D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Yaarel]

You are entirely mischaracterizing the case, and making downright offensive equivalencies while you’re at it.

Forcing players to conform to polytheism is an ethical violation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Forcing players to conform to polytheism is an ethical violation.

The game doesn’t do that, in any way, ever.

 

[Yaarel]

The game doesn’t do that, in any way, ever.

The core rules require a player of a Cleric to conform to polytheism. The core rules even suggests reallife polytheistic gods while making this requirement.

Forcing players to conform to polytheism is an ethical violation.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The core rules require a player of a Cleric to conform to polytheism.

Forcing players to conform to polytheism is an ethical violation.

What are you on about? Are you off your meds? Why do you always post like this?

The Cleric subclasses don't explicitly assume a polytheistic pantheon; rather, they represent different attributes and virtues a deity can represent. D&D starts from a polytheistic default but can easily be retooled to a monotheistic setting in homebrew; it's just that the official settings tend towards either many gods or no gods due to the unfortunate implications that might come in a monotheistic setting.

Or, you know, just be a Cleric of an abstract force. Your Cleric doesn't serve a god of Light, they serve the very concept of Light itself. There done. If you still haven't removed the stick from your behind and won't until you get support in an official setting, then go play in Eberron and be a Flamic Friar or a Seeker of the Blood of Vol; both religions acknowledge that the Sovereign Host and Dark Six exist in some capacity, but don't offer them worship.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The D&D 5e Players Handbook explicitly refers to reallife religions, including Norse.

I suppose so does Marvel comics, that way. Odinism doesn't get a lot of recognition as a 'real' religion, even though it has legit believers, so that's part of a larger struggle.

I did not notice where the 5e PH had non-fiction deities, though - I just didn't parse it that closely. I certainly /did/ notice where 1e did, and somehow you're apparently OK with it, because you felt intellectually justified in tweaking the meaning of 'deity.'
So I really wonder about this whole line of criticism.

Polytheism is a real thing.

It is, and it doesn't bear much resemblance to the D&D take. It'd be a stretch to consider D&D an endorsement of RL polytheism. Rather like considering it Satanist back in the day.

As a depiction or RL neo-Paganism, though, it might well be considered insensitive.

To say there is only one ‘true’ religion, and all other religions are ‘false’, is like saying, there is only one ‘true’ race, and all other races are ‘false’.

D&D also says dragons are flying hyperintelligent dinosaurs that breath the rainbow. It can't claim much authority.

That said, it /is/ exactly the kind of unthinking assumption that slips by common sense and screws with people.

I think it'd be best-reconciled by acknowledging that D&D deities are simply fictional supernatural patrons for characters, not representative of real religions. Not gods in the sense theists, deists, Christians, &c may define God to be.

It is like saying, every Fighter must be gay, and every Wizard must be straight.

Sacred Band and Thelema, aside, of course.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The core rules require a player of a Cleric to conform to polytheism. The core rules even suggests reallife polytheistic gods while making this requirement.

Forcing players to conform to polytheism is an ethical violation.

No, the core rules do no such thing.

And even if they required that a cleric be a polytheist, that would not equate to forcing the player to conform to anything.

What are you on about? Are you off your meds? Why do you always post like this?

The Cleric subclasses don't explicitly assume a polytheistic pantheon; rather, they represent different attributes and virtues a deity can represent. D&D starts from a polytheistic default but can easily be retooled to a monotheistic setting in homebrew; it's just that the official settings tend towards either many gods or no gods due to the unfortunate implications that might come in a monotheistic setting.

Or, you know, just be a Cleric of an abstract force. Your Cleric doesn't serve a god of Light, they serve the very concept of Light itself. There done. If you still haven't removed the stick from your behind and won't until you get support in an official setting, then go play in Eberron and be a Flamic Friar or a Seeker of the Blood of Vol; both religions acknowledge that the Sovereign Host and Dark Six exist in some capacity, but don't offer them worship.

Plenty of people in Eberron don’t think the gods are real, and it’s one of a couple fairly common POVs in the BoV.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

To say there is only one ‘true’ religion, and all other religions are ‘false’, is like saying, there is only one ‘true’ race, and all other races are ‘false’.

Every religion of which I am aware, fictional or otherwise, makes truth claims that are incompatible with some other religion. Making statements to the effect that "All religions are equally true" is disrespecting those truth claims.

For the Players Handbook to require Cleric players to conform to polytheism, is a problem.

It is like saying, every Fighter must be gay, and every Wizard must be straight.

More like saying that every fighter must fight, and every wizard must use magic.

 

[Yaarel]

I did not notice where the 5e PH had non-fiction deities, though - I just didn't parse it that closely. I certainly /did/ notice where 1e did, and somehow you're apparently OK with it, because you felt intellectually justified in tweaking the meaning of 'deity.'

I am fine with D&D 1e. Its ad-hoc, piecemeal, minimalist, and conflictive rules set often needs clarification. But the DM tradition of interpreting the 1e text to mean freedom of religion endured, and persisted in 2e and 3e. It would be nice if 1e is clearer about respecting religious sensitivities of other players. But 2e and the core rules of 3e are explicit about supporting freedom of religion.

Basic D&D lacked religious freedom, but it kept religions out of the D&D game. They were assumed to happen (and assumed to comprise diverse kinds of religiousity) but were officially left unexplored.

The main reason I am okay with 1e is, there are only three core books: PH, DMG, MM.

By contrast, Deities & Demigods is a noncore supplement. Those who want to use polytheism can purchase it. Those who dont want to use it, effortlessly avoid opting in. The core is neutral.

Instead of baking the Forgotten Realms setting and its polytheistic multiverse into everything everywhere, 1e core is setting neutral. Indeed, the 1e text continually recommends that the DM create ones own setting − while offering many conflictive suggestions that might pique the interest of the DM.

 

[Yaarel]

To require players to conform to polytheism in order to play D&D,

is like to require players to say ‘The Lords Prayer’ in order to play football.

This religionism is an ethical violation.

 

[Yaarel]

Not gods in the sense theists, deists, Christians, &c may define God to be.

What matters is, there are many different kinds of religiosity among the human species.

NO ONE

NO ONE

NO ONE

has permission

to coerce someone else into any religion.



Not even D&D.