
So yes, I will not ask somebody to do something that is offensive to them, against their beliefs, etc. I fully support that. But I prefer a more AD&D (1e) approach to player choice.
For the DM, I want a setting-neutral Players Handbook. When I DM, I require this. When I create a homebrew campaign setting, I need the game rules to support by world-building DM style. It takes a lot of work to evoke the illusion of a world. I dont want players constantly consulting rules whose flavors and setting assumptions are *wrong*, contradictory and confusing. These disruptions ruin narrative immersion. They break the fourth wall, sotospeak, force meta-gaming, and ruin the vividness of the game. I use flavor to build a world, and am sensitive to flavor text. I find unwanted flavor impossible to ignore, and in the current 5e Players Handbook, the unwanted flavor is everywhere.
I can see what you mean. I tend to have a lot of new players in my campaigns. I prefer that they don't own a PHB to start. I like them to focus on their character and what they want to do, and we'll help them learn how to do it. But I have also always created my own campaign PHB. Our home-brew rules are often to support our specific setting. So ultimately I don't have that problem with the regular rulebooks. I started this back in AD&D days, and have continued to do it with each edition I've run.
Compare how one might flavor psionics. If the official rules as written made every single psionic class and psionic power - even their baked-in mechanical rules - explicitly refer to Farrealms flavor, it would be a dealbreaker for many players, even players who would normally love psionics. As a DM, in order to create a homebrew setting where psionics is thematically meaningful, I have to be able to evoke the appropriate psionic flavor in that setting. I need the rules to at least be neutral. So I dont want to fight against every flavor intrusion on every page that a player opens up to consult its rules. Every single time.
If you
need the rules to be neutral, then I'm not sure a game exists for you. I
hate most of the material in VGtM, but I have it, and will use many of the creatures, along with some of the mechanics. But almost none of the first section that details the iconic monsters, and none of the monstrous PC races. But I still get a lot out of the book. In fact, part of what I get out of it is that it helps define what I don't want. I don't like the PHB Battle Master mechanics, so I changed it significantly. Perhaps it's because I started in the days where the rules were incomplete, and
Dragon had alternate ideas on a monthly basis. Not to mention all of the other games and third party supplements of the late '70s/early '80s. So I've always approached the rules as a foundation to be tweaked to fit my setting. AD&D 2e even modeled this by the rules changes they made to suit each setting. Some had more modifications than others, but it highlighted that the game could be even better if some of the rules were tied more closely to the setting.
I want real D&D products that *support* DMs who homebrew campaign settings. Especially the Players Handbook that the players must consult.
I think 5e is light years ahead of 4e in this regard. Since 4e went so far as to alter established settings to fit their new fluff, it made it seem like it was the least home-brew friendly. Yes, there's a lot of fluff, but there are also a lot of nods to highlighting how it could be different in other campaigns, either other "official" settings, or home-brew. Actually, glancing through it now, the PHB, is pretty light on Forgotten Realms material. It's not really until you look to the APs and other releases that the Realms take center stage. The material on gods, in the cleric section, and in the appendix, list deities from all of the major settings, and the major historical pantheons.
I think it's also important to note that polytheism was the default approach for D&D religion since
Gods, Demigods and Heroes for the original D&D set, prior to the release of AD&D, which continued that approach with both
Deities & Demigods first, an article about the gods of the Forgotten Realms by Ed (October 1981, #54) and 10 issues later Gygax started a series on the deities of Greyhawk. So polytheism as the default of D&D goes back much farther than FR.
For both the player and the DM, I need setting-neutral rules. The player needs to define the character, and the DM needs to define the world. The rules need to support this fun that requires alot of work.
I have given up on D&D 5e. As-is,
Players Handbook → Forgotten Realms campaign setting assumptions → polytheism
For me the current PH, thus the 5e game, is unusuable.
Even if WotC put out a pdf, with the 5e Players Handbook content but with neutral rules, that would go a long way to support homebrew campaign settings.
They dont even need to call it ‘Dungeons & Dragons’, maybe call it ‘Quintessence’ (referring to the ‘5th’ edition and to the essential rules), a product line designed to support DMs who homebrew.
Well, again, if it's a
need that the 5e rules fit your vision, then yes, it's not likely to do that. Because I'd be surprised if the 5e PHB really fits any single person's vision.
In the cleric section, there's a couple of paragraphs about choosing a god, but it also says check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign. And the answer in yours might be "none" or "none of the above" or "just one." There are sentences in each domain about specific D&D gods (and they aren't all Forgotten Realms - for example, the Knowledge domain lists 5 deities, and only one is FR), but those are both examples, and letting you know that if you select those D&D published deities, that's the domain for you. It would be just as easy to tell your players that the campaign has no gods, but you can select a philosophy domain for your cleric.
The fact is, gods have been an integral part of the design of D&D from the beginning. The published materials may or may not have promoted that as much or as little over the years. But it certainly was considered a central part of the concept by Gary Gygax.
I do get what you're saying from the standpoint that if it's in the book, players expect it to be that way. Players have been "trained" over many editions now to expect to be in charge of a bigger part of the game then originally presented in the AD&D PHB/DMG. There are some definite benefits to that (especially for their business model), but it does sometimes conflict with the DMs goals for their setting.
When I consider the things I don't like about 5e (which are many, but I really like the underlying mechanics), I am also fully aware that they weren't written for
me, or not even necessarily people like me. It's a mass market game, that's designed to be for the largest group of people, and a "complete" game between the rulebooks and an AP. Religions are a part of that. They've chosen to place most of the APs in the Realms. The people buying them in quantities not seen since the '80s might love that they are in the Realms, they might not care, or maybe they hate it, but they want to play and that's the option they have. Whatever it is, they are selling, and further proving the design team "right" in their decisions and the direction of the game. Unfortunately, that's going to leave you outside that core group if you can't shift from "need" to "want."
The references I was replying to, however, were regarding 1e.
