D&D General If faith in yourself is enough to get power, do we need Wizards and Warlocks etc?

[Micah Sweet]

I'm an atheist, and I've never met another atheist that was offended by the concept of fantasy gods/pantheons. I've met some that dislike depictions of certain fantasy gods and their actions (you remember my objections to the Dragonlance pantheon), but I'll just have to disagree that the reason why people want to play atheistic/antitheistic clerics is because of some irrational phobia of the idea of fantasy gods. I personally prefer more nuanced and open ended depictions of fantasy religion (Eberron, Dragon Age, the Cosmere, etc) to the weirdly unnuanced henotheistic D&D pantheons of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Greyhawk.

And that's fine. The question then becomes, however, where do the clerical super powers come from?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This! This is what is bothering me about the discussion. It's feels like its devolved from a discussion on the merits of different play styles and how to incorporate non-traditional explanations for a character's capacities, and has shifted into "Your idea is bad" or "My idea is good."

I can get behind talking about WHY something might be or seem inconsistent or "incoherent." I can see talking about where people's preferences may come from or what makes them uncomfortable about a particular approach. But when the reason just ends up being "because it is" isn't a good faith discussion, nor is it interesting.

This isn't a "+" thread. We're not obligated to agree with you.

 

[Voadam]

For example, could someone manifest their own divine power on a Dead God world like Dark Sun.

I'd say no because there is no Divine to draw from and clerics there couldn't manifest their own.

So are you saying since there is no divine on Dark Sun you would rewrite Dark Sun to remove their clerics because elementals are not divine?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because:

• not all people can manage that sort of thing.
• unlocking that kind of power can take time, time people don't have.
• they've been manipulated into a bad situation.
• someone or something is blocking their access.
• it never occurred to them to try something else.
• it's socially unacceptable for them to choose that path.
• it doesn't fit with their abilities, skills, and/or personality.
• they started on such a path (e.g. Warlock or Wizard) first.
• they tried the so-called "easy" path and didn't like it (or couldn't use it.)
• it isn't an option for this specific character (e.g. maybe warforged can't be druids.)
• they ARE a cleric/paladin/whatever, but it isn't enough somehow.
• they lost their old powers somehow, and this is a ready replacement.
• they were a Cleric/etc. before, but they retired and picked up a new skillset.

I could keep coming up with these all day. I hope a baker's dozen is adequate to demonstrate that there are ample reasons.


Personally, I find the "god pulls the plug if you've ever been naughty" thing incredibly tedious. It's much, much more interesting to have a far more complicated relationship between faith and power, e.g. 4e's Investiture concept, where the church has to be picky about who it offers Investiture to...and the people who go astray have to be hunted down, not "all heresy is instantaneously nixed because Divine Sugar Momma cuts you off the instant you misbehave." Suddenly, churches have to care. People who stray in small ways can go a long, long time without ever having a problem. Actual traitors can rise incredibly far through the ranks if they're careful. Divine "internal police" are something that actually has to have effort put into it. Etc., etc., etc.

Far more, far better stories than "god pulled the plug" could ever produce. Because there's literally just one story there, and it only has three endings: you lose the powers for good because you were naughty, or you get them back for being a good little child, or you get a new deific parent who lets you break curfew and smoke if you feel like it.

See, to me that just sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Umbran]

If you are so opposed to having to believe in a god that you cannot even do it in a make-believe world, then maybe play something other than a cleric...

But, why?
To satisfy people who aren't at their table?

 

[Scribe]

Maybe for WotC, but that's just one flavor of D&D, one none of us are obligated to engage with.

Which we all know, but as we also all know, WotC sets the tone for the overwhelming segment of the playerbase.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's worth noting, Investiture is not truly "borrowed" power. It's more like "sent" power. The TL;DR of it is that after some kind of ritual (which can be conducted by the deity alone, but this requires extra mojo and is something they do only very rarely), the person receiving Investiture gets a little seed of divine power. It's not much--so as to not run afoul of the Primal Ban which keeps both deities and primordials out of the mortal realm--but enough to power divine stuff. Taking the power back is very difficult, maybe even impossible, once it's given--to the best of my knowledge there isn't an equivalent de-Investiture ritual to remove it. Once it's given, it's given permanently, the recipient would have to die to lose it.

So the deity doesn't have the ability to just pull the plug, the power is already "transferred" as it were. Instead, as noted, you have to send out other divine agents in order to track down rebellious ones and bring them in (or kill them.) That's where the Avenger fit into the broader narrative of 4e classes; the whole idea was that they were the covert executioners and "internal police" of the gods, hunting down any heresy or rebellion, which of course then brings in the quis custodiet ipsos custodes questions, amongst others. (And, of course, the Ezio Auditore connection can't be overlooked.)

I'm glad you found a way to tell good stories with the investiture narrative, but I've always hated it, and seen it as nothing more than the designers providing player entitlement to those who want the kewl powers but no responsibility.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, why?
To satisfy people who aren't at their table?

To have the class narrative make sense in the class-based game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know that I actually understand some of the pushback based on coherency. In some of my campaigns over the years there were only "concepts" to worship. There was no clerics of Bob the War God, only Clerics of War, or the Storm, or the Hearth.

Heck in 2nd edition we had a Paladin of "freedom" (he was-I kid you not- basically a cleric of Ayn Rand).

Why is a Cleric of War a bad idea? a brotherhood that dedicates their selves to the devotion of battle to the point that the "spirit" of War infuses them with gifts of the cleric class? Is being a Cleric of Bob the War God that much more impactful?

Maybe I am misunderstanding the pushback. If so, that on me.

Is there an actual Spirit of War in this setting? Again, where is the actual supernatural power coming from?

 

[Voadam]

And that's fine. The question then becomes, however, where do the clerical super powers come from?

Which is easy to answer in multiple ways.

1 The planes. Enact the Will of Heaven.

2 Divine is a type of magic source very similar to but distinct from arcane magic (and psionics, and other possible types of power categories). Clerical magic is a magic using tradition tapping the divine magic power source.

3 A Mage the Ascension type set up where belief affects reality. Clerical magic is powered by intense Faith itself. True Believer clerics of false gods get power. Heresies and schisms have spellcasting clerics.

4 Alignment as a fundamental force in the D&D universe. Chaos. Law.