D&D 5E Orcs and Drow in YOUR game (poll */comments +)

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

That is why I said Eberron was a special case. But there are gods in Eberron nonetheless. Silent, yes. But they are there.

The gods MIGHT be there. It's left as a deliberately open question, and there are religions like the Blood of Vol and Path of Light that very much DON'T worship the gods of the setting at all.

Regardless, I think both "divine power comes from faith" and "divine power comes from the gods" have meaningful narrative use that warrant support.

Basing it on faith allows for interesting themes like heresy, schisms, and extremism in ways that are pretty quickly shut down when the god in question can simply revoke your access to divine power the moment you step out of line, but by the same token, it's a lot harder to do narratives about the faithful losing access to divine power due to a fall from grace, or a test of faith, or the death of their god, etc. when that power can't be revoked in such a manner.

Both interpretations have their place.

 

[Azzy]

That change came in a non core book. So not everyone used that or cared about it.

Okay, Jan. The "faith alone would give you only 1st and 2nd level spells" didn't exist in 2e, either. So, there's that, too.

 

[Helldritch]

Okay, Jan. The "faith alone would give you only 1st and 2nd level spells" didn't exist in 2e, either. So, there's that, too.

Which meant you could only get these spells with gods. Which was even more restrictive than 1st. And do not be so dismissive with your Jan.

The gods MIGHT be there. It's left as a deliberately open question, and there are religions like the Blood of Vol and Path of Light that very much DON'T worship the gods of the setting at all.

Regardless, I think both "divine power comes from faith" and "divine power comes from the gods" have meaningful narrative use that warrant support.

Basing it on faith allows for interesting themes like heresy, schisms, and extremism in ways that are pretty quickly shut down when the god in question can simply revoke your access to divine power the moment you step out of line, but by the same token, it's a lot harder to do narratives about the faithful losing access to divine power due to a fall from grace, or a test of faith, or the death of their god, etc. when that power can't be revoked in such a manner.

Both interpretations have their place.

Again, Eberron is a special case where the setting certainly warrant the "no gods" approach. But it is but one setting. Of the "canons" which setting pre 3xed had no gods? Greyhawk, Dragon Lance, Mystara (if you count immortals, or not), Forgotten Realms, Planescapes all had gods. Ravenloft was both with and without gods as explained in the boxed set. Of all of them, Darksun is the only one without gods and yet, even they must "worship" elemental forces (air, earth, fire and water) to get their spells...

So the aspect of not needing god is relatively new. I can't remember if clerics in 4ed had to worship a god or a philosophy, but they had to choose a god at creation... maybe in the PHB2? Which would bring, again, a non core book to justify the no deity. Only 5ed actually made the "worship" of a philosophy a core thing and not a setting thing.

This again brings us the question. Do we still need clerics?

 

[Mezuka]

The creator of the OP has left the building before I could reply. What happened?

OP: In my last 5e campaign I used neither of them, or any classic D&D humanoids. I'm tired of them after 40 years of D&D play. Instead, I used different humanoids from Kobold Press creature books. It kept things fresh for me and made things new/exciting for the players.

 

[Lyxen]

That change came in a non core book. So not everyone used that or cared about it.

Just to point out that it was the same in 3e, and I honestly find this really annoying. I understand that some people (and I have a few friends like that) hate and despise religion to an extent that they will never play a priest, and I have some that absolutely will not play someone subservient to anyone, including their god (although, for some reason that I have still not completely understood, a warlock is OK since it's more of a partnership). But trying to find ways for a cleric to work without having a god to pray too is a bit too much for my preferences.

 

[Helldritch]

Just to point out that it was the same in 3e, and I honestly find this really annoying. I understand that some people (and I have a few friends like that) hate and despise religion to an extent that they will never play a priest, and I have some that absolutely will not play someone subservient to anyone, including their god (although, for some reason that I have still not completely understood, a warlock is OK since it's more of a partnership). But trying to find ways for a cleric to work without having a god to pray too is a bit too much for my preferences.

?
You are stating my stance as if it was not mine. Or am I missing something?
Par ce que là tu m'as carrément perdu sur cette réponse. (in english: you lost me on that answer...)

Although I do prefer priest to have gods by a very very very wide margin. I can accept the stance that some people prefer not to have gods in their games. But if a setting has gods, then these gods will definitely have a say on what is happening on the prime material plane.

 

[delericho]

Clerics in BECMI D&D didn't have to follow deities. From the Red Box Player's Manual, "A cleric is a human character who is dedicated to serving a great and worthy cause. This cause is usually the cleric's Alignment..." The Rules Cyclopedia says almost exactly the same thing (adding, but not mandating, Immortals as patrons).

So the notion of Clerics not following gods has a very old pedigree, including in core books.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I tend to run Dragonlance, so it's a non-issue for the most part. Both do not exist on Krynn.

While drow have been mentioned a few times, those are considered to be either dark elves (evil outcast elves) or kender tales (i.e. the drow from DLS4 Wild Elves).

That being said....

Drow and orcs as always evil is a bit boring. I think it depends on the society. In Menzoberranzan, I expect them to be evil, with the occasional exception to the rule like Drizzt. However, it would be refreshing to see some other take on them. Evil drow have kind of become a tired old cliche. Plus, as they are problematic in-world, you may not be allowed to play one. That happened to me once.

As for orcs....zzzzz....

They make fine foot soldiers in Lord of the Rings. However, I would like to see some culture to them. In Sovereign Stone, for example, orks (note the spelling) were representative of water and they were excellent seafarers.

Make these races interesting. Vanilla goblins were a snooze-fest. What Paizo did with them was genius.

 

[Azzy]

Which meant you could only get these spells with gods. Which was even more restrictive than 1st.

Uh, no, I'm saying the whole rules as to which level cleric spells came from faith, celestials, or gods themselves is entirely a 1e thing, and doesn't exist in 2e.

And do not be so dismissive with your Jan.

When you stop trying to ignore inconveniences.

 

[Lanefan]

Uh, no, I'm saying the whole rules as to which level cleric spells came from faith, celestials, or gods themselves is entirely a 1e thing, and doesn't exist in 2e.

Interesting - I always thought this carried straight over to 2e.