D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Ilbranteloth]

I hate to interrupt the discussion of Gods and Powers, but I had a discussion with a friend (a huge FR buff) who suggested something interesting...

We were talking about Curse of Strahd and, how except for minor differences, Strahd is just a MM spellcaster-variant vampire (with a higher Int score a few different spells) and Mordenkainen was a MM archmage (rather than a unique NPC stat block). Accerack in ToH is a MM demi-lich as well (with his variant power in the MM). It appears that, with a few exceptions, WotC ok with not custom crafting stat blocks for NPCs and is willing to use MM stat blocks for famous heroes and monsters. This lead us to a thought about how other "NPCs" in the Realms might now be as powerful as they were made before.

What if, Elminster is an MM archmage rather than a 30+ level fighter/cleric/thief/wizard/archmage that 3e had him as? What is Artemis is a 16th level rogue (assassin), Drizzt a 16th level ranger (hunter)? The Seven Sisters weren't epic level but Challenge 12-14 NPCs?

What if the "epic demigods of FR" aren't so mechanically epic anymore? That a group of mid-levels PCs could take out Elminster or Drizzt? They are high levels for sure, and Elminster is still capable of 9th level magic, but They aren't the Epic Level Gods of 2e or 3e anymore? (Most of their story exploits being owed to plot-armor and convenience) Thus, we can answer why can't Elminster go and solo Tiamat in Rise of Tiamat? Well, can a challenge 12 take out a challenge 30 solo by himself? Grab the stat blocks and try it. Hell, give Elminster help from Kelban and Allustrial (MM archmages) as allies and have them take on Demogorgon (Challenge 25, OOtA) and see how that combat plays.

Once you frame the notion like that, I wonder if it changes the notion of "why isn't Elminster stopping the Underdark invasion of demons" when he's more limited to what a 20th level wizard can do rather than a 30th level rules monstrosity...

So throughout the history of the Forgotten Realms, those famous NPCs have changed level with every edition. What is consistent, and was the original intent, is that many of the NPCs (not just the famous ones), are high enough level that they can't just be attacked by the PCs, and will pose a credible threat if they are a foe. This is consistent with some of the original approaches in D&D, where spells of 7th-level and higher were originally designed for NPCs to allow them to do things the PCs couldn't, and so it could reflect that they were of higher level than the PCs.

So naturally, as PC levels increased, the levels of the NPCs did too. In 5e, I think the majority of the famous NPCs would be 20th level with several boons.

Having said that, all "famous" adventures, that is, the ones not involving our PCs directly, are subject to the effect of bards and their tall tales. So Eliminster from the PCs perspective "may not as powerful as the tales say. Of course, unless ye've actually met him and can prove otherwise. Nothing but the fabrications of those that tell such tall tales and make their coin from it."

 

[hawkeyefan]

Officially, that's the term used in the Forgotten Realms, and was carried over to Planescape. It's just not used consistently.

I didn't know that, but it makes sense.

 

[billd91]

Not originally. Eg the AD&D PHB says (p 20) that "The cleric is dedicated to a deity, or deities", and also refers to a cleric constructing "a castle, a monastery, an abbey or the like [which] must be dedicated to the cleric's deity (or deities)."

I think DDG is the first AD&D book to imply that clerics worship only one god exclusively.

And I don't think it implies that at all. When it refers to a cleric's relationship with a god, it's talking about a patron god - the one with whom the cleric has their special power-giving relationship - not the totality of all of the gods a cleric might actually worship.
Just because you're a cleric of Boccob, that doesn't mean you aren't going to the festivals and temples of Wenta, St. Cuthbert, or Heironeous when the time is appropriate to do so.

 

[guachi]

I'm using the definition from Lectures on Faith (specifically #4, The Attributes of God). It's not something I just made up--that's how God is characterized where I come from. There isn't generally-recognized definition for the word "god" though. E.g. Greek gods are immortal but Norse gods are not. (One of the reason I, as a child, always thought Norse myths were lame compared to Greek myths.) Christians don't even agree on what "gods" are--half the time the word translated as "god" in the KJV is just "elohim," which I'm told simply means "master of forces" or "powerful being" in Hebrew. Ancient Egyptians sometimes considered Pharaoh a god even though he in actuality had none of the attributes of a mythic Greek god or Norse god. Etc.



And by at least one of those definitions (#3, arguably #1 as well, although that gets you into circular definitions about what "worship" means), the President of the United States is a god.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

You aren't going to argue semantics? You just DID argue semantics. You've spent multiple posts, including this one, arguing what words mean. That's what semantics is.

And now you're playing goalpost moving. You've switched from arguing what gods mean to what the definition of God (one particular god) is. Yes, the Christian deity is omnipotent and omniscient. It's not relevant as that's not a common characteristic of gods (small 'g').

Yes, some definitions of 'god' (especially in a non-religious context) can include all sorts of things. But not one of them includes omnipotence and omniscience, unless used to define an individual deity such as the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god.

Your definition of god is like saying that cars without removable tops aren't cars because the only thing you consider cars are convertibles.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So I'm questioning where the line is. A DM pretending to be a dragon, mind flayer or flumph seems as far-fetched as portraying a god. Particularly when most of the time, all that is relevant in a campaign is the acknowledgement of the gods themselves, and really all that needs to be defined for them to be gods in the campaign is the ability to grant divine abilities. The DM doesn't actually have to act as the god. The game defines what the benefits are of worshipping a god, at least to a cleric, and whether the gods exist or not is really irrelevant. So just as you can say that they are wrong and don't exist, it would be just as easy to say they are right and they do exist and leave it at that.

Even if you accept that the gods do exist, in your campaign, the fact that you, as the DM, know that the gods are petty and grasping for power doesn't mean your fictional people do. That the people take them seriously as a matter of faith. That's how you could understand how people take them seriously.

I don't find it difficult to consider that the published information about the gods themselves are just tall tales, and the reality is different, yet the gods still exist and provide all of the powers attributed to them in the game. On the other hand, I also don't consider the possibility that the gods in this world are much closer to the ancient gods of Egypt, Rome, and Greece, where the gods are literally just more powerful creatures that happen to have abilities and control over the people's eternal lives.

None of that means that you can't choose that the gods don't exist. And I don't think you really need to justify that decision. But when you choose to justify them, then I might question those justifications. Not to pick on you, or tell you you're wrong. But to understand better. I'm just pointing out that your justifications don't make sense (at least to me).

The justifications given were:

1. The world can't have gods, because the DM isn't a god. By that measure, he's not a dragon either. Or a flumph. So why have dragons but not gods?
2. You don't have gods, because you don't think the people should/could take self-proclaimed gods seriously. I've questioned that, and given examples as to how the people could (and probably should) take them seriously.

Okay, I am starting to see I think where you're coming from. You're conflating two different things and to an extent that's my fault.

Thing #1: I don't require anybody to take "the gods" seriously. This is something which happens first and foremost at the metagame level. There is no social contract specifying that players have to take Thor seriously as anything a powerful NPC. Likewise there is no social contract specifying that if the PCs happen to meet Heracles, that he will be someone who is capable of actually holding up the sky. There's no social contract specifying that human beings actually have shards of both Ruin and Preservation in them. There are a lot of stories in the world and some of them are just myths--you can take them seriously if you want to but you might be wrong. Just like how it is on Earth.

The fact that certain NPCs pick up on that ambiguity too is incidental. You could in theory have a setting where the PCs were the first heretics ever to question the divinity of Gruumsh the Creator--the important part is that you can do so and the DM isn't going to get upset with you.

Thing #2 is important but not something which has been mentioned lately in this thread: powerful friendly supernatural beings over a certain level of capability are bad for the game because they remove opportunities for agency, especially if they are not Gods. I mean, Iluvatar is bad enough for dramatic tension in Lord of the Rings on a re-read (you know that Iluvatar is going to make things all turn out okay in the end) but at least an infallible, omnipotent overseer can let bad things happen to people in the short run because the end result will be good. If on the other hand Crom simply have lots of power and knowledge, but not an unlimited amount, then Crom is morally obligated to act when the opportunity presents itself, instead of letting the PCs do it. It's the Elminster problem on steroids. You have to be very careful how much power and knowledge and motivation you allow to friendly powers in the campaign world or it crushes the life out of the game.

For related reasons, you don't want actively hostile powers to be too strong either. Neutral powers are okay, especially if they're basically apathetic and uncaring.

I guess I'm just saying, that's not good logic to not have gods. You know what is? I'm the DM and the author of my world, and in my world there are no gods. And it's an interesting premise to start with, particularly if you continue to have religion in your world.

Not really. Having religions in the world doesn't require having gods of any kind. I believe I can say without controversy that at least 99% of the gods ever worshipped by humanity in the real world do not exist. An atheist would bump that up to 100% but it doesn't change the point--most gods are purely imaginary and always have been.

"And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You aren't going to argue semantics? You just DID argue semantics. You've spent multiple posts, including this one, arguing what words mean. That's what semantics is.

I answered your question. I didn't try to persuade you to adopt my viewpoint. I am not arguing semantics with you on the definition of "god."

I suppose I am briefly arguing semantics with you on the metapoint of what "arguing semantics" means, but I am not going to devote multiple posts to it.

 

[Maxperson]

If on the other hand Crom simply have lots of power and knowledge, but not an unlimited amount, then Crom is morally obligated to act when the opportunity presents itself, instead of letting the PCs do it.

Gods are not people, and you seem to be applying the way people act and do things to the gods. In D&D, gods are forces of nature. They embody certain things and those things are most of what they care about, and in some cases all that they care about. The god of death isn't going to care if some wizard is enslaving a city. He's going to harvest the souls of those the wizard kills, though. There will be no moral quandary going on for him. The same with the goddess of magic. She isn't going to care that the wizard is enslaving the city, either, unless he's violating the magical laws and precepts she put forth while doing so. None of the gods are morally obligated to act on anything. Mortal morals do not apply to them.

For related reasons, you don't want actively hostile powers to be too strong either. Neutral powers are okay, especially if they're basically apathetic and uncaring.

There is also the cosmic rule that doesn't allow gods to act directly to interfere with the world. If an evil god were to go to the Realms to cause destruction, the good gods would show up to stop it and that would be bad for ALL gods. They need the worshipers and can't afford to kill them and/or turn them off to following the gods. That means that they have to work through their intermediaries such as clerics, paladins, anti-paladins, etc.

 

[guachi]

Well, I said D&D setting, perhaps I should have said published D&D setting. I don't recall any settings offhand where a cleric wasn't dedicated to a specific deity, rather than a group of deities.

Mystara doesn't require it.

The first Gazetteer Grand Duchy of Karameikos has two primary churches for the humans and neither requires clerics to follow a specific immortal (nor does the supplement even mention a single cleric of either church who does). The Church of Thyatis and Darokin, similarly, don't require clerics to follow a specific Immortal. Halflings can't be clerics, but I don't see anything that indicates the individual halflings venerate specific Immortal halflings. They are commonly called the High Heroes and lumped together.

Some religions/churches do have clerics of specific Immortals such as the Dwarves or Ylaruam (mainly because they only have one Immortal) and others like Ethengar and Atruaghin that specifically mention that clerics must follow a specific Immortal within the pantheon. If elves in the setting could have clerics, they'd probably follow one Immortal as the individual clans generally worship one of the elven Immortals more than the others, depending on the clan. It is implied that the clerics of the Northern Reaches are dedicated to a specific Immortal.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I was following on from your post to try to convey some ideas about what makes a powerful supernatural being a god.

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, infallability, aren't (perhaps) necessary - but something about the value or significance of the supernatural being's acts and capabilities is necessary.

For use in a D&D setting, it's a simple matter of box-ticking, with each 'yes' answer allowing passage to the next question:

- Powerful supernatural being?
- Will live forever if left undisturbed?
- Is, or has become, native to a non-prime-material plane?
- Has a clear and relatively unambiguous alignment or ethos?

At this point, we have an Immortal - and there's lots of those. But to take the next step there's a few more criteria:

- Has intelligent sentient worshippers? (beyond just "friends and family")
- Is able to operate outside the usual prime-material rules of function and physics? (i.e. can do "miracles")
- Is able (and willing) to support Clerics and grant them spells on petition?

All 'yes' thus far, and presto - we have a deity.

Those criteria I've listed aren't perfect, but I hope you get the idea.

One side note that hasn't come up at all yet is the idea of PCs eventually themselves ascending to divinity, an idea which I've always rather liked (in other words it's been a long-term career goal for many of my too-many PCs over the years); though by my own definitions above the best they could hope for is Immortal status until-unless they start attracting worshippers.

Lan-"and of course Elminster's immortal - I mean, have you ever seen him die?"-efan

 

[Mirtek]

What if the "epic demigods of FR" aren't so mechanically epic anymore?

That was taken for granted once 5e lowered the ceiling with making Tiamat a mere CR30. Elminster couldn't be even near a true deity in power, so if ever stated has to be much lower.

we can answer why can't Elminster go and solo Tiamat

No one expects him to solo Tiamat, even at his prime he could never do that. But he should do something