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

[M_Natas]

If it's done right, sure. Such an innkeeper isn't going to sit tight in his inn, though. He's going to be out in the world bringing hospitality to those who go without, fighting the tyrants who keep the masses starving, etc.

Like ... a wandering Inn?

 

[Maxperson]

I have to check when I'm home, but I think it is in the 5e spelljammer book. Which makes sense because that misused the Astral Sea and killed the phlogistan.

I remember that because in my Spelljammer campaign I run one of the planned quests is to collect souls of the lost and bring them directly to chauntea trough the Astral Sea. And I wouldn't have made it that way if it wasn't mentioned that Gods (pr their domains) reside in the Astral Sea. That's why you can find dead bodies od gods there.

I just looked and no, it's not there. What I think you may be thinking of is that it says many gods have small domains there, but it doesn't say that the astral provides the divine magic, nor does it say the outer planes are part of the astral. Most gods have their domains in the outer planes.

 

[Azzy]

In 2e you could get 1st and 2nd level spells on faith alone. After that you needed a deity.

Well, according to The Complete Priest's Handbook, you could gain abilities from Forces and Philosophies and didn't actually need a deity.

I swear, this is another issue with WotC's D&D that actually of the TSR-era vintage.

 

[M_Natas]

Well, according to The Complete Priest's Handbook, you could gain abilities from Forces and Philosophies and didn't actually need a deity.

I swear, this is another issue with WotC's D&D that actually of the TSR-era vintage.

Yeah, I think one of the big problems is, beginning in the TSR era that are still felt today: The forgotten realms / D&D is a polytheists society with several existing real gods and pantheons, but alle religions are basically organised like the roman Catholic Church.
You have Priests (Clerics), church buildings, mess, you have crusaders (Paladins) ...

So you've already got this schizophrenic meshup of the structure of a monotheistic religion put over a polytheistic system and then they mix in modern concepts of powered by belief in concepts and atheistic clerics.

It is quite a mess that wouldn't hold long under scrutiny.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I think one of the big problems is, beginning in the TSR era that are still felt today: The forgotten realms / D&D is a polytheists society with several existing real gods and pantheons, but alle religions are basically organised like the roman Catholic Church.
You have Priests (Clerics), church buildings, mess, you have crusaders (Paladins) ...

Yeah. I've been running the Realms for decades now. One of the things that I did was alter the church structures. Some are like you describe above, and others are not nearly so formal. Others are hidden and secretive. As for paladins, I changed the class so that they are basically holy warriors of their faith, which means powers and abilities that match their god, not knighthood unless the god is also one that would have knight like paladins.

A paladin of Mask would wear light armor, have abilities related to sneaking and stealing, and perhaps ferreting out secrets. He would not go head to head in battle, but would pick a time of ambush. And would of course be evil.

When a player wanted to be a paladin of a god that didn't have the archetypical paladin, I worked with him to come up with a class appropriate to that deity.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, I think one of the big problems is, beginning in the TSR era that are still felt today: The forgotten realms / D&D is a polytheists society with several existing real gods and pantheons, but alle religions are basically organised like the roman Catholic Church.
You have Priests (Clerics), church buildings, mess, you have crusaders (Paladins) ...

So you've already got this schizophrenic meshup of the structure of a monotheistic religion put over a polytheistic system and then they mix in modern concepts of powered by belief in concepts and atheistic clerics.

It is quite a mess that wouldn't hold long under scrutiny.

That's one reason why I don't run FR.

In one of my home settings, the top religions all worship the same gods but put someone else on top. Father Sky for Clerics, Mother Earth for Druids, Mistress Sea for Sea Shaman, LordSun/LadyMoon for Invokers, the Warrior for Warpriests, The Reaper for Deathpriests..

Only the Clerics mimic fantasy Catholics with the look and structure. Sea Shaman are just knowledgeable sailors. Druids are circles of scholars who snuck into many human nobilities. Warpriests is just a fight club. And since they all believe in the same gods, the conflicts between the churches are mostly intellectual and financial as they occupy different niches.

Everyone prays to Mistress Sea for safe passage over the water. All burn candles to the Warrior when at war even through he is evil. Either the Warrior, the General, or the Destroyer. All three are evil.

The only monotheists are those followers who demand shunning of other deities and get Psuedo- Zoroastrianism.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why does "can provide magic power to others" equate to "actually a transcendental being worthy of devotion and reverence"?

Whether something is "worthy of devotion and reverence" is a personal opinion not an objective quality.

As far as I'm concerned, the high lords and ladies of the fey, the royalty and upper nobility among genies, the most powerful demons and devils, and a variety of other beings are perfectly capable of providing power--perhaps even in the form of daily spell access!--to those who act in their name. Granting spell slots is just another way of saying "they're powerful." Power alone does not a true deity make.

Depends on the definition. If warlock magic was similarly channelled like cleric magic then indeed one could reasonably think these beings that are source of that power as minor deities. It is just semantics really.

 

[TwoSix]

Like ... a wandering Inn?

You know, I don’t think there’s been an Innworld character who’s a paladin. I think Crusader is closest.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Whether something is "worthy of devotion and reverence" is a personal opinion not an objective quality.

But that is at the heart of what someone means when they say things like, "Well, of course you're a powerful magical being, but are you a god?" A god deserves worship, and hunting after proof-of-divinity is precisely that, the search for the objective quality of divinity, not merely "personal opinion."

An entity being inherently worthy of devotion and reverence is what they're looking for. It's certainly a trope, and practically a subgenre of sci-fi (and to a lesser extent fantasy) that "powerful being who demands and/or receives worship" is not at all sufficient qualification for being "a god."

"What does God need with a starship?" You don't ask this kind of question if you don't have an idea that there is an essential something, an objective quality that actually merits devotion and worship (at least from some group of folks, not necessarily from absolutely everyone.)

Depends on the definition. If warlock magic was similarly channelled like cleric magic then indeed one could reasonably think these beings that are source of that power as minor deities. It is just semantics really.

But that's the point. If power alone becomes "just semantics really" then power does not a god make. Obviously, one would expect a god to have some degree of power; but that makes it a necessary, not sufficient, condition. The sufficient condition, as stated, is being inherently worthy of devotion and reverence. Y'know, characteristics like "truly, actually the uncreated creator-of-all-things" or the like.

In something like the World Axis, deities are in effect living concepts. Pelor is not simply a powerful being who can do sun-related stuff. In a very meaningful sense, the essence and nature of hope, of the sun, and of life, are part of him--and he is part of them. Some part of what those things are is embodied in him--and if he were to be truly destroyed, the part of him that is in them would die as well. Those things themselves would not necessarily die, but they would most certainly be damaged. Likewise, Tiamat is some living portion of tyranny and greed and vengeance. If she were to be truly, utterly slain, all the things she is would be lessened in the world. They would not be gone--but they would recede, because a powerful portion of what those things are had been snuffed out. Rulers would show mercy and justice to their people--or fall and be replaced by better ones. Misers would give an Ebenezer turn. Fewer bloody feuds would continue, as folk reconsider and set aside old grudges.

In my Jewel of the Desert setting, as noted, the only deity-like being that has kinda-sorta-halfway appeared in-setting (and that only privately to one specific PC) makes no claims of being able to prove Their divinity--it is a matter of faith whether you believe it is true or not. That doesn't make the fact subjective; the claim still has a truth-value. It's just not one that you can spin up some experiment and "prove" one way or the other. It must be a matter of faith.

But perhaps I have spilled too much digital ink over something that isn't actually the thread's topic. I still find it hilarious that there is this idea that a casual promise to do a thing somehow instantly results in phenomenal cosmic power. It's just...no. That's not how it works, and thoughts of gaming the system like that are precisely what would prevent it from working.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But that is at the heart of what someone means when they say things like, "Well, of course you're a powerful magical being, but are you a god?" A god deserves worship, and hunting after proof-of-divinity is precisely that, the search for the objective quality of divinity, not merely "personal opinion."

An entity being inherently worthy of devotion and reverence is what they're looking for. It's certainly a trope, and practically a subgenre of sci-fi (and to a lesser extent fantasy) that "powerful being who demands and/or receives worship" is not at all sufficient qualification for being "a god."

This formulation implies that such a thing than "objectively worthy of worship" is a thing that can exist. And I am not sure I like that.

"What does God need with a starship?" You don't ask this kind of question if you don't have an idea that there is an essential something, an objective quality that actually merits devotion and worship (at least from some group of folks, not necessarily from absolutely everyone.)

No I think Star Trek's answer on that has pretty consistently been that searching such external authority and validation is ultimately foolish. There are no "real gods" just powerful aliens and mad computers.

But that's the point. If power alone becomes "just semantics really" then power does not a god make. Obviously, one would expect a god to have some degree of power; but that makes it a necessary, not sufficient, condition. The sufficient condition, as stated, is being inherently worthy of devotion and reverence. Y'know, characteristics like "truly, actually the uncreated creator-of-all-things" or the like.

That is your definition, but not the only possible one, nor I think it is universal to many real religions that have existed. In many mythologies the line between god, demigods, spirits and other magical beings as well as mythical heroes is rather nebulous.

In something like the World Axis, deities are in effect living concepts. Pelor is not simply a powerful being who can do sun-related stuff. In a very meaningful sense, the essence and nature of hope, of the sun, and of life. Some part of what those things are is embodied in him--and if he were to be truly destroyed, the part of him that is in them would die as well. Those things themselves would not necessarily die, but they would most certainly be damaged. Likewise, Tiamat is some living portion of tyranny and greed and vengeance. If she were to be truly, utterly slain, all the things she is would be lessened in the world. They would not be gone--but they would recede, because a powerful portion of what those things are had been snuffed out. Rulers would show mercy and justice to their people--or fall and be replaced by better ones. Misers would give an Ebenezer turn. Fewer bloody feuds would continue, as folk reconsider and set aside old grudges.

This is a bit what I meant in the other thread when I said gods to be more like personifications of forces rather than people with power. I still don't think this makes them objectively worthy of worship though.

In my Jewel of the Desert setting, as noted, the only deity-like being that has kinda-sorta-halfway appeared in-setting (and that only privately to one specific PC) makes no claims of being able to prove Their divinity--it is a matter of faith whether you believe it is true or not. That doesn't make the fact subjective; the claim still has a truth-value. It's just not one that you can spin up some experiment and "prove" one way or the other. It must be a matter of faith.

But perhaps I have spilled too much digital ink over something that isn't actually the thread's topic. I still find it hilarious that there is this idea that a casual promise to do a thing somehow instantly results in phenomenal cosmic power. It's just...no. That's not how it works, and thoughts of gaming the system like that are precisely what would prevent it from working.

If we want to continue this discussion, perhaps it would make more sense to do so in the recent pantheon thread?