D&D 5E Wonder why there aren't any Elemental Domains (Earth, Air, Fire, Water)?

[James Gasik]

From an in-universe example, gods denying priests and other champions their powers (and also, whatever sources druids, rangers, and so on- which can be a god in some settings but not in others) makes sense. Though there are many examples in fiction of people abusing powers granted to them as well, leading to heretical sects and the like. YMMV.

In fact, there's a good reason for a power to not revoke their powers- by doing so, they're basically saying "oops, my bad", rendering them fallible. This is dependent on the campaign setting- one's gods could be fallible. The Greek and Norse myths come to mind. OTOH, if the gods are meant to be infallible, then it creates a paradox- why would they entrust their powers to someone they knew would abuse them?

It gets a little worse with evil gods as well. Being able to turn the powers of darkness against themselves is a classic trope, after all.

As a game mechanic, however, it can often lead to DM's, feeling that this is a "downside" for a class that must be enforced, to "balance" the powers of that class, quickly leads to players losing their powers for any infraction.

The investiture/oath/pact/whatever therefore becomes a crutch to the player, as they now must appease the DM in order to actually play their character. It doesn't take long, after being burned by this, for players to come to the conclusion that it's simply not worth it to play that class, and instead, find an option that gives them more freedom.

I don't see this as a good thing for a game. As for the argument that someone could just take the powers and do what they want, consider that while the power might not directly intervene (though they might screw with them, as in the case of Balaam), the other followers of that power's faith have no such limitation- they may find themselves excommunicated from their church, branded a heretic, hunted down by inquisitors, paladins, and executors of holy judgment, and even run afoul of angelic beings or their equivalent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

From an in-universe example, gods denying priests and other champions their powers (and also, whatever sources druids, rangers, and so on- which can be a god in some settings but not in others) makes sense. Though there are many examples in fiction of people abusing powers granted to them as well, leading to heretical sects and the like. YMMV.

In fact, there's a good reason for a power to not revoke their powers- by doing so, they're basically saying "oops, my bad", rendering them fallible. This is dependent on the campaign setting- one's gods could be fallible. The Greek and Norse myths come to mind. OTOH, if the gods are meant to be infallible, then it creates a paradox- why would they entrust their powers to someone they knew would abuse them?

It gets a little worse with evil gods as well. Being able to turn the powers of darkness against themselves is a classic trope, after all.

As a game mechanic, however, it can often lead to DM's, feeling that this is a "downside" for a class that must be enforced, to "balance" the powers of that class, quickly leads to players losing their powers for any infraction.

The investiture/oath/pact/whatever therefore becomes a crutch to the player, as they now must appease the DM in order to actually play their character. It doesn't take long, after being burned by this, for players to come to the conclusion that it's simply not worth it to play that class, and instead, find an option that gives them more freedom.

I don't see this as a good thing for a game. As for the argument that someone could just take the powers and do what they want, consider that while the power might not directly intervene (though they might screw with them, as in the case of Balaam), the other followers of that power's faith have no such limitation- they may find themselves excommunicated from their church, branded a heretic, hunted down by inquisitors, paladins, and executors of holy judgment, and even run afoul of angelic beings or their equivalent.

The issue I have is simply that I find it implausible as a universal rule that powerful divine beings can invest a mortal with great power and be incapable of taking it back. Gods are forced to take their clerics word for it that their powers will be used in their service. Patrons are unable to enforce their warlock pacts. I can see all this being possible in some cases, but am uncomfortable with it just being the way it is all the time.

And no, saying it's different for PCs does not help at all.

 

[TwoSix]

The issue I have is simply that I find it implausible as a universal rule that powerful divine beings can invest a mortal with great power and be incapable of taking it back. Gods are forced to take their clerics word for it that their powers will be used in their service. Patrons are unable to enforce their warlock pacts. I can see all this being possible in some cases, but am uncomfortable with it just being the way it is all the time.

"If clerics work like X, then gods must work like Y" is equally plausible with "If gods work like X, then clerics should work like Y." One is just "bottom-up" worldbuilding, and the other is "top-down" worldbuilding.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"If clerics work like X, then gods must work like Y" is equally plausible with "If gods work like X, then clerics should work like Y." One is just "bottom-up" worldbuilding, and the other is "top-down" worldbuilding.

I'm not saying either way doesn't work. I'm saying one works with my worldview, and the other doesn't.

 

[Staffan]

I've always hated that idea, at least as a description of clerics. It makes divine beings impotent if the 4e cleric changes their mind.

Yes. That's the point.

Also, I prefer my gods to be hands-off in the mortal world, with the possible exception of diffuse influence over their portfolio. They want something done, they gotta get their cultistsfaithful to do it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. That's the point.

Also, I prefer my gods to be hands-off in the mortal world, with the possible exception of diffuse influence over their portfolio. They want something done, they gotta get their cultistsfaithful to do it.

Well, to each their own. I have no interest in a world where a being can only invest power in a person in an unavoidably one way manner. You can have gods who are hands-off on direct influence while still allowing them to take back what they give out. After all, giving the cleric power is just as influential on the mortal plane as taking it away would be.

 

[cbwjm]

I also much prefer my gods being able to take away power, a gradual reduction in power to show disfavour and allow the priest to return to the "right" path. However, I also think it can work well to have divine magic be learnt and to have evil priests belong to the main priesthood. Self-serving but outwardly righteous.

For the elemental domains. I've always used light as fire, tempest as air. Unfortunately, tempest was also used for sea gods by wotc which I get, but it doesn't feel exactly right to me. I may have done some work early on to bring something in for earth and sea but it would be have been pretty early on in 5e and I don't think I ever really finished them.

I also think it would have been better to have orders for types of priests rather than the domain deciding how they fight. 5.5e is a step in the right direction with the divine order and blessed strikes abilities, maybe these could be expanded adding in additional divine orders to help define the cleric.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I don't mind the idea of a deity permanently taking away a cleric's divine powers for gross or consistent misconduct.

What I dislike is the idea of them dealing out piecemeal punishments by not allowing them to get some of their daily spells, etc. Most players are going to hate that, and I'm not a fan of classes being dependent on in-world fiction to use their powers. I'd prefer all character classes to be on the same basic footing.

So once a cleric or warlock gets their powers, they have them and don't need permission to use or regain them day to day.

In my lore, divine power original comes from deities, but once they invest it into mortals, those mortals are the ones directly passing it on to others. So the god probably did this hundreds or thousands of years ago, and your cleric got his investiture from a cleric who got it from another cleric, etc, stretching all the way back.

Now, if a cleric is acting completely against the wishes of the deity they profess to serve, they could potentially use their divine power to strip them of their abilities (you know, just like they could strike them down with a bolt of lightning, or send an army of angels after them), but it's more a matter of using their power to inflict this loss on the cleric, than turning off an ongoing stream of power.

With warlock patrons, it's even easier, since there is already the idea that once you get abilities from the patron those abilities are yours to keep. The general idea seems to be that you need to stay in their good graces to keep getting more abilities as you level up. I dislike that one for the exact same reason as I do with the cleric issue. I just say that investing a warlock is the same basic concept, but usually the patron does it directly. The warlock then can level up without any assistance from the patron. However, in the traditional sort of D&D warlock pact, their might be an actual agreement made, and if the warlock doesn't continue to serve the patron according to that pact they might be more likely than a deity to make their life uncomfortable. They are unlikely to be able to actually strip you of your powers at all.

 

[Voadam]

I think having a class concept as a servant is a pretty terrible idea for D&D generally. Priests and paladins should be about their role as church leaders and advisors and knights, focusing on their relationship and role with their community and other people and hunting down undead as supernatural van Helsings.

Being a servant can be an interesting role in a D&D game but is just asking for problems in a number of ways in general.

I prefer a more Conan perspective of adventurers as the role model for PC roles and of priests of Set learning and casting spells and leading cults but no real evidence of Set micromanaging their operations or their magic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The issue I have is simply that I find it implausible as a universal rule that powerful divine beings can invest a mortal with great power and be incapable of taking it back.

Gods taking away a cleric's powers is kind of the same as paladins losing their powers if they shift alignment. In gameplay, it's basically the DM giving a diegetic reprimand to how a player is playing their character. It's bad for the game design, bad for the play experience, bad for the social component of the game.

So, understandably, it's something D&D has moved away from. The game doesn't want to encourage DMs to just strip class powers out of a problem player. That's not how you deal with a problem player.

It's also something that hasn't really been true since the Athar, at least - divine spellcasting doesn't rely on the gods in D&D's narrative. You can be a non-theist and still be a cleric.

Whether that's because the investiture is one-way or because the gods aren't REALLY the source of divine magic or because faith and conviction alone is enough to power the magic or some other reason....the ultimate point is that you don't need a god to be a cleric.