D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Yaarel]

Who "hold the sun and moon to be deities.." according to 1e.
Sorry.

Actually, my point exactly.

The 1e players I played with, always interpreted that rule to mean:

The nontheistic ball of fiery gas and the ball cold reflective dust, can also count as if ‘deities’ according to the rules as written.

Thus the technical jargon ‘deities’ includes nontheistic concepts.

The 1e Druid players who I have experienced (including myself) absolutely understood the rules to mean reverence for inanimate objects because they are part of ‘nature’.

My Druid (one of my favorite D&D characters) revered earth, soil, rock, metal, and crystal.

Spells worked fine.

Likewise, the Cleric characters interpreted the word ‘deity’ in various nontheistic ways.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 1e players I played with, always interpreted that rule to mean:
The nontheistic ball of fiery gas and the ball cold reflective dust, can also count as if ‘deities’.

Or, y'know, the sun is literally Bel and the moon literally Dannu.

Thus the word ‘deities’ includes nontheistic concepts.

Just apply the same level of aggressive logic to any other game, and you'll be fine.

 

[Yaarel]

Just apply the same level of aggressive logic to any other game, and you'll be fine.

It isnt fine in 5e.

5e is too ubiquitous in its references to polytheism. It is unlike 1e or 3e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It isnt fine in 5e.
5e is too ubiquitous in its references to polytheism. It is unlike 1e or 3e.

You let 1e off the hook for a bit of fluff that you choose to interpret as expanding the definition of deity, when everything else in the ed is more consistent with interpreting it more literally than that. Without that - and that's all you - it's more firmly deity- and polytheism- insistent than any other edition.
5e gives you unlimited latitude in that regard, as DM, go ahead and do the same thing for it. 4e gaves you that much room for re-skinning as a player.

But, in terms of the actual content of the game, it's 2e that had official, meaningful, and extensive support for non-deity Clerics. Yeah, 3e & 4e, in an off-handed way, said you could be a cleric without a deity, and just work exactly like one with a deity. In 2e, you had actual guidelines and mechanics for the DM to define such a priesthood.

Still no support for monotheism in any of 'em, though.

 

[Blue]

Personally, I am sick of the monolithic polytheism in 4e and now 5e.
..
For me, when D&D 5e coerces polytheism, it feels exactly the same as if there were Jehovas Witnesses knocking on my door every single morning of every single week. Even after I have clearly said, no thank you. (Note, I have never actually had this problem. In my experience, Jehovas Witnesses have been respectful, and dont spam.) But D&D 5e does spam polytheism. And I am sick of it.

Respectfully, I don't understand and I would like to. I see no problems creating monothiestic settings in D&D. No rules changes needs, I would have to properly skin for my world like you do for any setting. Druid and rangers are straightforward. Clerical domains would likely be patron saints as everything could be encompassed within an omnisceint being - or perhaps that being and their eternal adversary. Warlocks are from non-divine sources of eldritch power. Paladin oaths are just liek different orders of knights all upholding the same deity but with different human charters and direction. Celestials and fiends can be servants or once-servants. the divide between demon and devil may not fit well if relicating some real world religions but when designing a setting it could be made to fit.

So I'm missing something.

You have given this a lot more thought than I have, help me understand.

Thank you.

 

[Yaarel]

You let 1e off the hook for a bit of fluff that you choose to interpret as expanding the definition of deity.

Because the references to polytheism are only a few, and isolated. It is easy to ignore. And they are clearly an option, one of many options, and not a default.



I also want to point out, it is the natural interpretation of ALL FIVE of the 1e campaign groups that I have played with.

1e is full of conflictive rules. In one place, it says a Cleric is devoted to a ‘deity’. A related context says things like the ‘sun’, ‘moon’, ‘nature’, trees, elements, also count as if a ‘deity’. The flavor of the Druid is about actual, literal, features of nature. For us, it is a no-brainer. It is how to make sense of the conflictive texts.

Maybe if we were playing with polytheists who kept on trying to push their religion on us, I could see how they could interpret the rule that way. But that possibility never occurred to us.

The idea that a Druid was required to worship a god, was ... incorrect.

The interpretation that ‘deity’ can mean different kinds of sacred concepts is the natural one. At least for us, in our gaming experiences and our gaming communities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because the references to polytheism are only a few, and isolated. It is easy to ignore. And they are clearly an option, one of many options, and not a default.

I'm sorry, we've been down that road. They're pervasive, you just chose to re-define "deity."

I also want to point out, it was the natural interpretation of ALL FIVE of the 1e campaign groups that I have played with.

That /you/ played with. You excuse me if I point out you don't seem like a shrinking violet when it comes to this kinda stuff.

1e is full of conflictive rules.

It is. And 5e is full of ambiguous ones. And both tell the DM to take 'em your own way (and 4e even let the player do so through re-skinning the fluff), so why you're willing to take the mental gymnastics to the level of parkour for one, but not so much as break out the mat for the others, IDK.

And, in one edition, 2e, there was no need to do any of that. The support for non-deity divine sources was actually provided.

 

[cbwjm]

We're getting off topic a bit here it seems...

Let's get back to archetypes? What would a Rogue with a touch of Divine Power be like?

I'd like to see a holy slayer. An assassin with some divine abilities to back up their stealth and assassin abilities killing the enemies of the faith.

 

[Yaarel]

@Tony Vargas

I identify with the ‘Worldbuilder’ kind of D&D player.

All I can say is.

When I use 3e and 1e to build a world, it is fun and easy.

When I try to use 5e to build a world, it is f***ing painful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I identify with the ‘Worldbuilder’ kind of D&D player.

I've certainly done more than my share of worldbuilding in D&D - I'm not much for published settings....

When I use 3e and 1e to build a world, it is fun and easy.
When I try to use 5e to build a world, it is f***ing painful.

1e was what it was - and making it into something else was not easy, but extremely popular, back in the day. 3e was a PitA to work with, both because it was so detailed it even insisted on using the same mechanics for both PC and Monsters, and because of the communities RaW obsession, which made introducing house rules like pulling teeth. Yet I did extensive world-building for both of 'em. I re-used one of those worlds in 4e without issue, too.
5e is DM carte-blanche, the non-PCs of whatever sort can just be designed to the level of detail you care for, there's nothing stopping you from designing a world any way you care to, because you can change/introduce whatever you like.