D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

Hussar

Legend
Re-read your copy of DDG - what you've posted here is a significant exaggeration.

There aren't any proficiencies in D&D, other than weapon proficiencies, and DDG doesn't talk about weapon proficiencies for clerics at all, I don't think. (If there are examples I've forgotten about, remind me - but I think the idea of variant weapon proficiencies made its appearance in Dragon, in the GH pantheon articles.)

Likewise for the different powers - I think you're confusing your memories of those Dragon articles with DDG, which - in comparison - has almost nothing to say about clerical capabilities. (I think Sumerian clerics have to shave their heads, and that the training costs for Egyptian clerics are equal to their XP requirements - but this sort of stuff, found in the intro information about each pantheon, doesn't extend to proficiencies or other abilities.)

You're probably right. Serves me right for going with memory.

But, honestly, this is a rabbit hole that we've fallen down far too far. Let's back up a bit shall we? No one is disagreeing that you can play D&D in a monotheistic world. Even if some editions might be easier than others, I'm still going to argue that none of them ever really supported it. At best, they didn't really mandate either way, but, outside of "Well, do it yourself", there is very, very little support in any edition for monotheistic settings.

Now, since [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] has refused to answer any direct questions, I really have to conclude that this is just a trolling. It's got all the hallmarks - unsubstantiated claim about an edition; unsubstantiated claims about earlier editions; and complete refusal to clarify. Yup, it's green and has warts. Well done you sir for trolling a thread. Congratulations.

Now, can we please get back to telling everyone why we don't like Forgotten Realms. :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
[MENTION=22779]
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"?

No, not really. First, Gygax and company weren't expert game designers. Not yet. Mixing real world religious symbology into a polytheistic society that doesn't have the Christian God wasn't very good game design. However, there is a reason why they likely did it. It was recognizable. They were trying to persuade people to try this new kind of game with these things called clerics. They could have invented symbols, but that wouldn't have been relatable to many they were trying to reel in. Similarly, they could have called the clerics Froogleboozle Simon, but Brother and Father were relatable and easily showed what they were getting at. It doesn't all mean that they were going for monotheism, or that monotheism was the default. Clearly from the other references, polytheism was what they were going for. You just got sidetracked by the use of real world symbols.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
No, not really. First, Gygax and company weren't expert game designers. Not yet. Mixing real world religious symbology into a polytheistic society that doesn't have the Christian God wasn't very good game design. However, there is a reason why they likely did it. It was recognizable. They were trying to persuade people to try this new kind of game with these things called clerics. They could have invented symbols, but that wouldn't have been relatable to many they were trying to reel in. Similarly, they could have called the clerics Froogleboozle Simon, but Brother and Father were relatable and easily showed what they were getting at. It doesn't all mean that they were going for monotheism, or that monotheism was the default. Clearly from the other references, polytheism was what they were going for. You just got sidetracked by the use of real world symbols.

Somewhat related, I was looking at an old dragon magazine (issue 90-something) and there was an ad which straight up started with "Christians" in big letters and then asking them something along the lines of what would they do when on the gates of hell, find out in dungeons and dragons.

I've read that Gygax was christian so it is likely that he drew upon symbolism that he was familiar with when creating the cleric. Of course, that's just an assumption on my part. I'm not up on the history of class creation by Gary and Co.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Somewhat related, I was looking at an old dragon magazine (issue 90-something) and there was an ad which straight up started with "Christians" in big letters and then asking them something along the lines of what would they do when on the gates of hell, find out in dungeons and dragons.

I've read that Gygax was christian so it is likely that he drew upon symbolism that he was familiar with when creating the cleric. Of course, that's just an assumption on my part. I'm not up on the history of class creation by Gary and Co.

In 1e Gygax says that the class resembles historical clerics, but that they follow a god or gods. I seriously doubt that he had a sudden reversal from Basic to 1e.
 


pemerton

Legend
In 1e Gygax says that the class resembles historical clerics, but that they follow a god or gods. I seriously doubt that he had a sudden reversal from Basic to 1e.
Gygax didn't write Moldvay Basic - Tom Moldvay did, and after AD&D was published.

The reference to following "a god" is from Moldvay Basic. And, as I've already posted, it is addressed to player and referees - it tells us (via the indefinite article) that the rule system contemplates the existence of the divine, but not any particular divinity. It doesn't tell us whether or not the gameworld is, by default, polytheistic or monotheistic.

(It does take for granted that their are Chaotic clerics, the analogue of what used to be called "anti-clerics", but it is easy to conceive of the "dark gods" they worship as not really gods at all in any strict sense. Prototype warlocks, if you like - with obvious allusions to real-world, mediaeval understandings of witchcraft mixed with various cultists of dark gods from pulp stories.)

It doesn't all mean that they were going for monotheism, or that monotheism was the default. Clearly from the other references, polytheism was what they were going for.
No one is asserting that monotheism is the default. I'm just saying that it is clearly on the table, just as much as polytheism is. The classes support it, the game rules don't get in the way of it. Whereas polytheism is hard if you don't want a cleric of Poseidon and a cleric of Hermes to look identical, because the rules of the classic game provide no resources for differentiating them.

No one is disagreeing that you can play D&D in a monotheistic world. Even if some editions might be easier than others, I'm still going to argue that none of them ever really supported it. At best, they didn't really mandate either way, but, outside of "Well, do it yourself", there is very, very little support in any edition for monotheistic settings.
What support is missing? We have warrior-saint/crusader-type PCs in two different mechanical variants (paladin and cleric). That's all that's required!

(If you mean that all the settings are polytheistic, that's true. But if I want to run (say) Keep on the Borderlands, which came with my Moldvay boxed set, I don't need a setting. And the Keep works perfectly well in a faux-mediaeval monotheistic setting.)

By the way, I looked through the AD&D PHB for discussions of clerics and gods. Here's what I found:

This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times. . . . The cleric can be of any alignment save (true) neutral . . ., depending upon that of the deity the cleric serves. All clerics have certain holy symbols which aid them and give power to their spells. All are likewise forbidden to use edged and/or pointed weapons which shed blood. All clerics have their own spells, bestowed upon them by their deity for correct and diligent prayers and deeds. . . .

When a cleric achieves 8th level (Patriarch or Matriarch) he or she automatically attracts followers if the cleric establishes a place of worship - a building of not less than 2,000 square feet in floor area with an altar, shrine, chapel, etc. These followers are fanatically loyal and serve without pay so long as the cleric does not change deities and/or alignment. . . .

Upon reaching 9th level (High Priest or High Priestess), the cleric has the option of constructing a religious stronghold. This fortified place must contain a large temple, cathedral, or church of not less than 2500 square feet on the ground floor. It can be a castle, a monastery, an abbey or the like. It must be dedicated to the cleric's deity (or deities). construction will be only one-half the usual for such a place because of religious help. (p 20)

Clerical spells . . . are bestowed by the gods, so that the cleric need but pray for a few hours and the desired verbal and somatic spell components will be placed properly in his or her mind. First, second, third, and even fourth level spells are granted to the cleric through meditation and devout prayer. This spell giving is accomplished by the lesser servants of the cleric's deity. Fifth, sixth, and seventh level spells can be given to the cleric ONLY by the cleric's deity directly, not through some intermediary source. Note that the cleric might well be judged by his or her deity at such time, as the clerk must supplicate the deity for the granting of these spells. While the deity may grant such spells full willingly, a deed, or sacrifice, atonement or abasement may be required. The deity might also ignore a specific spell request and give the cleric some other spell (or none at all). Your Dungeon Master will handle this considering a cleric's alignment and faithfulness to it and his or her deity. (p 40)

All material components required for the various spells are used by completion of the spell in question with the notable exceptions of standard religious items, i.e. religious symbols and prayer beads or similar devices.

The reversal of some spells might well place the cleric in a questionable position with respect to alignment. (p 43)​

Oddly, it never actually says that a cleric must serve one or more gods. It presupposes it. (As usual, Moldvay is a clearer rules text than AD&D.) And while there is talk of "the gods" and "a cleric's deity (or deities)", the actual conception of what a cleric's religion looks like is drawn entirely from a pulpy idealisation of mediaval Europe. This is a game that I think is trivial to run in a non-polytheistic gameworld.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Happy 4th of July!

US.png
 

Sadras

Legend
This is a game that I think is trivial to run in a non-polytheistic gameworld.

Again, and again, and again running a non-polytheistic gameworld is trivial in any edition. Prove to us otherwise. The only one who says it is not trivial is Yaarel, and maybe you.

It is not that D&D does not support Monotheism, its that character creation has just become more evolved, that is what I think both you and Yaarel seem to be ignoring.
As D&D has evolved we now have playable monstrous races including dragonborn and tieflings, sub-races, subclasses, spheres/domains, subclasses, power sources, feats, proficiencies/skills, ability score improvements, powers and class features, tiers... It has nothing to do with monotheism or polytheism.

Moldvay refers to modules which reflect polytheism. Moldvay reflects on goddesses. Moldvay does not have paladins.

AD&D refers to gods. AD&D modules reflect on polytheism. AD&D includes Druids (a pagan class). AD&D has appendices for deities. Supplement material reflected on polytheism.

Both were during the early stages of D&D history. Both includes monsters from polytheistic earthen-cultures.

Monotheism was never off the table for ANY edition.

It is funny that many proponents of 4e keep pointing to page 42 of the 4e DMG stating that PCs were welcome to try anything they want in 4e and were not limited to their specific powers, yet here we have a 4e proponent saying it is not trivial to create a 5e monotheistic game by ignoring pages 10-13 of the 5e DMG which reflect on monotheism, duality, animism etc.

Pemerton you're welcome to ignore the above if you will. You're also welcome to ignore that @Yaarel is specifically targeting 5e and not any other edition (even though with WotC's 5e we have been given freedom to modify and adjust the mechanics and provided SRD documents and the ability for hobbyists to make money of their game).

The facts is WotC is not obliged to create Dungeons & Dragons Christianity Edition for Yaarel any more so than Dungeons and Dragons Non-Planescape Edition for @Hussar or Dungeons and Dragons No Monk Edition for Sadras.

Seriously why are people defending this!
Everyone said we should include Dragonborn, Tieflings and Warlords for 5e. We all wanted 5e to be more inclusive for all and now here we have people defending someone who wants to remove options.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
Again, and again, and again running a non-polytheistic gameworld is trivial in any edition. Prove to us otherwise. The only one who says it is not trivial is Yaarel, and maybe you.

It is not that D&D does not support Monotheism, its that character creation has just become more evolved, that is what I think both you and Yaarel seem to be ignoring.
As D&D has evolved we now have playable monstrous races including dragonborn and tieflings, sub-races, subclasses, spheres/domains, subclasses, power sources, feats, proficiencies/skills, ability score improvements, powers and class features, tiers... It has nothing to do with monotheism or polytheism.

<snip>

It is funny that many proponents of 4e keep pointing to page 42 of the 4e DMG stating that PCs were welcome to try anything they want in 4e and were not limited to their specific powers, yet here we have a 4e proponent saying it is not trivial to create a 5e monotheistic game by ignoring pages 10-13 of the 5e DMG which reflect on monotheism, duality, animism etc
My own view is that, as a game provides options, there is a cost (probably best thought of as a social cost, but in some contexts it might also be a conceptual cost or a completeness cost) to taking those options off the table.

So the more the game supports obviously non-monotheistic priests (via domains, for instance) the harder to take them out of the game. (Whether this is a good or bad thing is separate, and not something I have a view on. But I think it's pretty clearly a thing.)

You're also welcome to ignore that @Yaarel is specifically targeting 5e and not any other edition (even though with WotC's 5e we have been given freedom to modify and adjust the mechanics and provided SRD documents and the ability for hobbyists to make money of their game).
What [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] wants to post is his/her business. I think 5e is just continuing a 2nd ed AD&D/3E trend, or providing PC building support for a wider variety of priests than the classic heavily armoured crusader type, who is (in my view) hard to fit into a typical polytheistic context.

The facts is WotC is not obliged to create Dungeons & Dragons Christianity Edition for Yaarel

<snip>

Seriously why are people defending this!
I'm not sure what you think I'm defending. Judging from the other thread that Yaarel linked to, his/her concern seems to involve wanting to publish a monotheistic homebrew world while drawing on non-SRD, DM's Guild/FR-gated content. That seems like a purely commercial problem to me, and I don't have any sort of view on it. It's not WotC's job to facilitate Yaarel's commercial plans.

My posts on this topic have been about two things:

(1) Disagreeing with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] that classic D&D implies and supports polytheism in some fashion that is different from its support for monotheism. I think this is focusing too much on Appendix IV and references to gods in the plural, and not enough on the practical difficulties of making classic clerics and paladins works as priests of Poseidon, Aphrodite, Baldur, Isis, etc.

(2) Trying to explain - based on reading [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION]'s posts - what I think s/he wants a monotheistic game to look like, namely (a) no clerics or distinctive miracle workers, and (b) an approach to resolution that permits the ingame events to be interpreted by the PCs, and by their players at the table who are making sense of the shared fiction, as expressions of divine will and providence made manifest through "ordinary" happenings.

As I've already posted, 2(a) is not something of personal concern to me as my fantasy games routinely have distinctive miracle workers. But 2(b) is interesting to me because I think it's a very important element in making play of a truly faithful PC viable (regardless of monotheism vs polytheism), and is something I often see ignored or denied on these boards (eg upthread someone posted that the divine will is always a matter for the GM - well, 2(b) contradicts that!).
 

Remove ads

Top