D&D General If faith in yourself is enough to get power, do we need Wizards and Warlocks etc?

[Maxperson]

I’m not sure I understand the difference between a spirit of war and a god of war.

Also, I assumed paladins were required to be good in 2e…

Spirits of War can't have clerics or paladins, only WARlocks.

 

[Deadstop]

I’m not sure I understand the difference between a spirit of war and a god of war.

Also, I assumed paladins were required to be good in 2e…

I think he means "spirit of war" in the sense of "Christmas spirit" (and not the Dickens kind) -- not just a slightly different form of conscious supernatural entity, but the impersonal concept of war itself.

 

[Deadstop]

And that's fine. The question then becomes, however, where do the clerical super powers come from?

That can vary by setting.

"Anthropomorphic gods that are very much like big people" is one option.

"The universe" is another.

"One or more pools of divine energy that believers tap into" (but whether they are sapient is a matter of belief)

"The power of collective belief."

"The words, gestures, and trappings of prayer and worship compel a response from the universe." (Which kind of makes divine magic a subset of arcane magic, but one that accesses different "cheat codes" and no one on either side of the divide admits the similarity.)

Heck, adopt metaphysics similar to Mage: The Ascension and "believing really hard" really can alter reality, though that is a somewhat simplistic and mocking take on that game's cosmology. There, the answer to the starting question of "Why have specific traditions/sources of magic if belief alone can do it" is that it's not just "believing really hard" in the Stuart Smalley way. It's rock-solid conviction. And for most people, that's easier if there's something to believe in -- a religion like most clerics, a set of oaths like a 5e paladin, power in nature like a druid, an ancient tradition of study like a wizard, a system of beings to bargain with like a warlock, even the training and exercise of a fighter. Literally just "believing in yourself" is rare -- even Eberron's Blood of Vol has a whole theology of mortals as actually divine beings being held down by the Man, gnosticism-style. And those D&D editions that allow clerics of non-gods usually mention "philosophies and forces," not just "yourself."

 

[Clint_L]

A "Cleric" is a defined object, not just in the game rules, but in every game world that is based upon those rules. This trend to divorce every rules-object from its corresponding world-object is not good for the game, not even for the games of the people pushing it because it renders everything in the game-- you guessed it-- incoherent.

Nope. It does not. You are just flat wrong. My proof is that I have done it, and the game and story work just fine. Completely coherent. Stop trying to tell me what is or "is not good" for games that you know nothing about. Your theory is getting trampled by my reality.

A hypothesis that is not consistent with the observed facts is a failed hypothesis. The correspondence truth test (does the claim correspond to reality?) trumps other truth tests. Really, what you are offering is another flavour of the argument from incredulity.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Of course WotC should offer an out for people who want to elminate gods from their game. It would be unfair for them not to offer it, which is why they already do in the 5e DMG.

This was my point exactly. I was referring to another poster who argued that WotC should maintain a narrow perspective of what is "allowable."

Powering your own clerical abilities has never been in D&D and would be inconsistent with D&D as it has been presented in any edition. I think it's a fine homebrew solution, but it should not be the default.

It's literally published in Eberron as mentioned with how the Blood of Vol functions as a religion. This has been published many times in many different ways in D&D, going back to at least 3e. Your claim is demonstrably wrong.

Allowing mortals to ascend one option for how you can homebrew your setting and it works fine. However, in no edition of D&D, even ones where mortals ascend, have mortals and gods been the same. They are in fact different. When a mortal ascends, the mortal changes significantly.

No one is saying that mortals and the gods are the same. My point was that divinity, within D&D in particular and fantasy in general, can take many forms and is only limited by the fantasy at any particular table.

 

[mamba]

Since you keep referring to your 'summary' as if this is what I claimed, I will address this after all...

1) WotC shouldn't offer an "out" for people who want to eliminate gods from the game. As best as I can interpret this, you have an opinion of what the game should be, and the fact that WotC even suggests other ways of playing exist is offensive.

no, I said they should find a coherent alternative, not such nonsense as believing in yourself. No gods is perfectly fine.

2) You mention the idea that worlds should follow rules. However, you ignore the fact that rules suggesting a being can be powered by belief in themselves may be internally consistent with the fiction of a given game, even if it would be inconsistent for another game that exists in a different fantasy/reality.

The rules I was referring to in that post are physics, logic, etc. Just writing nonsense down and calling it a rule is not the same thing.

3) Lots of stating things are "nonsensical" without further explanation or evidence to support your claim.

there were explanations for what is nonsensical. For one believing in yourself gives you powers, for another believing in an abstract idea gives you powers.

4) Reiterating that the ideas proposed don't make sense to you, and your preference that the designers of D&D only allowed for your very narrow perspective.

No, there are plenty of options, filtering out the incoherent ones leaves plenty of options for all kinds of stuff still

5) The idea that a god is different than a person, ignoring that in many fantasies gods started as mortals and attained godhood.

and they are no longer regular mortals at that time, so there is no inconsistency there

6) Suggesting that the idea could be internally consistent within a given setting, and then when explanation was given on how it is consistent in various settings, saying the explanation wasn't good enough without providing what objective measures you use to base your standards.

I did not see consistency in the sense that the setting had an explanation for why believing in a concept grants powers, it just states that it does. I was looking for an explanation and never got one.

7) Suggesting that a system that allows belief alone to empower a character must use a Skill Buy system, suggesting that fiction must inform a game's mechanics, which I find to be an incredibly narrow perspective and also ignores the fact that mechanics are an abstraction that allow for the story to be told and the game to be played.

yes, fiction and the game mechanics should not contradict each other, and if you can do anything if you only manage to convince yourself of it, then classes are by definition not a good fit. To be clear, I do not want any system with this 'believe in yourself' approach, so no system 'must' use skill buy.

8) Stating that belief in oneself doesn't make sense, but being a mutant or exposed to some power does (ignoring that this is make-believe and there are numerous stories that exist in which belief can empower individuals and alter reality).

yes, I stand by that

 

[Hawk Diesel]

no, I said they should find a coherent alternative, not such nonsense as believing in yourself. No gods is perfectly fine.

Yea, and what you consider "coherent" is a narrow perspective based in personal bias and ignores the fact that others find it coherent. This is a personal limitation, not one based in any system.

The rules I was referring to in that post are physics, logic, etc. Just writing nonsense down and calling it a rule is not the same thing.

Speaking about physics in a game where you can crap on the laws of thermodynamics and create energy and matter from nothing is nothing short of adorable. The thing that matters is internal consistency within the narrative.

there were explanations for what is nonsensical. For one believing in yourself gives you powers, for another believing in an abstract idea gives you powers.

Once again, personal bias for what is acceptable is not a basis for an argument. It's a statement of opinion, and the way you state your opinion seems to be that your is better than mine which is in itself nonsensical.

No, there are plenty of options, filtering out the incoherent ones leaves plenty of options for all kinds of stuff still

Once again, stating something is incohorent and using personal bias is not a basis for an argument. If you don't like chocolate and don't understand why others enjoy it, that doesn't make chocolate incoherent. It makes it a matter of taste.

I did not see consistency in the sense that the setting had an explanation for why believing in a concept grants powers, it just states that it does. I was looking for an explanation and never got one.

Once again, this seems more of a personal limitation than an argument of "coherency."

yes, fiction and the game mechanics should not contradict each other, and if you can do anything if you only manage to convince yourself of it, then classes are by definition not a good fit. To be clear, I do not want any system with this 'believe in yourself' approach, so no system 'must' use skill buy.

Another personal opinion and bias, not the self-evident truth as you are trying to present it as.

yes, I stand by that

Good! I would hope you stand by your personal preference. I just wish you wouldn't crap on others for liking something differently and using faulty logic to try and "win" an argument about whose opinion is "right" or legitimate.

You aren't the gatekeeper of D&D or the arbiter of what's acceptable. Stop acting like it.

 

[mamba]

Yea, and what you consider "coherent" is a narrow perspective based in personal bias and ignores the fact that others find it coherent. This is a personal limitation, not one based in any system.

of course it is a personal opinion, so is yours / theirs. As to a perspective that excludes delusion as a source of power to be narrow, I disagree with that.

Speaking about physics in a game where you can crap on the laws of thermodynamics and create energy and matter from nothing is nothing short of adorable. The thing that matters is internal consistency within the narrative.

there still are rules, and 'delusion grants powers' is not one I consider coherent. Having gods, spirits, dragons, etc. is all fine, but just being convinced of something arbitrary? No thanks

Once again, personal bias for what is acceptable is not a basis for an argument.

Cool, then bring something else to your side of the equation, so far I have not seen anything else. Until then I am out again

You aren't the gatekeeper of D&D or the arbiter of what's acceptable. Stop acting like it.

I know I am not, never claimed to be. I am simply voicing my opinion, same as you

 

[Hawk Diesel]

@mamba You've made it clear that you have no interest in a good-faith discussion. You just want to assert the superiority of your personal opinion over others and ignore arguments and descriptions of ways that others have managed to create internal consistency with ideas you consider abhorrent. I will no longer be feeding into this argument with you and will instead focus on the others in this thread who are willing to engage in a productive and interesting discussion. I genuinely hope you have fun gaming, but I am thankful that I don't have to share a game table with you.

There are others in this thread who I may disagree with, but there's at least enough common ground and respect to accept their position despite it being different from my own.

 

[jgsugden]

So, a divine caster like a Cleric, Paladin, Druid etc don't need any actual divine link to power and can just use "The power of my inner belief )or love or friendship or self respect etc) to gain divine powers.

So why would a Warlock ever make a deal with Cthulu or a Fey Princess? Why would a Wizard spend thousands of hours pouring over spell books? They can just "Believe in themselves" hard enough and gain magical power. Cannot a Warlock just make an Oath to himself and gain spells? A Wizard Believe in magic so much he just finds it deep inside (but not like a Sorcerer who is just born with it!)?...

D&D in an RPG. A role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. The game works best when you try to develop the story cohesively.

In my setting, PCs have a condition called 'Godtouched'. When the Raven Queen ascended, she did it by killing a God and stealing his power - but instead of keeping it, she put it into mortals. From that point on, the mortals that are Godtouched can advance like PCs. If you're not God touched, it might take you 70 years of study to master 3rd level spells. The Godtouched can do it in a few months.

This fiction allows me to explain away a lot of things. Why does this cleric need a God when that cleric can do it on their own? They have different levels of the touch, or they use the touch differently ...

Am I recommending this approach to every DM? No. But I am recommending that you develop an approach. Figure out the rules of how your world work and how the rules make sense in them. Once you've done it for a bit, you'll find that adapting the rules to your lore, especially around edition changes, gets pretty easy and you can treat situations like these as part of your lore and story - not something to see as a problem.

It can give your campaigns better depth and make them more immersive for your players.