D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[doctorbadwolf]

As far as I'm aware, the majority of the Seekers believe in the Soverign host, they just reject them as unfit for worship. The Sovereigns created and condemn mortals to Dolurrh, where (the seekers believe) they simply dissipate. Many seekers may believe that the gods do this out of fear or similar, to prevent mortals achieving the divinity that they hold the potential for.
There likely are seekers who believe that the sovereign host simply doesn't exist, but as far as I'm aware, its not most of them.

The Voice of the Flame, whose sacrifice allowed mortals to interact with and be empowered by the Flame was a Paladin of the Sovereign Host. I would imagine that while most followers of the Silver Flame would view the Sovereign Host as too distant and disconnected, they don't refute their existence.

The elven faiths are almost exclusively build around the concept of avoiding the dissipation of the souls of their revered ancestors in dolurrh. They seek to avoid the fate that the gods inflict on the dead, either by keeping them in this plane as undead of a sort, or by keeping the memory of them alive by emulating them.
Again, while a follower of the Undying Court etc, might choose to worship their ancestors, most would not deny the existence of the sovereign host.

I was under the impression that that was regarded as a rather fringe theory.
Even though they might follow and/or worship a different deity, most inhabitants of Eberron see Arawai's hand in the harvest, and the Devourer in a storm etc.

I’m primarily going off of Bakers articles and twitter and forum conversations with him, so it’s entirely possible that my interpretation is non-canonical.

But there are large numbers of atheists in the BoV, canonically. Whether it’s one percentage or another of the faithful is irrelevant. It’s not a tiny fringe, but a perfectly valid way to play a Seeker.

Likewise, I respectfully can’t think of any source that supports your view of the elven faiths as having any opinion at all on the sovereigns.

The people of Eberron absolutely include atheists and agnostics. There is no direct proof the sovereigns exist, and the powers of other faiths aren’t gods. Part of what sets Eberron apart is that atheism and agnosticism aren’t wild fringe theories.

 

[Yaarel]

The ‘sea’ can refer to two different terrains.
• Coastal/Seafaring on the surface of the water
• Underwater deep in an aquatic environment.

The Storm domain works well for the Seafaring themes.

But not for the Underwater themes.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

What would help me as a worldbuilder is for the players to have access to 5e core rules that are truly setting neutral. So that I can be the one who adds the flavor. Likewise, when someone else DMs, I as player can consult these rules while focusing on the narrative immersion in the world as the DM describes.

Heh, and if I have my preference, I will never see an other reference to polytheism in a D&D rule ever again.


I like religious pluralism, cultural differences, and subjective points of view. The spirit of the Eberron setting appeals to me. But the devil is in the details of the rules (mechanics as rules) and in the narrative adjudication (flavor as rules). It will matter how 5e Eberron officially relates to the ‘multiverse’ setting, and whether polytheism is objectively true or not.

I definitely need a break from polytheism. I dont think that should require me to give up on my love for D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

If D&D was overtly homophobic or overtly sexist or overtly racist, most of us would agree that would be offensive and inappropriate, even if it was just ‘flavor’.

But D&D 5e is overtly religionist, and it is equally offensive and inappropriate even if it is just ‘flavor’.

 

[Parmandur]

I personally would like one that has less to do with storms for a sea god. The problem is, the abilities I think they should have would be a modified nature domain that many would consider weak options. At the very least, I think they should be able to adapt to underwater (swim speed, water breathing), command water creatures like the nature domain commands all creatures. Be Aquaman.

I can see them being able to quell a storm at sea, there can be some overlap with the tempest domain, but definitely less thunder and lightning themes.

I think a problem with an ocean domain is that what I want might be quite limited in usefulness for the typical adventuring party, unless playing in an ocean themed campaign. I'd have to be careful to ensure that the majority of abilities are of wider usefulness rather than just useful when in or around water.

I think there is totally room to split it off (the PHB had the Life domain for non-evil afterlife gods like Anubis), but I'm not sure what it would look like.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm, I think you have an apples and oranges problem there. You have three -ists, but the first two aren't the same as the last one. The first two are indeed, pretty unequivocally offensive, and things the hobby has struggled with. Religionist though? Not the same kettle of fish.

That's not to say you personally should 'like' the polytheism inherent in most fantasy, you're under no such obligation. That is not even remotely the same as it being offensive though.

 

[Yaarel]

Religionist though? Not the same kettle of fish.

Anyone who belongs to minority religion who is oppressed by someone elses religion, can understand precisely what the problem is. And in these situations, the oppressors dont even realize there is a problem. The oppressors just think they are doing their ‘duty’ and that everything is supposed to be this way.

 

[Fenris-77]

So, what your saying is that D&D somehow inherently supports or in some way condones real world religious discrimination? Maybe you could elaborate on that beyond "I would understand precisely were I of the oppressed groups" nonsense. I say that because you're making some massive assumptions about who I am and what I understand or don't based on your spurious reading of my post.

What I am precisely asking you to demonstrate is that D&D is 'religionist' is the same way that it very much used to be sexist and racist. Please assume for the sake of this demonstration that I'm not one of your cleverly straw-manned unconscious oppressors.

 

[Yaarel]

Please assume I'm not one of your unconscious oppressors.

Your hostility conveys otherwise.

 

[Fenris-77]

Please forgive me if your uniformed critique of my ethical compass makes me salty. Honestly, that was salty sarcasm there though, not outright hostility (sarcasm is a fault of mine, right enough). Mea culpa if it read differently.

Maybe we're of differing opinions about how your post above parses out. It read, to me anyway, like a pretty blatant "you wouldn't understand anyway.." strawman. Specifically because I asked a question, and then you told me "that I would understand if I were X". With the unstated corollary that I obviously don't understand and aren't X because I asked the question in the first place. If that isn't what you meant than please forgive me. If that is what you meant, then I'm not the one being unfriendly, not be a long shot.

Back on point though, D&D is religionist because....