Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ConcreteBuddha" data-source="post: 540636" data-attributes="member: 3139">Okay, sorry. I realize what you are trying to get at: Just because Islam exists in the real world doesn't mean that it has to exist word for word in the PHB. Nor does UU exist word for word in the PHB (nor would I want it to.) When I brought up the UU, I was attempting to explain the idea that clerics of philosophies are functional, valid, and have a real world equivalent. I was attempting to provide a real world precedent for a godless religion. In DnD, godless clerics can also function quite well alongside godded cosmologies. (Look at the D&D for the Olympian mythology. Zeus and that bunch are right alongside the Academy.) In the real world, I do not throw out the teachings of Jesus just because I'm not Christian. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater and all of that...Psion's idea that philosophies are inherently more "permissive" is what bugs me. To say that Bushido is wishy-washy is to miss the whole point of a philosophy. Just because there isn't a deity level figurehead, doesn't mean that the belief (and the accompanying power) is any less plausable. I'd say that the dictates of Olidammara, Fharlanghn, or Boccob are far more "permissive" than Bushido or the Tao....The point I do agree with Psion is that players should not just stick any two domains together and then say they are done with their cleric character. A player who does that is typically min-maxing, and just wants the benefits of the domains without having to answer to an authority. (The player who takes Strength and War without any thought to the underlying philosophy or source of divine power that fuels their spellcasting is a cheesehead.) *grin*</blockquote>

Verification