D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Blue]

Except for the evidence I provided immediately after saying it was patently obvious, you mean?

Thank you for your participation.

I have to admit I what I saw was evidence that particular settings deal with their mythos. Which is something that, as part of the cultures in the setting, is appropriate for a setting.

Can you give examples from the rules? PHB and DMG.

The PHB Appendix B seems to be in support of your argument, but it's an appendix for reference and not the main rules.

The DMG has an entire chapter on making your own multiverse, it does not require including any setting. (And if you do, it explicitly calls out that they are yours and may differ from the published setting which means it may not contain the Wall of Faithlessness, pantheons, or anything else of that nature.)

 

[Undrave]

Guys, if you keep arguing in here the mods are probably gonna close the thread...

 

[DammitVictor]

I have to admit I what I saw was evidence that particular settings deal with their mythos. Which is something that, as part of the cultures in the setting, is appropriate for a setting.

Bear in mind, those particular settings are the biggest officially published D&D settings, the default settings of the Third and Fifth Editions, and the models for all organized play and the vast majority of home games.

Those settings are the model the "D&D multiverse" is based on. It's worth noting that all of the D&D settings that deviate from this model... are not included as a part of the D&D multiverse, whether officially in AD&D or by simple omission in 3.X and later.

The PHB states that you can have atheist Clerics, but almost every published campaign setting contravenes this.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I will see your flat denial of the patently obvious and raise you a Wall of the Faithless.

Except in campaign settings that deliberately went out of their way to subvert this-- such as Dark Sun and Eberron-- for the last forty years Dungeons & Dragons has promoted a non-historical and particularly idiosyncratic form of polytheism as the objective moral truth of its multiverse. Because socially necessary magics are gated behind acceptance of this truth, all existing communities and social structures must accept it and pressure their individual members into accepting it.

Only in Planescape is questioning the moral order of a cosmology in which the souls of people who do not worship these deities-- regardless of the deities' own moral alignment-- not explicitly an Evil act.

The theology of the "D&D multiverse" is complete and utter jank, but just like the arbitrary idiocy of its alignment rules, the game's rules demand that we pretend that it makes sense and avoid questioning it.

If you don't see how that's a problem, you're part of the problem.

So, you think that it’s a moral problem that a game world has an answer within its published default lore to the question of the nature of the divine? Game worlds can’t morally decide what the divine is like!? Lol they’re supposed to...what, always write every world in a way that avoids talking about it?

No, obviously not.

If dnd was monotheist and posited that all nonbelievers go to hell regardless of their deeds, you might have a point specifically in that it promotes the majority religious view in the real world, but even then a fictional world having a defined cosmology isn’t morally wrong.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks,

This discussion around the moral quality of defined cosmology is rather far from the original thread topic. And a couple of you started getting a bit... shirty to each other in your approach to the disagreement.

Please do not allow that to continue. Topic drift is fine. Thread hijack by way of being argumentative about a side topic... rather less than fine.

Please consider this going forward - ask yourself if what you are about to write is going to a place you actually want to go. Thanks.

 

[DammitVictor]

If dnd was monotheist and posited that all nonbelievers go to hell regardless of their deeds, you might have a point specifically in that it promotes the majority religious view in the real world, but even then a fictional world having a defined cosmology isn’t morally wrong.

As succinctly as possible, the problem with D&D theology is that it presents worshiping the established gods and participating in the established church hierarchies as being morally preferable to refusing to do so-- despite the fact that Evil gods are part of the same system being supported by the Good gods. It mirrors the disturbingly authoritarian attitudes of many representatives of Earth's more prominent religions and upholds a moral worldview in which preserving the status quo is more important than matters of Good and Evil.

It's okay for a fictional setting to have an effectively Lawful Evil moral foundation.

But how many LE settings have to be published for the same game before you start asking if the publishers are trying to tell you something?

You can have the last word, if you want it-- if you want me to respond, let's start a new thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Nah, I’m good. My response would just be to cut and paste what I already said.

 

[Istbor]

I still want my Dervish!

I also believe that a barbarian chassis is a good fit. When you did your dervish dance, that would be your 'rage'.

Gimme, gimme!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Now I am concious of going off topic, bit I think this needs to be pointed out.

The PHB states that you can have atheist Clerics, but almost every published campaign setting contravenes this.

Did you every think that is because an athiest cleric is an oxymoron?

The cleric was designed as a class that got it power from God (later gods), This made sense in Gygax's worldview, because Gygax himself was a Christian, and believed that God was a necessary part of any universe.

Now it's possible to come up with some other source of power for clerics, and nearly all versions of D&D have acknowledged this and suggested ways to do it, but it requires jumping through some logical hoops in order to do so. Ergo most campaign settings resort to Occam's razor, and go with the simplest explanation for cleric power "a god did it".

The truth is if an Atheist had designed D&D in the first place it simply wouldn't have had clerics or divine casters at all.

 

[Undrave]

I still want my Dervish!

I also believe that a barbarian chassis is a good fit. When you did your dervish dance, that would be your 'rage'.

Gimme, gimme!

I often see the Dervish mentioned but I'm not familiar with is, so what did it look like in previous editions?