D&D 5E Atheism/Agnosticism in 5e?

[1of3]

It is the original explanation from 2e why healing magic was off limit to wizards though. You can keep the class lists and remove the divide, but it's illogical.

If so, it's illogical already. Bards can heal, but are named arcane casters.

 

[variant]

The whole polytheism we find in D&D never makes any logical sense anyway. If you want your wizard to cast from the divine spell list in your world or vice-versa, go for it.

If so, it's illogical already. Bards can heal, but are named arcane casters.

Bards don't seem to be considered arcane in 5e. They have their own spell card set instead of sharing with the other arcane spellcasters (warlock, sorcerer, wizard).

 

[drjones]

Methinks that you may be applying modern thinking too much, and mincing words.

It might not be as modern as you think. Greek drama is full of people questioning/opposing the gods and the gods behaving like spoiled children. There were established philosophies of the time that rejected supernatural explanations for anything. And this without accumulated scientific explanations for natural phenomena to replace the mythological explanations.

We have an impression of the dark ages that says that everyone was very into their particular monotheistic religion, it influenced every part of everyones lives and people were very devout. But there is a sampling bias in effect because the only people writing anything down were monks who (one would assume) were devout and because of inter-religious war things like disagreeing about theology in public could get you killed.

Not that any of this matters really. I like world building as much as the next guy but this is supposed to be a fun game one plays with other people, not a galactic ant farm. If a player has a wacky idea rather than come up with reasons it can't happen come up with reasons it can. Imagination is a muscle, give it a workout.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That's not clearly true. Clerics, or others who wield divine power, are typically asked to do so, yes, and that covers many of our gaming-related questions, as we are playing such characters. But, it is not at all clear that everyday people are expected to do so. The farmer goes to one god to pray for rain, and another to protect him from invading armies, etc., has always been the typical model I have used.

Your way makes more sense, and is more historically accurate, but in my experience (and just from reading RPG boards for more than a decade), I'd say that deific monogamy is a pretty common expectation, probably due to character sheets having a blank line for "Deity" as though everyone, not just clerics, was expected to pledge their loyalty to one. (I know the 1E goldenrod character sheets made me and my friends think that was what was supposed to happen.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The whole polytheism we find in D&D never makes any logical sense anyway. If you want your wizard to cast from the divine spell list in your world or vice-versa, go for it.

Over time, it's mostly sorted itself out in terms of game balance or the best experience at a typical table. One spellcaster who could do both Resurrection and Meteor Storm would pretty much reduce the rest of the group to his entourage. But below that point, there are certainly spells that could belong on either list without upsetting the apple cart (Chariot of Sustarre, to name an old school one, was probably just a druid spell because Dennis Sustarre played a druid, and not because chariots or vehicles being on fire are somehow inherently druidic).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If so, it's illogical already. Bards can heal, but are named arcane casters.

Probably for the same reason as illusionists can heal in Castles & Crusades, and why 3E clerics could swap out healing spells on the fly: It sucks having only one character capable of healing in a given group and playing "the medic" sucks for most people.

 

[Dausuul]

Why?

Because that's how we choose to have magic work in this scenario. For whatever reason, there are a bunch of mental disciplines and magical techniques that are common to throwing fireballs, teleporting, and polymorphing, but those don't carry over to healing; you have to learn other techniques for that.

False equivalence. I've known some surgeons out there take the time to learn how to program, especially in the areas of prostetic (sp?) limbs.

Sure. And wizards can multiclass cleric, and clerics can multiclass wizard. There's nothing preventing you from learning the other class's tricks, except that time you spend learning the basics of clerical magic is time you don't spend honing your wizard skills.

(In the real world, of course, it's not quite that simple, and the best people in a discipline are often those who take the time to learn from other disciplines. But that's an issue with how D&D multiclassing works, not a conceptual issue with the nature of magic.)

 

[WayneLigon]

Your way makes more sense, and is more historically accurate, but in my experience (and just from reading RPG boards for more than a decade), I'd say that deific monogamy is a pretty common expectation, probably due to character sheets having a blank line for "Deity" as though everyone, not just clerics, was expected to pledge their loyalty to one. (I know the 1E goldenrod character sheets made me and my friends think that was what was supposed to happen.)

We usually expected it as such. I suppose you could have said 'I worship nothing', at which point the GM would most likely have said. "Cool. BTW clerical healing or restoration doesn't work on you". (We also ignored that silly 'spells of third level and under come from the cleric, not the deity' thing, as well).

I based an entire campaign setting off that idea, once, for a 'fantasy post-apocalyptic' world. The emperor struck down the chief priest of the Empire and declared that men ruled the Empire, not gods. So the gods said 'OK', and withdrew from the world. All divine magic stopped working, which of course included all these ancient wards on tombs and demonic gates and stuff. Things got pretty bad after that.

 

[1of3]

Bards don't seem to be considered arcane in 5e. They have their own spell card set instead of sharing with the other arcane spellcasters (warlock, sorcerer, wizard).

The magic sidebar, the only place in the BR that even mentions the arcane/divine split, calls Bards arcane.

And every class gets their own spell list. Including Sorcerers and Warlocks.

 

[Emerikol]

D&D rules, as written don't logically follow this principle. If magic has no sentience then anyone can invoke it - hence in the world view above there cannot logically be a split between the spells of wizards and clerics. Game balance demands otherwise though - so we arrive at a quandary.

Anyone with the skill can invoke it in such a world. It is about ritual and discipline. You also realize that anyone can multiclass wizard and cleric. If the approach to magic is different enough then few will follow both disciplines. It's not like there has to be a single way to access magic.

Also, the above world type perforce bans spells that do put spell casters into direct contact with outer powers (or can do so) such as contact other plane, planar ally, and gate.

Not at all. I didn't say the outer powers did not exist. I said they were not directly active in granting spell power to their followers and in directing their actions. The power the drives a spell can be part of the cleric's toolbox of rituals and rites and the target of said spell can still be an extraplanar being. Most of these spells do not allow you to contact a specific being anyway. In my elven example the cleric might in fact be accessing the akashic mind of all of his ancestors.

It's not that big a deal.