D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Yaarel]

I may play a wizard, but I as a player do not believe in magic.

I may play a warlock, but I as a player do not believe in devils or fairies or Yog-Sothoth.

D&D is not coercing me as a player to conform to any belief system.

The football player who is coerced to say ‘The Lords Prayer’ in order to play football, also doesnt have to believe it.

It is an ethical violation to use religionist coercion.


Likewise for the D&D player who is required to conform to a polytheistic religion in order to play D&D.

It is an ethical violation to use religionist coercion.

 

[Xenonnonex]

The football player who is coerced to say ‘The Lords Prayer’ in order to play football, also doesnt have to believe it.

It is an ethical violation to use religionist coercion.

What are you even going on about?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The football player who is coerced to say ‘The Lords Prayer’ in order to play football, also doesnt have to believe it.

It is an ethical violation to use religionist coercion.


Likewise for the D&D player who is required to conform to a polytheistic religion in order to play D&D.

It is an ethical violation to use religionist coercion.

I don't need to believe in the gods of Golarion to play Pathfinder. I don't need to believe in the Celestial Incarnae to play Exalted. I don't need to believe in the Christian god to play Vampire: the Masquerade. I don't need to believe in the Chaos Gods to play Dark Heresy. However, I will roleplay my characters as those that fit into the worlds they inhabit, complete with the religions of their land. This isn't coercion. I'm not losing my job or my position at university over my (lack of) acknowledgement of the constraints of the setting. But when I sit down at the table, I do so anyways because it helps me immerse myself in the setting and my character, and I don't be an ass about the setting so as to not break the immersion and the fun of everybody else at the table.

 

[Remathilis]

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

The WotC religionism is as inappropriate at homophia, sexism, and racism.

Ok, I've tried to ignore your tilting at windmills about this nonissue, but these accusations are beyond the pale.

You are welcome to dislike WotC's default assumptions about D&D, including their assumption that polytheism is the default assumption on several of their campaign settings (ignoring Eberron, Athas, and Mystara I guess, unless you don't consider those worlds D&D). You are accusing Wizards of the Coast of religious Intolerance, a severe accusation in today's political climate, and comparing it to racism, sexism, and homophobia which are damning statements. This is the kind of rhetoric that gets passions inflamed and dredges very real and very hurtful memories of exclusion, gatekeeping, humiliation, and even violence against certain groups of people by members of our hobby. And by comparing your petty grievance about the wording of a character class to the pain they have suffered shows profound disrespect to them. To claim your dislike of WotCs use of pantheism as the default example of D&D religion (and conveniently ignoring the advise on the topic in both Xanthar's Guide to Everything and the Dungeon Master's Guide) as anywhere equal to people who have been harassed and worse for being women, gay, or a different race is the height of egoism.

I really suggest cooling your rhetoric.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

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.

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.

Sacred Band and Thelema, aside, of course.

It's pretty easy to miss the Appendix with the real world gods, it's in the back, and the non-fiction tables come after the detailed tables of Deities for Greyhawk, the FR, Dragonlance and Eberron. They do give a range of examples in the Subclass text for Clerics ("Clerics of Light .ight worship deities like Apollo or Ra" sort of thing).

As someone with a distinct religous viewpoint that does not match the D&D default, I have never once felt religously persecuted by Wizard of the Coast.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is such a thing as separation of fantasy from reality.

There is, which is why there's a point in there about reference RL religion in D&D's fantasy... D&D has arguably been disrespectful to a whole range or religions, that way, from major ones in the early days (trivializing biblical miracles, faux-Satanism), to myriad others with Deities & Demigods, Druid and Witch classes, and the like. To increasingly scrubbing the game of such from 2e on.

It's pretty easy to miss the Appendix with the real world gods, it's in the back, and the non-fiction tables come after the detailed tables of Deities for Greyhawk, the FR, Dragonlance and Eberron. They do give a range of examples in the Subclass text for Clerics ("Clerics of Light .ight worship deities like Apollo or Ra" sort of thing).

That doesn't sound horrible. But it could've been done without, I suppose, if sticking to only fictional (and, hey, TM-able) deities headed off any RL issues, however fringe they might've seemed to developers when considering that appendix.

Oddly, though, that doesn't seem to be the main thrust of Yaarel's point, I'm not sure I /do/ see it, it seems like just 1e gets a pass, for reasons that don't stand out as uniquely applying to 1e, but 5e doesn't. Which is troubling to me, because most of the time Yaarel has some interesting ideas and perspectives, including some that touch on magic & religion in ways that seem downright enthusiastic about modeling RL magical practices or beliefs in D&D, while this complaint does seem actively hostile to such modeling.

(And, OTOOH, y'know, the hobby has seen games like In Nomine….)

 

[Parmandur]

There is, which is why there's a point in there about reference RL religion in D&D's fantasy... D&D has arguably been disrespectful to a whole range or religions, that way, from major ones in the early days (trivializing biblical miracles, faux-Satanism), to myriad others with Deities & Demigods, Druid and Witch classes, and the like. To increasingly scrubbing the game of such from 2e on.

That doesn't sound horrible. But it could've been done without, I suppose, if sticking to only fictional (and, hey, TM-able) deities headed off any RL issues, however fringe they might've seemed to developers when considering that appendix.

Oddly, though, that doesn't seem to be the main thrust of Yaarel's point, I'm not sure I /do/ see it, it seems like just 1e gets a pass, for reasons that don't stand out as uniquely applying to 1e, but 5e doesn't. Which is troubling to me, because most of the time Yaarel has some interesting ideas and perspectives, including some that touch on magic & religion in ways that seem downright enthusiastic about modeling RL magical practices or beliefs in D&D, while this complaint does seem actively hostile to such modeling.

(And, OTOOH, y'know, the hobby has seen games like In Nomine….)

It's a pet peeves: in previous threads, folks have demonstrated with close readings of various editions of the Cleric Class that there is no difference. If anything, 5E mechanics make a more agnostic approach easier than ever.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The football player who is coerced to say ‘The Lords Prayer’ in order to play football, also doesnt have to believe it.

That prayer is an affirmation of belief. The football player, even if he does not believe, is being asked to speak and act as if he does. A D&D player is under no circumstances being asked to speak and act as if he or she, the real human person, believes anything. I don't have to believe in magic, I don't have to say I believe in magic, I don't have to pretend in any way that I believe in magic to play a wizard. I just have to roleplay a distinct fictional character who believes in magic, living in a distinct fictional universe where that belief is rational and well justified by the evidence at hand. And it was entirely my choice which character to play. If for some reason I do have a problem roleplaying a character who believes in magic, but I rolled a wizard anyway, then I have only myself to blame.

Now -- not to belabor the obvious -- replace "wizard" with "cleric" and "magic" with "gods".

 

[Arnwolf666]

We're getting off topic a bit here it seems...

Let's get back to archetypes? What would a Rogue with a touch of Divine Power be like?

Holy assassins. Extreme zealots

Also

Trickery. A divine version of the arcane trickster. Or something like that, not necessarily mechanically. A pure cn trickster would be great that is just having fun.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Actually, my point exactly.

The 1e players I played with, always interpreted that rule to mean:

The nontheistic ball of fiery gas and the ball cold reflective dust, can also count as if ‘deities’ according to the rules as written.

Thus the technical jargon ‘deities’ includes nontheistic concepts.

The 1e Druid players who I have experienced (including myself) absolutely understood the rules to mean reverence for inanimate objects because they are part of ‘nature’.

My Druid (one of my favorite D&D characters) revered earth, soil, rock, metal, and crystal.

Spells worked fine.

Likewise, the Cleric characters interpreted the word ‘deity’ in various nontheistic ways.

I think that you are referring to animism and I would agree. There are many such religions.