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

[Micah Sweet]

Heck, the 4e "investiture/ordination" narrative is how Catholic priests (undoubtedly among the most familiar real-world clerics to Western gamers) are understood to work in real life. Now, of course, their "superpowers" are sufficiently subtle that non-Catholics quite reasonably don't think they have any. But while the Church can strip someone of the social role of the priesthood, forbidding him from active ministry and returning him to the lay state for all practical purposes, technically it can't revoke the actual powers of the priesthood. God Himself presumably could, but it's understood that He does not, for the sake of the faithful. You never have to worry that your confession or holy communion wasn't "real" because the priest has secret doubts about God or is shagging a lady on the side or whatever. God still provides the power even if the priest is being a more-unworthy-than-usual conduit for it. And even one of those laicized "ex-"priests can use his powers in a life-or-death emergency, such as if he's the only recourse for a dying person who wishes to confess and be absolved before death.

And I'm certain all of that was in the minds of the 4e designers when they agonized over how to handle this issue.

 

[Irlo]

As I see it, the sources of power for PCs are properly setting elements, and I have a strong preference for dissociating setting elements from the general rules of the game for more flexibility and customization.

I'm usually a DM. In my first 5E campaign, one young player (new to D&D) at my table wanted to play a melee warrior with magical powers. The eldritch knight didn't appeal. Instead, he played a dwarven tempest cleric with none of the religious aspects, and we had a great time. As a DM, I could have said, "No, the only way you can acquire clerical spell-casting is by devotion to a god and by promoting that god's interests." But what would be the point of that? He wasn't entitled, he wasn't trying to get away with anything, and I wasn't interested in preventing him from playing an exciting character. Where did the power come from? The player didn't know, the character didn't know, and none of us at the table cared, either. As a DM, I had a couple of explanations in my pocket in case it became relevant, but none of those explanations involved typical clerical relationships with the divine.

As a player, one of my favorite PCs (AD&D 1e) was a human fighter. I was up at about level 6 or 7, I think, when it felt that I had pretty well played out the character. After a little break, I decided to dual-class as a cleric. The PC was jaded, distrustful of the gods (and especially distrustful of his own understanding of the gods), and didn't believe he could atone for some terrible things he had done. When he started demonstrating clerical abilities, it shook him up and really changed the trajectory of the character. Never did figure out why he of all people was imbued with the power. The DM could have vetoed, of course, as that's not how the PHB describes how clerical abilities work. But I wasn't t entitled and I wasn't trying to get away with anything. I just had a character in mind that really interested me and re-engaged me in the long term game that had started to grow stale for me.

I am fully supportive of DMs developing campaign settings with limitations that bring focus to the tone and themes and atmosphere the DM wants to evoke. The rules, though, should provide a wider range of options than any specific campaign setting does. That's what makes D&D D&D for me. It's customizable, hackable, adaptable, re-skinnable, and all that flexibility is encouraged.

 

[Voadam]

player empowerment and gamist concerns over setting

over setting?

4e seemed hugely focused on setting and cosmology.

World Axis, fallen Naerath, Arkhosia versus Bael Turoth.

And the setting stuff was designed to work with the player mechanics, D&D gaming, and to be cool.

The role of the gods in the game as well was much more integrated and coherent than in a lot of D&D.

I thought setting was a big element of 4e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

over setting?

4e seemed hugely focused on setting and cosmology.

World Axis, fallen Naerath, Arkhosia versus Bael Turoth.

And the setting stuff was designed to work with the player mechanics, D&D gaming, and to be cool.

The role of the gods in the game as well was much more integrated and coherent than in a lot of D&D.

I thought setting was a big element of 4e.

It is, but all the setting elements are designed to maximize player freedom and entitlement, and make sure the DM has no in-universe levers to place any sort of restrictions on the player's choices.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't see where clerics lose their powers in 5e. Paladins can fall if they break their oath, but I thought they removed that from clerics for 5e. I looked again at clerics in the PHB and I don't see it.

I wasn't talking about 5e, so that really shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[Ancalagon]

Just to be clear...which players are these?

There are some players who don't want any "hook" of control in them by the GM. In some cases it's because they've been badly treated by a previous (or current...) GM who was overly controlling and they fear this happening again. In other cases they simply want maximal freedom to do whatever they want in the game.

So no family, no relatives, and no code of behaviors that can't be wiggled out of.

 

[Ancalagon]

And they want to re-roll when they roll doubles three times in a row when they go to jail. And they want the person whose piece lands on them to go home in Sorry. And...

Why play a game if you aren't going to follow the rules? A rule of clerics is follow your god's tenets or the god gets royally irked. And why would that god then keep granting you power?

oh I agree with you - but some players ... see previous post just above

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are some players who don't want any "hook" of control in them by the GM. In some cases it's because they've been badly treated by a previous (or current...) GM who was overly controlling and they fear this happening again. In other cases they simply want maximal freedom to do whatever they want in the game.

So no family, no relatives, and no code of behaviors that can't be wiggled out of.

These are not players whom I feel should be catered to by the rules, nor would I particularly want them at my table, to be honest.

 

[Voadam]

It is, but all the setting elements are designed to maximize player freedom and entitlement, and make sure the DM has no in-universe levers to place any sort of restrictions on the player's choices.

The number of setting elements that interact with player freedom and entitlement seem minimal at most.

Points of light seems about setting up default adventure hooks.

The three big fallen empires seem to be about having cool adventure and lore hooks, not player freedom.

World Axis is about having both a coherent cosmology instead of an ad hoc syncretic one, about making the planes places that can be adventured in without requiring say magic to make you immune to fire and grant you the ability to breathe fire as is needed on the Great Wheel elemental fire plane, and having a cool gods versus titans/primordials backdrop story with big evil corruption elements.

The game parts for player freedom are the cleric investiture and paladin class rule changes. Those seem minor setting issues at most instead of the design purpose for all setting elements to me.

 

[Clint_L]

I mostly try to find ways to let my players be creative and run with their ideas, insofar as their characters go, as long as they are engaging collaboratively with the story.

So if, as in a current campaign, a player wants to play a non-religious paladin, my response is “great, where do their powers come from?” The player always comes up with something cool that I can make work, sometimes with a little collaborative tweaking of the initial concept.

I could care less what the PHB has to say about what a cleric or paladin should be. I only care about what is fun and makes sense at our games. And I extend that philosophy to games at other tables: it’s no one else’s business how you choose to play, and anyone saying otherwise is wrong. If your beliefs about paladins and clerics are the opposite of mine, then bless. Just don’t try to tell me I am doing it wrong, because I ain’t.