D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[cbwjm]

Domains don't even make it remotely difficult to run a monotheistic game in 3e or 5e. If anything, they help you cover a concept more than the old clerics that were pretty much set in their ways. Pick a domain (or 2 depending on edition) and this is the aspect of the faith for which you are an exemplar. Now you can have a difference between a cleric who is a crusader (war domain) and one who tends their flock (life domain) another might watch over the rural areas (nature) while another is a church sage (knowledge). And of course, if DM doesn't want his monochromatic deity to have more than one domain, choose the life domain since even players using the basic rules will have access to it.

 

[Sadras]

If the GM permits it. Or not, if the GM doesn't

I'm not saying that the book rules out polytheism. But these scenario-types are suggestions to the GM. They don't mandate that the gameworld must be polytheistic.

No one is saying anything is mandated.

Nothing in the rulebook makes it remotely difficult to run a monotheistic world without changing a thing about the rules. Contrast 5e or 3E, which requires mucking about with domains.

The only difference is with 5e or 3e, there are now options. You can choose which domains or domain-power combinations your monotheistic deity provides. The entire character generation has become more complex from the days of Moldvay Basic. To blame domains is not much of an argument.

Well, given that it's the whole of my argument, that's a pity.

This line being the reason for the laugh!

These classic rulebooks make it easier to run a world of essentially mediaeval templars, warrior bishops, etc than they do to run a world of Greek, Norse, Egyptian etc priests. That's relevant, in my view, to the extent to which they do or don't imply polytheism.

100% agree, but the whole game was easier (less complexities), IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not saying that the book rules out polytheism. But these scenario-types are suggestions to the GM. They don't mandate that the gameworld must be polytheistic.

Nothing in the rulebook makes it remotely difficult to run a monotheistic world without changing a thing about the rules. Contrast 5e or 3E, which requires mucking about with domains.

It shows that the game assumes polytheism. It assumes "the gods", not god the one. And again, nobody is saying that it's difficult to run D&D as monotheistic. We're saying that it has always assumed polytheism as the default.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Note, your point doesn't actually counter @Remathilis' point. Rem specified CORE, not supplements in his post. You are countering that you can do this with supplements. Fair enough. But, his basic point still remains. You have to rewrite core in order to apply the rules to that specific setting framework. The core DMG/PHB/MM won't do it for you. And, in fact, will certainly run very much against the idea of a monotheistic D&D since you have Priests of a Specific Mythoi built right into the game.

OTOH, those really were cool books.

Remathilis specifically said you cannot make a version of the PHB that includes all those options because they contradict each other:

Because D&D IS NOT SETTING NEUTRAL. Its a stupid assumption to begin with. You can't make a version of D&D that covers all homebrews because there are infinite numbers of homebrews. Some have no races but human; or don't allow any caster classes. Some assume all dragons are monochromatic and not-necessarily evil, some don't use aberrations or have vampires unbound by fear of garlic and running water. Some include firearms, airships, and sentient golems. Some involve magic that requires demonic sacrifice, contact with sanity-blasting alien entities, or pseudo-technological inventions to work. Some are renaissance level, some are stone-age tech. You cannot make a version of the PHB that does not contradict those options because they themselves contradict each other.

Emphasis mine. I agree with you that the complete books are supplements, but the PO books aren't. They were specifically designed to replace the PHB and be the core player resource. It's right in the foreword of the PO: Skills & Powers. So the books that do it best - the PO series - ARE core. Maybe it isn't AD&D, but whatever system you wan to call it, it is core for that system and is a version of D&D. So it is possible.

Now as for Yaerel and his thing about no gods or monotheisism or whatever - I agree, can't be done. Any system that is generic enough to provide a ton of options WILL provide options for gods and religion. However, 2nd Edition goes out of it's way to make sure you don't need gods or religion. In fact, the PO: Skills & Powers specifically states that specialty priests (including those without gods) found in the Complete handbook are what you should use when creating a specialist priest.

To address Remathilis' second point about racial restrictions and druids, the DMG specifically states you can ignore them and recommends ways to go about it. As for Druids, PO: Skills & Powers states clearly that druids are a specialty priest example and thus can be changed using the rules for specialty priests. Which means you could have evil, good, or neutral druids. Edit to Add: Under the Complete Druids Handbook was a "Lost Druid" kit, which was inherently evil. The use of animate dead is considered to not be a "good act" and only "evil" characters use it regularly - which the Lost Druid does. So again, yet another example of how the designers intended the system to be modified and changed.

So since the three primary PO books are the replacement PHB, and they accomplish the goal of a bunch of disparate systems, it can be done using core. However, any such system would have to include options for everyone including those who want religion. However, 2nd Ed provided a number of options for removing religion from the game, and even the opening for the chapter on Priests in Spells & Tactics doesn't assume a pantheon, just that if one is in place these rules can help develop the priesthood around them... and again, turn to the Complete book which goes out of its way to offer philosophies.

Finally, I agree - the PO books are awesome

 

[Dorian_Grey]

I wanted to add one final thought on flexibility. Since 1991, I've been playing 2nd Edition AD&D. In that time I've created a lot of worlds, and yes, the majority were generic medieval fantasy settings. However, with Creative Campaigning and the PO rules, I've created:

1. A sea going campaign set in 18th century technology with stone age natives battling against underwater threats.
2. A bronze age setting based on Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamian religions, with no class restrictions
3. A pre-agricultural revolution stone age setting, with tons of classes removed
4. An "alien experiment" setting where biodomes build into asteroids circle a sun and teleportation technology connects them. Tech levels varied and include "found technology" remnants of the dead alien overseers.
5. A colonial setting where the natives and colonists must work together to face "elder evils"
6. A Demiplane of Shadow campaign with natives from that plane of existence
7. A campaign with no gods and where healing magic was the practice of necromancers
8. A monotheistic campaign (wasn't much of a major role in the story line for the players, but it was a major change I was hoping would have more of an impact).
9. Urban campaigns in 19th century gaslight fantasy based on Martha Wells "Death of the Necromancer" series.
10. A "world war" setting where the campaign was an odd mix of modern weapons, magic, and more. Bombers attacking palaces warded by powerful wizards while dragons loyal to the crown cast spells and breathed fire on them.
11. A setting without gods where spiritualism is focused around Saints and Sinners (Saints = Good aligned people who do such amazing things that the collective will of the populace propels them into a semi-godlike status where they generate holy power for their believers; Sinners = Evil aligned people who do such terrible things that the collective will of the populace propels them into a semi-godlike status where they generate unholy power for those that wish to emulate them).
12. An Elemental campaign setting, where the location of the game was a world of extremes: extreme mountain ranges, massive super volcanoes, deep verdant jungles, powerful storming oceans, etc. The players were all tied to an element which affect race selection and abilities. Elements were fighting the incursion of external forces on their power and the players took up the fight.

Those were the most extreme based on my campaign notebook. And that is ignoring the various classic "knights and castles" in the middle ages but with a twist settings I created. Most of them required less than a few hours of "Okay, I'm going to use material from here, here and here." and then a 20 minute pitch to the players.

With the right tools you can create anything you want. PO provides the right tools.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]

Is it relevant to the claim that Moldvay Basic implies or assumes polytheism that the only picture of a cleric - that is unmistakably a cleric - that I can find in the book is on p B10, and is of a man wearing a cross? Is it relevant that, in the example of turning undead (p B9), the cleric is called "Father Miles"? Or that the cleric in the example of play (B28, B59) is callled "Sister Rebecca", who - when Black Dougal dies - gives him "the last rites of [her] church"?

Now that I re-read them, I think these examples are probably what most influenced me and my friends' early conceptions of what a cleric is. The PC cleric in our game was called Brother Simon. It's only in the Expert Book (p X7) that we see a cleric with a name that is more suggestive of non-monotheistic tendencies (although hardly definitive on the point): the example of turning undead on that page involves "Antonius the Wise".

(Other character pictures in the Basic book: B6, MU and F; B10 - the cleric is in a picture with various other classes; B11 - if the person wrestling with the would-be goblin slayer is a cleric, he looks a lot like a templar type to me; B20 - edged weapons, not clerics; B42 - sword, not cleric; B47 - look like MUs to me; B48 - sword belt, not cleric.

In the Expert book there is only one picture of a clerical candidate - the mace-wielder on X25 - but his/her back is to us and no holy symbol is visible. That said, s/he certainly looks like a crusader-type. The other characters: X6 fighter talking to halflings; X8 fighter with sword (and the gargoyle/demon seems to be leaning on an up-ended stone cross); X16, X17 & X18 - MUs; X20 - elf or MU; X21 - NPC alchemist; X22 - NPC mercenaries.)

 

[Remathilis]

Now as for Yaerel and his thing about no gods or monotheisism or whatever - I agree, can't be done. Any system that is generic enough to provide a ton of options WILL provide options for gods and religion. However, 2nd Edition goes out of it's way to make sure you don't need gods or religion. In fact, the PO: Skills & Powers specifically states that specialty priests (including those without gods) found in the Complete handbook are what you should use when creating a specialist priest.

Still the point is Yarael doesn't want a copy of the PHB that gives him an OPTION to use non-polytheistic religions, he wants a version WITHOUT POLYTHEISM AT ALL. Tantamount to wanting a version of D&D that doesn't have ANY playable races beyond human since my game doesn't use any but human. I don't want other races depicted in the art, referenced in the class sections, magic items that references race (belt of dwarvenkind, boots of elvenkind), etc. Mostly, because race should be determined by the world, and a FR elf isn't the same as a Dark Sun elf, so having some default race is pointless anyway. Put races in the Campaign Setting books and supplements where they belong.

See why its a non-starter? He doesn't want the option to ignore it, he feels he shouldn't HAVE TO in the first place and the PHB should accommodate that. So the DM removes all references to polytheism for Yarael, all the races but human for me, all the Forgotten Realms references for Corpsetaker*, all the Psionic references and monsters for Hussar*, etc... What do you have left?

* Neither have specifically called for their removal in the PHB, I just used them for example.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Still the point is Yarael doesn't want a copy of the PHB that gives him an OPTION to use non-polytheistic religions, he wants a version WITHOUT POLYTHEISM AT ALL. Tantamount to wanting a version of D&D that doesn't have ANY playable races beyond human since my game doesn't use any but human. I don't want other races depicted in the art, referenced in the class sections, magic items that references race (belt of dwarvenkind, boots of elvenkind), etc. Mostly, because race should be determined by the world, and a FR elf isn't the same as a Dark Sun elf, so having some default race is pointless anyway. Put races in the Campaign Setting books and supplements where they belong.

See why its a non-starter? He doesn't want the option to ignore it, he feels he shouldn't HAVE TO in the first place and the PHB should accommodate that. So the DM removes all references to polytheism for Yarael, all the races but human for me, all the Forgotten Realms references for Corpsetaker*, all the Psionic references and monsters for Hussar*, etc... What do you have left?

* Neither have specifically called for their removal in the PHB, I just used them for example.

Right, can't be done. Totally agree - it's nuts. He needs a different system (I'd recommend: Paranoia, MechWarrior, or Mutant Future as potential source material for what he wants, but to do a fantasy version you're still going to need to modify the rules heavily, more so then just ignoring material on gods).

I was just responding specificaly to the "various, at odds systems can't be done" thing. That was all. Cause I've done it. Many many many times

 

[Aldarc]

This conversation is bonkers.

 

[Remathilis]

Right, can't be done. Totally agree - it's nuts. He needs a different system (I'd recommend: Paranoia, MechWarrior, or Mutant Future as potential source material for what he wants, but to do a fantasy version you're still going to need to modify the rules heavily, more so then just ignoring material on gods).

I was just responding specificaly to the "various, at odds systems can't be done" thing. That was all. Cause I've done it. Many many many times

I never argued a DM can't amend, change, or ignore core assumption found in the core game/PHB (hell, most of TSR's worlds routinely changed stuff from the core books; Dark Sun was practically its own system), but my point is the game still has a fundamental assumption (polytheism, multiple races, TN druids fighting for levels, etc) that are presented at "default", and its the DM who decides if the default is true. Ergo, while D&D can handle a wide variety of settings and assumptions, it does so by ignoring and changing the default, not by not-having a default. Therefore, D&D is not "generic" out of the box; it takes a DM with time and knowledge to gut the "stock" D&D presented in the books and change it to suit; whether that be to get an "option package" (pre-canned setting) or rip the thing apart and rebuild it in your backyard (homebrew).