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

[Minigiant]

If you can get whatever superpowers you want by believing hard enough, then seeking external power is meaningless. An awful lot of stuff in D&D seems pretty pointless if that's true.

Like I said earlier in the thread.

The process of getting powers without an external intelligent force is a lot more difficult that with an external force. Often costing one's mind or soul or freedom.

D&D DMs don't enforce this the same way DMs don't sic minions on disobedient or underproducing warlocks.

 

[Scribe]

If you can get whatever superpowers you want by believing hard enough, then seeking external power is meaningless. An awful lot of stuff in D&D seems pretty pointless if that's true.

The number of people who cannot believe in themselves, but can follow others fanatically, is extremely large, on Earth, today.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If you can get whatever superpowers you want by believing hard enough, then seeking external power is meaningless. An awful lot of stuff in D&D seems pretty pointless if that's true.

Your logic applies to theistic clerics, too. "If you can get magic from just worshipping a god, why would anyone go through the trouble of studying to become a Wizard or Bard? A lot of D&D classes seem pointless if a literal Deus Ex Machina can grant full spellcasting to anyone devoted to a god." The reason why both arguments are wrong is because there's more to being a Cleric besides having a favorite god or philosophy.

The answer to how Clerics channel divine power could be whatever you want it to be as a DM/world designer. Maybe the narcissistic cleric literally has to pray to themselves daily (like older editions had for theistic clerics), severely alter how they treat others because they think everyone is beneath them, or has to write scriptures based on self worship that they have to adhere too. Or they have to forfeit worldly possessions, restrict their diet, take a code of honor (for paladins), or any number of ways to restrict roleplay in a way that feels clerical.

Again, what I am talking about isn't simply "believing in yourself" or having self confidence. It would be channeling the power of belief/soul magic through similar means that theistic clerics do. This could appear in any manner of ways, whether it's a narcissistic egomania, a Buddhist/Mormon belief in self-perfection and enlightenment, or channeling the magic of your soul to produce miracles.

The folly in your viewpoint is that you stubbornly believe that it would be inherently easier to get cleric magic without a patron deity (or assuming that people who want to play clerics without a god want to do so as a short cut of getting power without actually working for it). The extremely simple and obvious solution to this is that you make it as difficult to gain magic as a nontheistic/narcissistic cleric/paladin as it is as a theistic cleric/paladin.

I enjoy and allow the concept of a nontheistic cleric because I like the themes you can explore with it. Tackling the Planescapian/Discworldian concept of belief as power. Allowing for Buddhist-inspired Clerics, whose power is channeled through drastically changing their lives in an effort to gain self-perfection. The nuanced and unanswered debate from Eberron about whether divine magic comes from divine beings (like the settings' inactive pantheon, the couatl magic of the Silver Flame, or extraplanar entities), your soul/divine spark (The Becoming God/Blood of Vol), or sheer belief in and devotion to the divine. The mutability of settings like Theros, where new religions can pop up by cult leaders gaining enough fanatical devotion from a religious/political following and how that can set up adventure hooks.

Edit: I like how open ended and inspiring the concept is. If you take a few minutes to think about the possibilities, it just allows for so many possible religions that restricting clerics to choosing a specific god to follow doesn't allow for. Not that the standard type of cleric is bad, I just prefer the Eberron approach. Others disagree, and that's okay too. I just think a lot of the proposed "issues" with the concept are leaping to conclusions that the premise doesn't lead to and I'm pushing back on the dismissive "OneTrueWay" attitude some people have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My point was more that if a DM wants to mess with you, there is not really anything you can do about it, short of finding a different DM. I agree that different people value different things differently, so it still might be beneficial for someone to not have their powers taken away, if that is the one thing they really care about and can tolerate the rest.

As a DM I am very reluctant to take powers away, it basically never happens, and certainly not without quite a few warnings about the path the char has chosen first. So far this has been purely hypothetical, even the threat almost never shows up.

It's not a matter of them "wanting" to mess with you. It is literally baked into the rules.

Your reluctance to use a tool does not mean the tool is not there. This is quite a bit different from comments about DM latitude within the rules, e.g. rules that explicitly embrace a wide berth for DM judgment. This is very explicitly putting the loaded pistol into the DM's hands and saying, "The safety is off. Do with it what you like."

 

[mamba]

It's not a matter of them "wanting" to mess with you. It is literally baked into the rules.

so is that the DM can change rules, etc., they can still mess with you

Your reluctance to use a tool does not mean the tool is not there. This is quite a bit different from comments about DM latitude within the rules, e.g. rules that explicitly embrace a wide berth for DM judgment. This is very explicitly putting the loaded pistol into the DM's hands and saying, "The safety is off. Do with it what you like."

I see little difference there, and I very much doubt that most players of clerics consider themselves hostages to the DM's whims, who at any time might just take all their toys away, whether the rules allow for that or not.

This whole line of reasoning of players needing protection from unreasonable DMs who just exist to screw them over is weird to me. If this is how you feel, then D&D is not the right game for you, you need one that ties the DM down much more.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like I said earlier in the thread.

The process of getting powers without an external intelligent force is a lot more difficult that with an external force. Often costing one's mind or soul or freedom.

D&D DMs don't enforce this the same way DMs don't sic minions on disobedient or underproducing warlocks.

Except it doesn't, because in your vision the player wants superpowers without following the narrative of the class that gets them, and it just happens because you want it to.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Except it doesn't, because in your vision the player wants superpowers without following the narrative of the class that gets them, and it just happens because you want it to.

Could you please find a way to get your point across without implying that people who disagree with you are morally inferior (i.e. trying to "cheat the game" by playing a class in a way you don't agree with)? That would be much appreciated.

 

[Voadam]

so is that the DM can change rules, etc., they can still mess with you

Of course they can, but the rules are not telling them to do so.

I see little difference there, and I very much doubt that most players of clerics consider themselves hostages to the DM's whims, who at any time might just take all their toys away, whether the rules allow for that or not.

The qualitative difference between the rules for a class saying the class loses their powers if roleplayed wrong on a subjective measure (violates a code, does an evil action) and classes that have no such rules provision seems pretty clear.

If playing an AD&D or 3e paladin the class rules say for the DM to judge whether the character does any evil act. For a fighter or wizard the class rules do not say for the DM to do so.

There can be good faith differences of opinion on how a cleric or paladin should act, the DM does not have to be out to screw you over for this to be an issue.

This whole line of reasoning of players needing protection from unreasonable DMs who just exist to screw them over is weird to me. If this is how you feel, then D&D is not the right game for you, you need one that ties the DM down much more.

Nonsense, it is trivially easy to avoid the problem of worrying about PC and DM differences of opinion on the proper way to play a character under the ex-cleric and ex-paladin rules in 3e, play any of the numerous 3e D&D classes without such restrictions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That can vary by setting.

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

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

In my setting it is a mix between these two. Yes, gods exist, but they're more like cosmic forces than just people, and their true nature is rather incomprehensible to humans. And they certainly are no interested in petty doctrinal squabbles of their followers or watch their clerics for every tiny misstep so that they can turn off their powers. They in theory could deny the cleric's magic, but it would have to be something super major, and probably would be a conscious and explicit decision on the player's part for their character to forsake the deity.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If this is how you feel, then D&D is not the right game for you, you need one that ties the DM down much more.

Mod Note:

This is a bit over the line into making a person’s preferences & play experience the issue. Let’s step back from that, please.