D&D 5E Everybody's got to have a Patron deity. Where did it come from?

[Yaarel]

But, political institutions are full of people with different values, worldviews, goals and agendas.


For example, there are major differences between a person who is a Fiscal Conservative, a Social Conservative, a War Hawk, or an anti-establishment conspiracy theorist. This does not mean that you cannot find all of these and more within a group as large and varied as "The Republican Party" nor does it mean that such an organization does not at times work at cross-purposes.

Ideology is too personal and too complex to be accurately defined by the group you decide to ally with, because you can have very different reasons for that alignment than they do

Yeah, in the space for ‘Ideology’, you decide what your character cares about and believes in.

 

[Azzy]

In my eyes, the fixation with polytheism dumbs down and distracts from more interesting campaign settings and themes.

Yeah, yeah, so don't play with polytheism in your game world. Problem solved.

 

[Lanefan]

The other editions of D&D enable personal faith, community faith, philosophies, insight, and so on, to grant spells to Clerics.

I can't really speak to 2e on this, nor 4e; but I don't recall seeing this in any of 0e, 1e or 3e for Clerics.

For Druids, however, yes - some versions have them getting their spells/abilities direct from nature itself (or the planet) rather than a deity.

Lan-"but note with Druids it's a very short step to just say their spells/abilities are coming from the planet's Mother Goddess, or from Mother Nature; and boom - they're divine again"-efan

 

[Yaarel]

I can't really speak to 2e on this, nor 4e; but I don't recall seeing this in any of 0e, 1e or 3e for Clerics.

For Druids, however, yes - some versions have them getting their spells/abilities direct from nature itself (or the planet) rather than a deity.

Lan-"but note with Druids it's a very short step to just say their spells/abilities are coming from the planet's Mother Goddess, or from Mother Nature; and boom - they're divine again"-efan

For example, the 3e Cleric class description in the SRD3, explicitly says:

"
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities.

"


Now the core rules of 3e can do a better job at supporting various kinds of campaign settings, to help the Cleric class fit in them. But at least the core rules give a heads up.

I dont care about ‘official settings’. If I like them, I buy them. If I dont like them, I dont buy them.

But I have to use the core rules no matter what I do. I need core rules to be flexible.



And Cleric domains are a good mechanic. In themselves, the mechanic is setting neutral − and flavorful. They focus on the sacred symbols. This mechanic is helpful for almost any sacred (religious or philosophical) tradition. Fire can be important to monotheistic traditions: Purifying Justice, Holy Inspiration, or so on. Or Daoist philosophical elements (Fire, Water, Soil, Metal, and Tree), or whatever.

There is a benefit for core rules to downplay polytheism.

Let the campaign setting decide.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The other editions of D&D enable personal faith, community faith, philosophies, insight, and so on, to grant spells to Clerics.

So does this edition.

In a campaign setting, ‘Divine magic’ can be as simple as ‘Positive Energy Plane’ magic − especially for healing spells − with zero need for any useless middlemen to obstruct the direct access.

So pick Life domain, check with your DM, and put "Positive Energy Plane" or "Channelling Life Force" or similar in the entry for "Deity" on your character sheet.
Why is this a problem?

The Cleric class is a mistake. No other class comes with so much Cosmological Conformity baggage.

Its pretty thoroughly part of D&D now. Like shapeshifting Druids, spells in discrete level-based slots, or Warlocks bargaining for power.

Is it just the baggage surrounding the game term "deity" that you find hard to separate from its common meaning, implying an actual god? Its certainly not the first time D&D's nomenclature clashed with other meanings of the words.
I feel the same, about D&D's "Longsword" for example.

 

[Yaarel]

Thinking technically. A devotion to a specific polytheistic ‘god’ is a kind of Background for the character. The ‘Bond’ of the Background is the god, an idolization sotospeak. The ‘Ideal’ is the ideas that the god associates with, that the character cares about.

Locating the issue of polytheism in the character Background, is useful. A specific religion becomes one of many options that might describe the kinds of things that a character deeply cares about. Mechanically, it allows the player to flesh out in more detail, how the polytheism plays out.

Players who want to play a polytheistic character can choose such a Background. Players who want to play a devoted monotheistic character can choose the appropriate Background. Players who are more interested in philosophy or politics or personal ambition can choose such a Background.

It becomes easy to offer specific Backgrounds that are pertinent to the themes and tropes that are central to a campaign setting.

 

[Azzy]

For example, the 3e Cleric class description in the SRD3, explicitly says:

"
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities.

"


Now the core rules of 3e can do a better job at supporting various kinds of campaign settings, to help the Cleric class fit in them. But at least the core rules give a heads up.

I dont care about ‘official settings’. If I like them, I buy them. If I dont like them, I dont buy them.

But I have to use the core rules no matter what I do. I need core rules to be flexible.

Well, the core rules are. See the DMG, pages 11 through 13. For instance, under FORCES AND PHILOSOPHIES, it says, "Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. In other campaigns, impersonal forces of nature or magic replace the gods by granting power to mortals attuned to them. Just as druids and rangers can gain their spell ability from the force of nature rather than from a specific nature deity, some clerics devote themselves to ideals rather than to a god. Paladins might serve a philosophy of justice and chivalry rather than a specific deity."

 

[BookBarbarian]

FWIW, there was a time in FR where those without a deity could look forward to an afterlife of being human bricks in a wall (because they were faithless and therefore no deity would take them into their afterlife). So you arguably wanted a deity in FR if you cared the least about your character's soul.

I think I read somewhere that it's changed since then, but I'm not particularly informed about FR so it may be that I am mistaken.

"All in all you're just another brick in the wall" -Ao or maybe Kelemvor?

Yes, I did just ignore 15 or so pages of posts to make a Pink Floyd Reference.

Also does the the official 5e character sheet have a dedicated spot for a deity? I know it has one for a faction, but that's all I can think of.

 

[KahlessNestor]

"All in all you're just another brick in the wall" -Ao or maybe Kelemvor?

Yes, I did just ignore 15 or so pages of posts to make a Pink Floyd Reference.

Also does the the official 5e character sheet have a dedicated spot for a deity? I know it has one for a faction, but that's all I can think of.

No, it doesn't. And my official version doesn't even have a Faction slot. That might be the AL CS.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I found another, and earlier reference than the one in Deities & Demigods.

AD&D DMG pg 111: "Serving some deity is an integral part of D&D."

This is not about the debate as to whether D&D supports monotheism (the entire section under Intervention by Deities makes it pretty clear that AD&D presumes a multi-deity campaign.)

This is in reference to the OP. It's essentially saying that everybody has a patron deity.