D&D (2024) What does the new DMG say about gods?

[Clint_L]

I think a lot of DMs are going to ignore the current suggestions around divine power as well.

Good! That falls firmly into the world-building category, so it’s not like these are rules anyway.

 

[cbwjm]

Good! That falls firmly into the world-building category, so it’s not like these are rules anyway.

Yeah, exactly. I hope this being mentioned in the DMG won't make players assume they can do whatever they want within the game world wothout consequences, something I've seen as expected on Reddit.

 

[Voadam]

Does it say anything about non theistic religions like the blood of vol in Eberron where no god grants clerics their power?

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, I didn't want to bring that up as it's what led to the DMG AMA thread getting locked. Probably best not to touch on this particular subject any further here.

I had stopped reading that thread a while before that came up so I was unaware.

 

[Parmandur]

Does it say anything about non theistic religions like the blood of vol in Eberron where no god grants clerics their power?

Right around the same place it says that God's don't do takesie-backsies with the powers of wayward Clericsz they talk briefly about monotheism, dualism or non-theisric philosophy beingbpoaaivle sources of divine power. Knowing that this was probably written by James Wyatt, it feels an awful lot like his suggestions from 3E Deities and Demigods.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, exactly. I hope this being mentioned in the DMG won't make players assume they can do whatever they want within the game world wothout consequences, something I've seen as expected on Reddit.

I trust players to work out their own narrative needs. D&D's rules don't demand any particular cosmology - you can have a setting where gods aren't real, and D&D works fine - you just come up with an alternate explanation for how clerics get spells. In my setting, a lot of gods have no power whatsoever. But some of their followers do.

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, exactly. I hope this being mentioned in the DMG won't make players assume they can do whatever they want within the game world wothout consequences, something I've seen as expected on Reddit.

I don’t expect that to be the case. This just changes the 1e-3e view of an omniscient personal relationship of a god directly granting spells and reviewing adherence to their tenets to a less personal constant immediate relationship as a default.

An interventionist god who cares and notices still has their full god powers and can smite or curse or send messages or do whatever just like they can for any character.

I expect clerics will expect consequences to their actions just as much as fighters and rogues and sorcerers do.

 

[Stormonu]

I did a spit take on page 75.
....For game purposes, wielding divine power isn’t dependent on the gods’ ongoing approval or the strength of a character’s devotion. The power is a gift offered to a select few; once given, it can’t be rescinded.....
So WOTC just told all DMs player character can say fu to the god and still get their full spell list the next day.

I wonder if they assume that would apply to the Divine Intervention ability? I'm assuming they do, but that just seems ... weird.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I had stopped reading that thread a while before that came up so I was unaware.

I started that thread, and I missed the last 50 pages or so myself! It was supposed to be fun and informative. Ah, well.

 

[Parmandur]

I started that thread, and I missed the last 50 pages or so myself! It was supposed to be fun and informative. Ah, well.

It was at first!