D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Azzy]

So, yeah, you have your work cut out for you if you want to use D&D with a monotheistic setting where there actually is only one deity in existence.

I think that's hyperboltastic.

What we're left with then, is what has to change, mechanically, in order to have a single deity setting. Really, quite a lot. You need a completely different cosmology (since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have fifteen different Heavens when you only have one god.

That's not really a big deal, though. I've created settings with alternate cosmologies since 2e.

Clerics aren't too bad, all you have to do is outline what a cleric actually is in that setting.

Clerics can work as-is. Maybe limit the access to some domains if your mono-god does not embody certain aspects.

Paladins are probably easier since if you eject Oath of Ancients paladins, you're probably good to go.

Paladins, be default, do not require gods, so they can be used as-is.

It's not impossible to do. But, I would think that you're really going to have to have a lengthy Session 0 with your group in order to make all this as clear as possible. I know I've run into this sort of thing from time to time. When I ran Scarred Lands, I had a heck of a time explaining to a player that no, he can't play an Elven Cleric. The god of the elves is dead. That's why they cannot have children and all current elves are the last of their race. That's the whole point behind elves in Scarred Lands. It was an uphill battle.

This can be true of any alternate setting, but DMs have been using homebrew settings (and cosmologies) since the beginning.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's hyperboltastic.



That's not really a big deal, though. I've created settings with alternate cosmologies since 2e.



Clerics can work as-is. Maybe limit the access to some domains if your mono-god does not embody certain aspects.



Paladins, be default, do not require gods, so they can be used as-is.



This can be true of any alternate setting, but DMs have been using homebrew settings (and cosmologies) since the beginning.

Heh. Preaching to the converted here. I totally agree with you. But, I can see where things might be a bit tricky. Alignment, for example, makes almost no sense in a monotheistic setting. Certainly aligned planes don't. Cosmology rewriting would have to be done. But, then, in a monotheistic setting, how much planar travel are you expecting.

Heck, considering that both clerics and wizards in 5e access the Weave for magic, the only actual difference between the two in Core 5e is that clerics do so through the graces of their deity. If you remove that requirement, then you no longer need gods for a cleric. They simply access The Weave (ie. Magic) in a different way than wizards.

Wouldn't replacing The Weave with "God of this Setting" pretty much solve all the issues? Eject the cosmology, and you're pretty much done.

 

[pemerton]

There may be things which claim to be gods, kings, or Pharaohs, but there is no expectation that any player or PC must take such claims at face value, and in fact I go out of my way to make many of the claims contradict each other. E.g. incompatible creation myths.

It's an open question from the PCs' perspective whether clerics are receiving miracles from their gods or are just another kind of wizard. Wizards tend toward the latter belief--most wizard are too jaded to believe in the religions they encounter unless there are strong cultural factors to make them believe, as with drow--and as DM I know that the wizards actually have the right of it: clerics spells are really just spells.

From the point of view of GMing methodology, my main departure from this approach is to drop the GM authority part - ie it's an open question from the PCs' perspective but also from the participants' perspective (both players and GMs).

For me, this isn't related so much to views about theology in the real world, as to views about how I like to handle questions of value in the context of RPGing. And issues around divinity are - for better or worse - pretty closely connected to a number of questions of value!

 

[pemerton]

For what it's worth, Wikipedia rather disagrees with you here...

OK, but I'm not relying on Wikipedia for my literary criticism. You only have to read HPL to see (as the Wikipedia page you linked to tells us) that "An ongoing theme in Lovecraft's work is the complete irrelevance of mankind in the face of the cosmic horrors that apparently exist in the universe". This is a pulp literary version of the same themes that were being written about by many authors in the early 20th century (influenced by developments in physics - especially relativity - and developments in biology - especially evolution). For a non-fiction and more Whiggish treatment, here's a link to Russell's "A Free Man's Worship". Russell refers to "the world which Science presents for our belief" as one which is "purposeless" and "void of meaning". He goes on,

Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

How, in such an alien and inhuman world, can so powerless a creature as Man preserve his aspirations untarnished? A strange mystery it is that Nature, omnipotent but blind, in the revolutions of her secular hurryings through the abysses of space, has brought forth at last a child, subject still to her power, but gifted with sight, with knowledge of good and evil, with the capacity of judging all the works of his unthinking Mother.​

Russell goes on to articulate his conception of human value within such a cosmological picture; HPL is, in effect, casting doubt on human value - hence cosmic horror.

Given that a principal function of religious belief and practice is to express, uphold, etc human meaning, purpose and value, I don't really see how a literary vision of a world in which the truth consists in s the complete irrelevance of mankind in the face of the cosmic horrors that apparently exist in the universe can be described as a religious or theistic one.

(Of course, if by deity you mean being worshipped by (some) humans then the Great Old Ones are deities, in the sense that there exist cults of worshippers and so on. But in that sense a PC can be a "deity", as a PC can establish groups of worshippers. As I said upthread, when I talk about deities in the context of a RPG world I'm talking about beings which are actually deities - beings who anchor and integrate the greater cosmos into the lives and purposes of mortals. I'm doing imaginary cosmology, not imaginary sociology.)

 

[pemerton]

But, again, this is a bit of a red herring. In Hyboria, for example, gods are, by and large, pretty removed from the setting. You don't have gods making appearances. You don't have spell casting clerics a la D&D. Thulsa Doom gains his power from Set. At least, that's what the books say and there's nothing to contradict that. While, true, he's called a magician, that's simply because the concept of a D&D style cleric didn't exist then. Everyone who used magic was a magician, regardless of where the magic came from.

There are some challenges in talking about this because of board rules, but here's one way to come at the issue: what is the difference (in D&D) between a warlock and a cleric?

Here's my answer: a cleric serves a god; a warlock channels power from a patron. Not every patron who can bestow power is a god. (Eg in JRRT it is at least strongly implied that there are evil sorcerers who can draw power from Morgoth and Sauron, but neither of those two is a god.)

If I wanted to represent the Hyborian priests of Set using the resources of contemporary D&D editions, I would be looking at warlocks, not clerics. They channel dark power. But nothing in the stories suggests that there actually exist gods in the world, being who created mortals and their world for some purpose and who are intimately bound up in the realisation of that purpose. (An oversimplistic description of gods and religion, sure, but enough I think to make my point.)

you have your work cut out for you if you want to use D&D with a monotheistic setting where there actually is only one deity in existence.

<snip>

What we're left with then, is what has to change, mechanically, in order to have a single deity setting. Really, quite a lot. You need a completely different cosmology (since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have fifteen different Heavens when you only have one god. Clerics aren't too bad, all you have to do is outline what a cleric actually is in that setting. Paladins are probably easier since if you eject Oath of Ancients paladins, you're probably good to go. Other than that (and that's not to say that that's a small change) you're pretty much done.

Me, personally, I'd probably change demons and devils to be a single type, probably avoid the elemental types for the most part and focus the campaign on more mundane type critters - humanoids, beasts, and that sort of thing.

It's not impossible to do. But, I would think that you're really going to have to have a lengthy Session 0 with your group in order to make all this as clear as possible.

Which edition are you talking about? 3E or 5e? Absolutely - I've been saying this whole time that they are oriented towards a polytheistic conception of divinity.

1st ed AD&D? All you have to do is ignore Appendix IV. Nothing in the MM will get in your way - there are beings that serve "Lawful Good" ie the divinity (like Lammasu, Ki-Rin, Shedu, etc) and there are two species of evil being (devils and demons) with slightly different anti-divinity agendas. The cleric and paladin classes will work fine (with evil clerics being either the fallen devout, for a more gritty or pathos-laden approach; or being (in modern language) "warlocks" of the devils and demons, for a more pulpy feel).

Not only is it not impossible, it's completely trivial.

 

[Mirtek]

Given that a principal function of religious belief and practice is to express, uphold, etc human meaning, purpose and value, I don't really see how a literary vision of a world in which the truth consists in s the complete irrelevance of mankind in the face of the cosmic horrors that apparently exist in the universe can be described as a religious or theistic one.

that's one definition of religion. However not the only one.

Regardless, a setting with multiple deities that are completely indifferent is still a polytheistic setting even if none of them have any Religion.

While many cosmic horrors in the Mythos are just alien, at least some are also clearly called gods, like Azathoth for example.

Cthulhu himself is indeed no deity and a rather small fish

 

[Shasarak]

There are some challenges in talking about this because of board rules, but here's one way to come at the issue: what is the difference (in D&D) between a warlock and a cleric?

Here's my answer: a cleric serves a god; a warlock channels power from a patron. Not every patron who can bestow power is a god. (Eg in JRRT it is at least strongly implied that there are evil sorcerers who can draw power from Morgoth and Sauron, but neither of those two is a god.)

If I wanted to represent the Hyborian priests of Set using the resources of contemporary D&D editions, I would be looking at warlocks, not clerics. They channel dark power. But nothing in the stories suggests that there actually exist gods in the world, being who created mortals and their world for some purpose and who are intimately bound up in the realisation of that purpose. (An oversimplistic description of gods and religion, sure, but enough I think to make my point.)

It seems to require a lot of technicalities to disqualify Gods as "Aliens" or "Patrons", you would make a fine member of the Athar.

I mean in Conan is Crom a God? Conan prays to him but he certainly does not mollycoddle his followers much so I guess he does not really count.

 

[Mirtek]

I mean in Conan is Crom a God? Conan prays to him but he certainly does not mollycoddle his followers much so I guess he does not really count.

the question should be whether Crom existiert. Set and Mitra both exist as a fact of the setting,

 

[Sadras]

It's important to me that I run a universe where you don't have to take the self-proclaimed gods seriously, because I can't understand how anyone COULD take them seriously. I won't force anyone to do something I wouldn't do myself.

From the point of view of GMing methodology, my main departure from this approach is to drop the GM authority part - ie it's an open question from the PCs' perspective but also from the participants' perspective (both players and GMs).

For me, this isn't related so much to views about theology in the real world, as to views about how I like to handle questions of value in the context of RPGing. And issues around divinity are - for better or worse - pretty closely connected to a number of questions of value!

I try not to touch on the PC's beliefs and the personal deities their characters' follow but rather reflect on NPC deities' and fallen deities' motives and how they sometimes can drive the story or complicate the PCs lives.

So for instance:
Bhaal plans his apotheosis through a spree of murders;
Tiamat desires to escape the the Nine Hells even if it will bring about ruin to the Sword Coast;
Myrkul's essence seeks a champion who will garner enough faithful to provide the means for him to reform;
Nyx pursues the destruction of an avatar (PC revenant - elf) gone rogue;
Ilsundal, being the Immortal patron of elves, attempts to 'save' the spirit of the revenant elf
...etc

In every instance, I'm not making valued judgements on what is right or wrong...these deities are essentially just more powerful NPC's that can and are fallible.

The religious PCs on the otherhand are:
A cleric of A'tar seeks knowledge on how to 'resurrect' his forgotten/dormant deity, Myrkul through temptation attempts to recruit the cleric for his own 'return'; and
A cleric of Ka the Preserver (whom the character has identified as some sort of protector for dragon/lizard-kind) has to face a personal struggle when he is displaced and finds himself in the FR setting and the main antagonist is a draconic deity (Tiamat) seeking to escape the Nine Hells which his personal view might place him against his own party.
I don't impose my GM view on his character's interpretation of Ka, but I present conflicting opinions which challenge his beliefs which will ultimately drive him to make a choice.

 

[Maxperson]

What we're left with then, is what has to change, mechanically, in order to have a single deity setting. Really, quite a lot. You need a completely different cosmology (since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have fifteen different Heavens when you only have one god. Clerics aren't too bad, all you have to do is outline what a cleric actually is in that setting. Paladins are probably easier since if you eject Oath of Ancients paladins, you're probably good to go. Other than that (and that's not to say that that's a small change) you're pretty much done.

Me, personally, I'd probably change demons and devils to be a single type, probably avoid the elemental types for the most part and focus the campaign on more mundane type critters - humanoids, beasts, and that sort of thing.

See, I don't think you really have to change those at all. It's no problem for me to envision a single god who judges souls on their actions and places them on a different plane for all of eternity. I'd leave the planes alone. The same with demons, devils, angels, etc. Demons are varied and some are called devils, demodands, and yugoloths.

I can also see where those changes might be made. It's really up to the DM to decide how much he wants to change, but if you want to make an quick easy change to monotheism, leave that stuff alone.

When I ran Scarred Lands, I had a heck of a time explaining to a player that no, he can't play an Elven Cleric. The god of the elves is dead. That's why they cannot have children and all current elves are the last of their race. That's the whole point behind elves in Scarred Lands. It was an uphill battle.

I think this largely depends on the group. None of my players would bat an eyelash at that.