TheRPGSite

I'm curious why they left them out?

What was their logic?

Just curious, I suppose.

Pantheons belong in Setting books.
This is a problem for a game with character classes that need gods for certain classes. This may mean they'll be selling setting books instead of leaning almost entirely on Forgotten Realms.

Does it really matter though?

Paladins have been essentially separated from having any religious affiliations.

Clerics need nothing more setting wise than their "domains".

WotC D&D doesn't need pantheons...

IMO it's good to have some default deities to help GMs with their world building, but ok to put them in the DMG I guess. I like how Shadowdark has 7 default gods in the rulebook and asks players to pick one for their PC. The 4e Dawn War pantheon also worked well to similar effect. It gets GMs & players thinking about the PCs' characters and how they relate to the world.

Quote from: Jaeger on November 28, 2024, 12:53:08 AMDoes it really matter though?

Paladins have been essentially separated from having any religious affiliations.

Clerics need nothing more setting wise than their "domains".

WotC D&D doesn't need pantheons...

I agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 28, 2024, 12:37:36 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on November 28, 2024, 12:53:08 AMDoes it really matter though?

Paladins have been essentially separated from having any religious affiliations.

Clerics need nothing more setting wise than their "domains".

WotC D&D doesn't need pantheons...

I agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional?  Or perhaps it's just part of a philosophy change, of sorts.  "The player characters, need only to believe in themselves."

Quote from: Jaeger on November 28, 2024, 12:53:08 AMDoes it really matter though?

Paladins have been essentially separated from having any religious affiliations.

Clerics need nothing more setting wise than their "domains".

WotC D&D doesn't need pantheons...

That is an interesting thought. They could be moving away from deities entirely. I'm sure fantasy pantheons are problematic in the Woke mind.

The Greyhawk gods are listed in the DMG. It's not like the new edition is supposed to have fidelity to the last 50 years of the game, it's meant to sell digital dice and minis.

The new Player's handbook is very setting abstract. I know it's not popular to enjoy it, and I truly do hate WotC...

But 5.5 is a legitimately better version of 5.0
Just as 3.5 was a significant upgrade from 3.0

The Subclasses have always just been domains, and each domain talks about what kind of Gods would have purview over that Domain.

You don't need to list any Gods in the PHB because it doesn't assume any specific setting. That will be for the DM to tell their players and let them choose.

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 28, 2024, 01:00:08 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 28, 2024, 12:37:36 PMI agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional?  Or perhaps it's just part of a philosophy change, of sorts.  "The player characters, need only to believe in themselves."

In the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 28, 2024, 01:00:08 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 28, 2024, 12:37:36 PMI agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional?  Or perhaps it's just part of a philosophy change, of sorts.  "The player characters, need only to believe in themselves."

In the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

I have to disagree with that first sentence. I think you're coming at it from the perspective of the (for lack of a better term) "advanced roleplayer". To my mind, a D&D PHB should be made chiefly for the newcomer and/or casual player, and with at least an eye to the younger (read: "teenaged") player. As a youth, I played a lot of games with people who didn't care enough to own the book or investigate the lore, but were happy to sit down and play with those of us that did. It's worth stressing that without those people, I would not have had a group to play with. When someone like that decides to play Cleric just because it sounds fun, a god's name, alignment and portfolio are all they need.

The advantage of the deity charts in the 5e handbook is that it allowed them to give the pantheons for several settings, which works especially well now, since anyone who wants to learn more about a given deity can easily google it.

The little block entries in the 3e book were certainly nice for those interested. The only real problem was that they put Greyhawk deities in the PHB and then proceeded to publish almost exclusively Forgotten Realms material. Optimally we'd get a bit of both: pick one setting (probably FR these days) and detail a few of the major gods, and then include the big chart in the appendices to give more options.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 02:41:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 28, 2024, 01:00:08 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 28, 2024, 12:37:36 PMI agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional?  Or perhaps it's just part of a philosophy change, of sorts.  "The player characters, need only to believe in themselves."

In the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

I have to disagree with that first sentence. I think you're coming at it from the perspective of the (for lack of a better term) "advanced roleplayer". To my mind, a D&D PHB should be made chiefly for the newcomer and/or casual player, and with at least an eye to the younger (read: "teenaged") player. As a youth, I played a lot of games with people who didn't care enough to own the book or investigate the lore, but were happy to sit down and play with those of us that did. It's worth stressing that without those people, I would not have had a group to play with. When someone like that decides to play Cleric just because it sounds fun, a god's name, alignment and portfolio are all they need.

The advantage of the deity charts in the 5e handbook is that it allowed them to give the pantheons for several settings, which works especially well now, since anyone who wants to learn more about a given deity can easily google it.

The little block entries in the 3e book were certainly nice for those interested. The only real problem was that they put Greyhawk deities in the PHB and then proceeded to publish almost exclusively Forgotten Realms material. Optimally we'd get a bit of both: pick one setting (probably FR these days) and detail a few of the major gods, and then include the big chart in the appendices to give more options.

GreyHawk's setting is provided in the DMG with it's Pantheon. A new player is gonna sit down and look at the powers first and decide what they think sounds fun and cool. Fighters, Rogues, Wizards, and all the other classes outside of the Paladin don't have "Overhead" with their fantasy.

As a new player you can just look at them, go "Oh that Fighter Eldricht Knight looks cool" without worrying about any overhead backstory first.

Putting the Gods first before the Cleric powers forces a new player to have to think about what God they want to have their character serve first and foremost. Gods are also very much tied to their specific settings... As a new player you might see the Forgotten Realm Gods, get really into the lore of Pelor and decide you want to play a Cleric of Pelor just to find out...

"Sorry Dude, we're running in my homebrew, these are what my Gods are, they don't match any of the ones in the PHB."

So it's better, at least in my opinion, to present the Cleric and it's subclasses first without any God baggage... then a player can go, "Oh wow, I like the powers of the Sun Domain! Hey man, in your world, what Gods would have access to the Sun domain?"

I think Shadowdark has the exact right amount of detail:

SAINT TERRAGNIS
(LAWFUL)
A legendary knight who is the
patron of most lawful humans.
She ascended to godhood long
ago and is the embodiment of
righteousness and justice.

GEDE (NEUTRAL)
The god of feasts, mirth, and the
wilds. Gede is usually peaceful,
but primal storms rage when
her anger rises. Many elves and
halflings worship her.

MADEERA THE
COVENANT (LAWFUL)
Madeera was the first
manifestation of Law. She carries
every law of reality, a dictate
called the Covenant, written on
her skin in precise symbols.

ORD (NEUTRAL)
Ord the Unbending, the Wise,
the Secret-Keeper. He is the god
of magic, knowledge, secrets,
and equilibrium.

MEMNON (CHAOTIC)
Memnon was the first
manifestation of Chaos. He is
Madeera's twin, a red-maned,
leonine being whose ultimate
ambition is to rend the cosmic
laws of the Covenant from his
sister's skin.

RAMLAAT (CHAOTIC)
Ramlaat is the Pillager, the
Barbaric, the Horde. Many orcs
worship him and live by the
Blood Rite, a prophecy that says
only the strongest will survive a
coming doom.

SHUNE THE VILE
(CHAOTIC)
Shune whispers arcane secrets
to sorcerers and witches who
call to her in the dark hours.
She schemes to displace Ord so
she can control the vast flow of
magic herself.

Quote from: Orphan81 on November 30, 2024, 03:15:22 PMSo it's better, at least in my opinion, to present the Cleric and it's subclasses first without any God baggage... then a player can go, "Oh wow, I like the powers of the Sun Domain! Hey man, in your world, what Gods would have access to the Sun domain?"

Sure, but a lot of people in their early gaming careers don't have homebrew worlds. They just invent a town or whatever and go from there. Even a lot of DMs that do homebrew don't want to deal with making up a pantheon. I've played in (and run) multiple games where the DM said "eh fuck it; just use the PHB gods".

Quote from: Orphan81 on November 30, 2024, 03:15:22 PMPutting the Gods first before the Cleric powers forces a new player to have to think about what God they want to have their character serve first and foremost. Gods are also very much tied to their specific settings... As a new player you might see the Forgotten Realm Gods, get really into the lore of Pelor and decide you want to play a Cleric of Pelor just to find out...

Yeah, I wouldn't suggest putting them first, but a list of Gods you can use if you don't feel like making up your own is only ever going to be a plus to have in the PHB.

Quote from: Orphan81 on November 30, 2024, 03:15:22 PMGreyHawk's setting is provided in the DMG with it's Pantheon.

And that's probably the real reason. From WOTC's perspective, a problem with both 3rd and 5th edition (I skipped 4th, so I don't know about that) was that you really didn't need the DMG. As long as your DM could do a bare minimum of improvisation, you could play the whole game off of just the PHB. Playing 3rd edition growing up, very few people I knew bought the DMG, and no one ever brought it to games. You didn't necessarily need the Monster Manual either, but it was cool and pretty useful, so DMs at least bought it there was usually one at any given game session. When I started running 5e, I didn't bother to buy the DMG, and I never missed it.

I haven't read through the 2024 books (and probably won't), but it would make sense to spread the information out more evenly so that all three books are considered must-buys for both players and DMs.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 02:41:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PMIn the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

I have to disagree with that first sentence. I think you're coming at it from the perspective of the (for lack of a better term) "advanced roleplayer". To my mind, a D&D PHB should be made chiefly for the newcomer and/or casual player, and with at least an eye to the younger (read: "teenaged") player. As a youth, I played a lot of games with people who didn't care enough to own the book or investigate the lore, but were happy to sit down and play with those of us that did. It's worth stressing that without those people, I would not have had a group to play with. When someone like that decides to play Cleric just because it sounds fun, a god's name, alignment and portfolio are all they need.

You imply that it's important that players conform and be given the name of an "official" god from a table. But I know from experience that beginners can play just fine without that single-line entry.

I remember playing as a youth back in the 1980s. There was no mention of gods in the Player's Handbook or Basic Set. I didn't feel the lack in the slightest. I don't look back and feel that my old D&D days were flawed by the lack of a name-only god. Sometimes we'd come up with a background for characters including what religion they were, but other times we just didn't bother with that sort of detail.

A cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description, but it could also just be unspecified. In most real-world polytheistic religions, a cleric usually wasn't dedicated to a single god. They were a holy person who respected all the gods.

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 02:41:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PMIn the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

I have to disagree with that first sentence. I think you're coming at it from the perspective of the (for lack of a better term) "advanced roleplayer". To my mind, a D&D PHB should be made chiefly for the newcomer and/or casual player, and with at least an eye to the younger (read: "teenaged") player. As a youth, I played a lot of games with people who didn't care enough to own the book or investigate the lore, but were happy to sit down and play with those of us that did. It's worth stressing that without those people, I would not have had a group to play with. When someone like that decides to play Cleric just because it sounds fun, a god's name, alignment and portfolio are all they need.

You imply that it's important that players conform and be given the name of an "official" god from a table. But I know from experience that beginners can play just fine without that single-line entry.

I remember playing as a youth back in the 1980s. There was no mention of gods in the Player's Handbook or Basic Set. I didn't feel the lack in the slightest. I don't look back and feel that my old D&D days were flawed by the lack of a name-only god. Sometimes we'd come up with a background for characters including what religion they were, but other times we just didn't bother with that sort of detail.

A cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description, but it could also just be unspecified. In most real-world polytheistic religions, a cleric usually wasn't dedicated to a single god. They were a holy person who respected all the gods.

Now, provide evidence that your experience is/was typical and representative of all beginning D&D players.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."  I'm kind of tired of your contrarian responses to every generality based on nothing but your own personal experiences (assuming they are even true).  Your particular alleged experiences don't invalidate a general statement (the only thing it might contradict is an absolute statement... which is not what was stated).

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 28, 2024, 01:00:08 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 28, 2024, 12:37:36 PMI agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional?  Or perhaps it's just part of a philosophy change, of sorts.  "The player characters, need only to believe in themselves."

In the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

Interestingly BX D&D is another that makes no mentions of gods at all other than a single line for the cleric noting they are dedicated to a single god or goddess.

Quote from: Omega on November 30, 2024, 11:14:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 28, 2024, 01:00:08 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 28, 2024, 12:37:36 PMI agree, but at the same time it's still an odd decision. It would have cost them nothing to just reprint the table from the 5e PHB.

Maybe they just forgot, or maybe they're planning to sell deities for $0.36 each on D&D Beyond.

Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional?  Or perhaps it's just part of a philosophy change, of sorts.  "The player characters, need only to believe in themselves."

In the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

It makes more sense to me to either have no named deities (like 1E and 2E), or to have at least a paragraph on each (like in 3E - though ideally more).

Interestingly BX D&D is another that makes no mentions of gods at all other than a single line for the cleric noting they are dedicated to a single god or goddess.

Sir, this is a fact free discussion. Unless this relates to how you feel about WOTC, it's irrelevant.

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMYou imply that it's important that players conform and be given the name of an "official" god from a table. But I know from experience that beginners can play just fine without that single-line entry.

Except I didn't imply that. All I said is that it's handy to be able to say "Here, pick a god off this list".

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMA cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PMIn the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

I think you're arguing with your own statement, here. How can just a name be fine, but a name and some extra information is pointless?

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMbut it could also just be unspecified. In most real-world polytheistic religions, a cleric usually wasn't dedicated to a single god. They were a holy person who respected all the gods.

Sure. That's a natural fit for many games. It's the default in some versions of D&D. It isn't the apparent intent with contemporary official D&D and I very much doubt it's how many people play the game.

Of course I don't have the 2024 text in front of me, so I could be wrong. It'd be interesting, to say the least, if they have altered it to state that Clerics no longer have to choose a patron deity. Maybe someone who has bought it can quote the relevant passage.

All of this is still irrelevant, though, because I didn't argue that the game becomes non-functional without a list of gods in the PHB. I just argued that its a convenient feature and nothing is gained by removing it.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on November 30, 2024, 09:58:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMYou imply that it's important that players conform and be given the name of an "official" god from a table. But I know from experience that beginners can play just fine without that single-line entry.

I remember playing as a youth back in the 1980s. There was no mention of gods in the Player's Handbook or Basic Set. I didn't feel the lack in the slightest. I don't look back and feel that my old D&D days were flawed by the lack of a name-only god. Sometimes we'd come up with a background for characters including what religion they were, but other times we just didn't bother with that sort of detail.

A cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description, but it could also just be unspecified. In most real-world polytheistic religions, a cleric usually wasn't dedicated to a single god. They were a holy person who respected all the gods.

Now, provide evidence that your experience is/was typical and representative of all beginning D&D players.  The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."  I'm kind of tired of your contrarian responses to every generality based on nothing but your own personal experiences (assuming they are even true).  Your particular alleged experiences don't invalidate a general statement (the only thing it might contradict is an absolute statement... which is not what was stated).

I don't have data on this, but then, neither do you or ForgottenF. If you've got objective evidence, then post it. Otherwise, it's just your anecdotal experience compared to mine.

It is an objective fact that none of 1E, Basic Set, or 2E listed the names of any gods. I don't think that meant those games were anti-religion. They thought of god names as being like any other detail of the game world - a matter for the DM.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 11:19:47 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2024, 09:06:34 PMA cleric's god can be just a name on a chart with no description

Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2024, 07:49:16 PMIn the 2014 PHB, each god is a single line with just name, alignment, and symbol. That seems nearly pointless to me.

I think you're arguing with your own statement, here. How can just a name be fine, but a name and some extra information is pointless?

If you like having god name tables in the PHB, then I have no problem with that as a matter of personal taste. In the same way, some people like Forgotten Realms as a base, some people like Greyhawk, some people like Mystara, etc.

But it's not an objective failure of the PHB to not put in everything that anyone likes. Putting in more of everything doesn't make the PHB better. No matter what, they're not going to include some things that some people want.

I'm just saying I didn't care for it. To me, if a god is just going to be a name, that's something easily made up, the same as any other background detail.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 11:19:47 PMAll of this is still irrelevant, though, because I didn't argue that the game becomes non-functional without a list of gods in the PHB. I just argued that its a convenient feature and nothing is gained by removing it.

Yeah, that's my view. I think Moldvay or Mentzer Basic could have benefitted from some default world lore re who Clerics worship, although it's less of an issue in what by modern standards are Starter Sets.

Quote from: jhkim on December 01, 2024, 02:17:41 AMI don't have data on this, but then, neither do you or ForgottenF. If you've got objective evidence, then post it. Otherwise, it's just your anecdotal experience compared to mine.

No.  Someone doesn't need objective data to say, "It would be helpful to have a few deities named to spark players' imaginations.  I've had players that liked this."  You do need objective data to say, "(b)eginners can play just fine without (it)."  See the second statement is an absolute, negating the possibility of the opposite, and making the claim about everyone.  Forgotten F's statement was about his players in the past.  He doesn't state "all beginners" or anything like that, just that some of his past players would have been helped by the inclusion.  You are guilty of what you accused him of inferring, making a general statement that precludes the opposite.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 11:19:47 PMSure. That's a natural fit for many games. It's the default in some versions of D&D. It isn't the apparent intent with contemporary official D&D and I very much doubt it's how many people play the game.

Of course I don't have the 2024 text in front of me, so I could be wrong. It'd be interesting, to say the least, if they have altered it to state that Clerics no longer have to choose a patron deity. Maybe someone who has bought it can quote the relevant passage.

From the first Paragraphs of the Cleric entry in the 2024 PHB

"Clerics draw their power from the realms of the gods and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the Outer Planes--Where gods dwell-- and channel it to bolster people and battle foes.

Because their power is a divine gift, Clerics typically associate themselves with temples dedicated to the deity or other immortal force that unlocked their magic. Harnessing divine magic doesn't rely on specific training, yet Clerics might learn prayers and rites that help them draw on power from the outer planes.

Not every member of a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their devotion through prayer and rituals, not through magic. Many mortals claim to speak for the gods, but few can marshal the power of those gods the way a Cleric can."

end quote.

Edit: Each Domain entry further goes into detail about what kinds of Gods and Orders would have purview of that domain and what they might be God of.

It doesn't bother me, for them to not list any pantheons in the 2024 PHB.  However it did surprise me a bit, that they chose not to do so.  It had been a part of the PHB for 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and 5.0 editions.  It was part of the typical information, WOTC had chosen to include.

So I was curious, why they dropped the pantheons in the 2024 PHB?

I'm surprised they'd go back to their omission, as in the days of Basic D&D and AD&D.

I don't need them.  I don't necessarily want them.  But I am curious.....

If they left out the dieties from the PHB because they plan to put it with the settings, then the 2024 DMG should have listed several prominent non-human dieties like Moradin, Gruumsh, and Corellon "Ladyboy" Larethian. Normally they are left off of Greyhawk lists because they appear in "general" lists, but if those lists no longer appear, then they should probably be indicated in setting-specific lists for settings that include them.

Quote from: jhkim on December 01, 2024, 02:17:41 AMIt is an objective fact that none of 1E, Basic Set, or 2E listed the names of any gods.,,,.

Dieties & Demigods (1E and 2E) had a few gods.

At the end of the day, the way the Cleric is presented in the 2024 rulebook as I quoted, and the way the Subclass Domains are talked about in terms of what kind of Gods might oversee them?

It's really not a big deal the PHB doesn't have any sample Gods. The Cleric entry states the Cleric is not necessarily a Priest, and their powers can come from a God, Pantheon or other Immortal entity. It's gonna come down to which of the 4 subclass Domains are most interesting to the Player before they even think about what being their Cleric may serve, and they'll ask their DM what beings in the setting link up with that Domain.

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 01, 2024, 09:42:30 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 01, 2024, 02:17:41 AMIt is an objective fact that none of 1E, Basic Set, or 2E listed the names of any gods.,,,.

Dieties & Demigods (1E and 2E) had a few gods.

Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes for D&D, Deities and Demi-Gods for AD&D. And Gygax literally said D&DG was one of the "four main books", the others being the PHB, MM, and DMG. So of course Mr. Kim is full of shit, once again. Not including Greyhawk deities in the PHB doesn't mean AD&D didn't list gods, that was the purview of the gods book...

Quote from: Orphan81 on December 01, 2024, 03:49:04 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 30, 2024, 11:19:47 PMSure. That's a natural fit for many games. It's the default in some versions of D&D. It isn't the apparent intent with contemporary official D&D and I very much doubt it's how many people play the game.

Of course I don't have the 2024 text in front of me, so I could be wrong. It'd be interesting, to say the least, if they have altered it to state that Clerics no longer have to choose a patron deity. Maybe someone who has bought it can quote the relevant passage.

From the first Paragraphs of the Cleric entry in the 2024 PHB

"Clerics draw their power from the realms of the gods and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the Outer Planes--Where gods dwell-- and channel it to bolster people and battle foes.

Because their power is a divine gift, Clerics typically associate themselves with temples dedicated to the deity or other immortal force that unlocked their magic. Harnessing divine magic doesn't rely on specific training, yet Clerics might learn prayers and rites that help them draw on power from the outer planes.

Not every member of a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their devotion through prayer and rituals, not through magic. Many mortals claim to speak for the gods, but few can marshal the power of those gods the way a Cleric can."

end quote.

Edit: Each Domain entry further goes into detail about what kinds of Gods and Orders would have purview of that domain and what they might be God of.

Emphasis mine. That is interesting; Comparing with the text from the 5e book, the clause which jumped out to me was:

QuoteAs you create a cleric, the most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody, Appendix B includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse, Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign.

However, the more comparable passage is probably:

QuoteClerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities.

By comparison, the new text is quite possibly representative of a softening of the traditional stance that a Cleric has a single patron deity. We'd have to see what comes out of future books. I wouldn't necessarily hate that. Opening up the number of ways you can interpret a given class makes some sense, given D&D's ambition to be a universal fantasy game. 

I still think the likely reason for not putting gods in the PHB is the more mundane one that they just got moved to the DMG.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 02, 2024, 12:21:32 AMBy comparison, the new text is quite possibly representative of a softening of the traditional stance that a Cleric has a single patron deity. We'd have to see what comes out of future books. I wouldn't necessarily hate that. Opening up the number of ways you can interpret a given class makes some sense, given D&D's ambition to be a universal fantasy game.

They've already done this in previous worlds--Eberron allows clerics of a pantheon (instead of a single diety) and also divine philosophies/concepts that are not antropomorphic dieties (e.g., the Silver Flame and the Blood of Vol). Clerics of Athas tend to draw power from (IIRC) elemental forces.

Quote from: Brad on December 01, 2024, 10:33:39 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 01, 2024, 09:42:30 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 01, 2024, 02:17:41 AMIt is an objective fact that none of 1E, Basic Set, or 2E listed the names of any gods.,,,.

Dieties & Demigods (1E and 2E) had a few gods.

Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes for D&D, Deities and Demi-Gods for AD&D. And Gygax literally said D&DG was one of the "four main books", the others being the PHB, MM, and DMG. So of course Mr. Kim is full of shit, once again. Not including Greyhawk deities in the PHB doesn't mean AD&D didn't list gods, that was the purview of the gods book...

I was talking about the 1E and 2E Player's Handbooks. That was specified in the prior context, but I should have only spoken precisely.

The 1E PHB, Basic Set, and 2E PHB all didn't have any gods listed, just as the 2024 PHB doesn't have any gods listed.

In 5E, descriptive sections on gods are in all the setting books - i.e. gods of Faerun in the Sword Coast guide, and gods of Khorvaire in the Eberron book, etc. For each setting, the gods of that setting are described.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 02, 2024, 12:21:32 AMBy comparison, the new text is quite possibly representative of a softening of the traditional stance that a Cleric has a single patron deity.

A lot of people ignored that anyway.  An odd number of people are adamant that the PHB says that clerics can worship a principle or a pantheon even though that is quite clearly not what the class description for cleric says.  Often, they will have a TBP style sperg-out and claim that you are accusing them of having "badwrongfun" if you point out what the books actually says. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 02, 2024, 05:28:20 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 02, 2024, 12:21:32 AMBy comparison, the new text is quite possibly representative of a softening of the traditional stance that a Cleric has a single patron deity.

A lot of people ignored that anyway.  An odd number of people are adamant that the PHB says that clerics can worship a principle or a pantheon even though that is quite clearly not what the class description for cleric says.  Often, they will have a TBP style sperg-out and claim that you are accusing them of having "badwrongfun" if you point out what the books actually says. 

That was introduced in 3e and some people just assume it continues. I always run with a monotheistic (basically a Medieval Cathol expy) faith in fantasy settings (the others are deceived by demons) when I run.

In terms of D&D I always preferred the 4E approach where once you've undergone the initiation rituals the link to divine power is irreversible (so the faiths do their vetting ahead of time); allowing for the traditional corrupt priest archetype where "he can't cast spells anymore" isn't proof and without the need to slip into the "he turned to worshipping an evil god in secret" explanation for why they aren't just a gimped fighter when you confront them.The

When using my own system, priests all just use the equivalent of arcane magic... the Medieval Church was one of the best institutions for higher learning and it just made sense to extend that into a fantasy faith. You want magic power and don't have the wealth for private instruction, you either find someone to apprentice to or become a priest to learn from their instructors.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2024, 11:10:59 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 02, 2024, 05:28:20 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 02, 2024, 12:21:32 AMBy comparison, the new text is quite possibly representative of a softening of the traditional stance that a Cleric has a single patron deity.

A lot of people ignored that anyway.  An odd number of people are adamant that the PHB says that clerics can worship a principle or a pantheon even though that is quite clearly not what the class description for cleric says.  Often, they will have a TBP style sperg-out and claim that you are accusing them of having "badwrongfun" if you point out what the books actually says. 

That was introduced in 3e and some people just assume it continues. I always run with a monotheistic (basically a Medieval Cathol expy) faith in fantasy settings (the others are deceived by demons) when I run.

In terms of D&D I always preferred the 4E approach where once you've undergone the initiation rituals the link to divine power is irreversible (so the faiths do their vetting ahead of time); allowing for the traditional corrupt priest archetype where "he can't cast spells anymore" isn't proof and without the need to slip into the "he turned to worshipping an evil god in secret" explanation for why they aren't just a gimped fighter when you confront them.The

When using my own system, priests all just use the equivalent of arcane magic... the Medieval Church was one of the best institutions for higher learning and it just made sense to extend that into a fantasy faith. You want magic power and don't have the wealth for private instruction, you either find someone to apprentice to or become a priest to learn from their instructors.

I like the idea of "Once a Cleric, always a Cleric". Ebberon went with this too so that as you said... You can have evil Clerics who still have access to their spells.

As for treating it like Arcane magic that you're taught? I think that works well for more historical fantasy and certain campaigns, but for the traditional D&D world having it as a divine connection still fits better.

I've always disliked the expectation of D&D being run in Greyhawk / Forgotten Realms when (IME) it's most frequently run in a homebrew pastiche setting. I never felt any connection to the pantheons of either of these settings, so omitting it is fine by me.

That being said, I don't particularly like the omission of deities either. In my view the best way to approach this would be to have a sidebar that outlines how to work with the GM to develop or identify a deity and crafting a one-sentence description of how this deity relates to the Cleric's domain.

e.g. "My Cleric is Bjorn who worships Thor. My Clerical domain is Tempest/Forge/etc, so I channel Thor's might as it relates to this domain."

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 02, 2024, 05:28:20 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 02, 2024, 12:21:32 AMBy comparison, the new text is quite possibly representative of a softening of the traditional stance that a Cleric has a single patron deity.

A lot of people ignored that anyway.  An odd number of people are adamant that the PHB says that clerics can worship a principle or a pantheon even though that is quite clearly not what the class description for cleric says.  Often, they will have a TBP style sperg-out and claim that you are accusing them of having "badwrongfun" if you point out what the books actually says.

The Player's Handbook (1E) states "This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times. The cleric has an eight-sided die per level to determine how many hit points he or she has. The cleric is dedicated to a deity, or deities, and at the same time a skilled combatant at arms."

In 2nd edition, it elaborated on the difference between clerics of different mythos.

QuoteIn the simplest version of the AD&D® game, clerics serve religions that can be generally described as "good" or "evil." Nothing more needs to be said about it; the game will play perfectly well at this level. However, a DM who has taken the time to create a detailed campaign world has often spent some of that time devising elaborate pantheons, either unique creations or adaptations from history or literature. If the option is open (and only your DM can decide), you may want your character to adhere to a particular mythos, taking advantage of the detail and color your DM has provided. If your character follows a particular mythos, expect him to have abilities, spells, and restrictions different from the generic cleric.

Quote from: Zelen on December 02, 2024, 09:03:06 PMI've always disliked the expectation of D&D being run in Greyhawk / Forgotten Realms when (IME) it's most frequently run in a homebrew pastiche setting. I never felt any connection to the pantheons of either of these settings, so omitting it is fine by me.

In fairness, most of those homebrew settings functionally are Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms, just with the names and history switched around.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 03, 2024, 12:16:52 AM

Quote from: Zelen on December 02, 2024, 09:03:06 PMI've always disliked the expectation of D&D being run in Greyhawk / Forgotten Realms when (IME) it's most frequently run in a homebrew pastiche setting. I never felt any connection to the pantheons of either of these settings, so omitting it is fine by me.

In fairness, most of those homebrew settings functionally are Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms, just with the names and history switched around.

While I think that D&D's rulesystem codifies a lot simply with how its mechanics impact play and imply setting elements, most of the campaigns I'm referring to have been run by people with little to no direct knowledge of any official D&D setting.

I think they should have printed a new Deities & Demigods that included pantheons from all of the D&D IP as well as maybe Celtic, Greek, and others. Lastly that is where the Arch Devils and Demon Lords should be. Such a book should concentrate on the religious hierarchies and how the Clerics and Druids fit into that (as well as an archetype/subclass/Divine Domain for each) rather than stat blocks for deities you shouldn't be fighting.

Also essays and tables on how to create your own pantheon.

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 03, 2024, 08:37:18 PMI think they should have printed a new Deities & Demigods that included pantheons from all of the D&D IP as well as maybe Celtic, Greek, and others. Lastly that is where the Arch Devils and Demon Lords should be. Such a book should concentrate on the religious hierarchies and how the Clerics and Druids fit into that (as well as an archetype/subclass/Divine Domain for each) rather than stat blocks for deities you shouldn't be fighting.

Also essays and tables on how to create your own pantheon.

WOTC did publish a D&DG, for 3.0 D&D.  They already have a template of their own, to draw from.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2024, 11:10:59 AMI always run with a monotheistic (basically a Medieval Cathol expy) faith in fantasy settings (the others are deceived by demons) when I run.
...

^This is the way^

I have just found it so much easier to have religion be relevant to the PC's in my games with a monotheistic faith.

Most players are just not able to wrap their heads around polytheism at the table in any meaningful manner.

Unless the setting and character generation specifically ties in polytheism to the core of the setting, and you get player buy-in for that, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

Monotheism is just an easier paradigm for most players to wrap their head around. And unless they have some kind of personal issue, I've had zero friction mapping in a Medieval Catholic export.

I get that people like the idea of "pantheons" because they have been around since the beginning of the hobby, but the truth is they are almost always crap from a worldbuilding perspective. You are not more imaginative than history.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 06:50:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2024, 11:10:59 AMI always run with a monotheistic (basically a Medieval Cathol expy) faith in fantasy settings (the others are deceived by demons) when I run.
...

^This is the way^

I have just found it so much easier to have religion be relevant to the PC's in my games with a monotheistic faith.

Most players are just not able to wrap their heads around polytheism at the table in any meaningful manner.

Unless the setting and character generation specifically ties in polytheism to the core of the setting, and you get player buy-in for that, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

Monotheism is just an easier paradigm for most players to wrap their head around. And unless they have some kind of personal issue, I've had zero friction mapping in a Medieval Catholic export.

I get that people like the idea of "pantheons" because they have been around since the beginning of the hobby, but the truth is they are almost always crap from a worldbuilding perspective. You are not more imaginative than history.

WFRP does a fairly good job of polytheism despite the Empire having Sigmar as it's primary patron diety.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 06:50:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2024, 11:10:59 AMI always run with a monotheistic (basically a Medieval Cathol expy) faith in fantasy settings (the others are deceived by demons) when I run.
...

^This is the way^

I have just found it so much easier to have religion be relevant to the PC's in my games with a monotheistic faith.

Most players are just not able to wrap their heads around polytheism at the table in any meaningful manner.

Unless the setting and character generation specifically ties in polytheism to the core of the setting, and you get player buy-in for that, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

Monotheism is just an easier paradigm for most players to wrap their head around. And unless they have some kind of personal issue, I've had zero friction mapping in a Medieval Catholic export.

I get that people like the idea of "pantheons" because they have been around since the beginning of the hobby, but the truth is they are almost always crap from a worldbuilding perspective. You are not more imaginative than history.

Most fantasy polytheism is trite and doesn't really encompass what a true polytheistic world would be. Christianity is a spiritual revolution, and without that revolution, things would be unimaginable. I usually invert the values given by Christianity for fantasy religions. For instance, I made a religion with a god of the industro-military complex (and blood) as its head in henotheistic style.

Instead of Forgiveness, Mercy, and universality, I make ethnic religions that prize brutality, cruelty, vengeance, promiscuity, xenophobia, etc etc etc. I also just outright say 'You're playing master moralists like Nietzsche said' complete with an explanation. I say 'You play a character that worships a god that would put Jesus on the cross and laugh at him and his followers for being weak.' I make festivals where the characters perform human sacrifices and the pcs are expected to get in. Or where hated enemies of the religion are turned into dolls and destroyed. etc etc etc.

Basically I try to make it clear you aren't playing people with Christian morality, but fantasy morality in a fantasy world. No matter how horrible or alien you think it is. In an ideal campaign, the players accept this, and have fun. For instance, instead of going to save a princess from a monster, they save the monster and kill the princess, simply because the princess is of the wrong race and the monster put up a good fight.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 06:50:09 PMI get that people like the idea of "pantheons" because they have been around since the beginning of the hobby, but the truth is they are almost always crap from a worldbuilding perspective. You are not more imaginative than history.

Polytheistic and (especially) "Mystery Cult" style Henotheist sword & sorcery type settings can work well, eg Primeval Thule I thought worked. You're clearly not playing in a Christian moral paradigm.

But D&D is a Godwaful mess, with Conan Gandalf and Lancelot all expected to get along in the same setting. Maybe it was ok when it was just Law vs Chaos in OD&D, but Gods Demigods & Heroes really screwed the pooch. Ever since we have had medieval Clerics worshipping Thor (or even Loki). Most of the main D&D settings fully embrace the shittiness, notably Forgotten Realms, but Greyhawk is nearly as bad. Mystara gets a partial pass for mostly ignoring the polytheist-style Immortals in terms of what Clerics do.

Quote from: S'mon on December 11, 2024, 08:57:24 AMBut D&D is a Godwaful mess, with Conan Gandalf and Lancelot all expected to get along in the same setting. Maybe it was ok when it was just Law vs Chaos in OD&D, but Gods Demigods & Heroes really screwed the pooch. Ever since we have had medieval Clerics worshipping Thor (or even Loki). Most of the main D&D settings fully embrace the shittiness, notably Forgotten Realms, but Greyhawk is nearly as bad. Mystara gets a partial pass for mostly ignoring the polytheist-style Immortals in terms of what Clerics do.

  And then there's Dragonlance, which combines Gygax's bad foundation with Hickman's LDS theology (which I find has all sorts of problems) and Weis' infatuation with evil. :)

  (On the example, I can actually see Gandalf and Lancelot coexisting, although Gandalf would have harsh words for Lancelot's adultery. It's Conan, and also Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, another foundational model for D&D PCs, who would conflict with the other two in terms of cosmology and philosophy.)

Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 11, 2024, 02:11:14 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 06:50:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2024, 11:10:59 AMI always run with a monotheistic (basically a Medieval Cathol expy) faith in fantasy settings (the others are deceived by demons) when I run.
...

^This is the way^

I have just found it so much easier to have religion be relevant to the PC's in my games with a monotheistic faith.

Most players are just not able to wrap their heads around polytheism at the table in any meaningful manner.

Unless the setting and character generation specifically ties in polytheism to the core of the setting, and you get player buy-in for that, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

Monotheism is just an easier paradigm for most players to wrap their head around. And unless they have some kind of personal issue, I've had zero friction mapping in a Medieval Catholic export.

I get that people like the idea of "pantheons" because they have been around since the beginning of the hobby, but the truth is they are almost always crap from a worldbuilding perspective. You are not more imaginative than history.

Most fantasy polytheism is trite and doesn't really encompass what a true polytheistic world would be. Christianity is a spiritual revolution, and without that revolution, things would be unimaginable. I usually invert the values given by Christianity for fantasy religions. For instance, I made a religion with a god of the industro-military complex (and blood) as its head in henotheistic style.

Instead of Forgiveness, Mercy, and universality, I make ethnic religions that prize brutality, cruelty, vengeance, promiscuity, xenophobia, etc etc etc. I also just outright say 'You're playing master moralists like Nietzsche said' complete with an explanation. I say 'You play a character that worships a god that would put Jesus on the cross and laugh at him and his followers for being weak.' I make festivals where the characters perform human sacrifices and the pcs are expected to get in. Or where hated enemies of the religion are turned into dolls and destroyed. etc etc etc.

Basically I try to make it clear you aren't playing people with Christian morality, but fantasy morality in a fantasy world. No matter how horrible or alien you think it is. In an ideal campaign, the players accept this, and have fun. For instance, instead of going to save a princess from a monster, they save the monster and kill the princess, simply because the princess is of the wrong race and the monster put up a good fight.

Why would anyone have fun with such a pile of nihilistic bullshittery?

How has this setting ever risen above stone age bands beating each other to death with rocks? Even the pagans saw value in prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude.

You're mentally ill. Seek help.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 09:38:08 AMWhy would anyone have fun with such a pile of nihilistic bullshittery?

My friends and I play it and we have fun. Also, it's not 'nihilistic' there's a purpose in and out of universe. The out of universe purpose is that you're playing fascists. You don't get to punch fascists...or turn into a non-fascist...your character was groomed into fascism by the State and your character will die a fascist. There is no revolution.

You are playing the baddies. So the game is about two things:

1. Performing atrocities. The player that performs the most atrocities that are the most horrific gets boons.
2. Slight hint of tragedy. The PCs are intended to be like good meaning fantasy heroes in other worlds. It's just that this world brainwashed them and now they're evil. Just how Nazi Germany turned ordinary people into those that wanted millions of people to die brutally in concentration camps.

The in universe purpose is that you're following your religion. The things you do are natural. To your characters, Christianity is a coward's religion.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 09:38:08 AMHow has this setting ever risen above stone age bands beating each other to death with rocks

same reason most DND settings advance beyond a level despite the presence of monsters, gods, and magic: reasons that aren't important

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 09:38:08 AMEven the pagans saw value in prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude.

The setting's culture does see the value in justice and fortitude. It's just that they use it in a way most people won't like. The ideal ending for the characters to reach is to die in battle against the endless enemies of the State. Everything else- from dungeon crawling to patrolling cities- is secondary, a means to that end.

I don't approve of this, obviously. Otherwise I would be practicing what I preach. I make this setting partially because I don't approve of it.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 11, 2024, 09:17:45 AM

Quote from: S'mon on December 11, 2024, 08:57:24 AMBut D&D is a Godwaful mess, with Conan Gandalf and Lancelot all expected to get along in the same setting. Maybe it was ok when it was just Law vs Chaos in OD&D, but Gods Demigods & Heroes really screwed the pooch. Ever since we have had medieval Clerics worshipping Thor (or even Loki). Most of the main D&D settings fully embrace the shittiness, notably Forgotten Realms, but Greyhawk is nearly as bad. Mystara gets a partial pass for mostly ignoring the polytheist-style Immortals in terms of what Clerics do.

  And then there's Dragonlance, which combines Gygax's bad foundation with Hickman's LDS theology (which I find has all sorts of problems) and Weis' infatuation with evil. :)

  (On the example, I can actually see Gandalf and Lancelot coexisting, although Gandalf would have harsh words for Lancelot's adultery. It's Conan, and also Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, another foundational model for D&D PCs, who would conflict with the other two in terms of cosmology and philosophy.)

Gandalf is basically the Anti-Merlin.

Merlin was a Cambion (intended to be the Antichrist) who manipulated a bunch of things (including Arthur's very birth) that ultimately fell apart (basically being the story of the downfall of a Golden Age).

Gandalf is an angel who aids and guides a series of individuals into finding the courage to fight and sacrifice to bring about the end of a great evil and start a new better age.

Other than that opposition in theme I see no reason the two couldn't co-exist in the same setting (they don't actually have to exist in the same place and/or time, the main point to this discussion for me is that setup of the divine within both sets of stories doesn't meaningfully conflict). The God of Tolkein is the God of Arthurian legend.

I also think Conan could potentially co-exist in a setting with them. He's basically the embodiment of the virtuous pagan. Mitra seems to be the equivalent of God, Crom may not even exist beyond the philosophy for living he embodies, and all the rest are demons or alien entities falsely worshipped as gods.

Again, they don't have to ever cross paths, but the setting's divinities don't really have a conflict with Arthur or Tolkein.

Similarly, the feared gods of Lankhmar do not conflict with the notion of demons masquerading as pagan gods.

These days it feels like the attachment to using some type of paganism for rpg fantasy settings stems as much from a sort of spite at Christianity for its tangential association with the Satanic Panic as anything else.

The D&D-ish Henotheism certainly isn't a way to make settings feel more like either Medieval Europe or Classical Mythology. To the extent it models anything it's a sort of a bad expy of the American Protestant landscape of cafeteria worshippers choosing the version of God that most appeals to their own beliefs.

One of D&D's weaknesses is that their gods & worshippers tended not to be localized. It's OK to have multiple gods of X so long as they each cover different areas or are worshipped by different peoples. While even Forgotten Realms tried to do this (poorly) with groups like the Mulhorandi pantheon, the pantheons tended to be weakly deliniated. Which might be possible with cultures bleeding across borders, but that rarely felt like it was happening.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 11, 2024, 02:11:14 AMMost fantasy polytheism is trite and doesn't really encompass what a true polytheistic world would be. Christianity is a spiritual revolution, and without that revolution, things would be unimaginable. I usually invert the values given by Christianity for fantasy religions. For instance, I made a religion with a god of the industro-military complex (and blood) as its head in henotheistic style.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 11, 2024, 10:19:05 AMMy friends and I play it and we have fun. Also, it's not 'nihilistic' there's a purpose in and out of universe. The out of universe purpose is that you're playing fascists. You don't get to punch fascists...or turn into a non-fascist...your character was groomed into fascism by the State and your character will die a fascist. There is no revolution.

Fascism is a completely modern invention, and it is completely different than non-Christian religion.

As for thing being unimaginable without Christianity, I've read plenty of pre-Christian works like Plato, Homer, Luo Guanzhong, Ved Vyasa, and others. I don't think it's any more difficult to imagine than dragons and elves.

There's no mandate that fantasy gaming should match either medieval Christianity or medieval paganism in the real world. That's not what popular fantasy works have done that were the inspiration for D&D. You can game however you like, but it's not like industro-military fascism is the one true polytheism objectively more true than others.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 11, 2024, 11:03:17 AMOne of D&D's weaknesses is that their gods & worshippers tended not to be localized. It's OK to have multiple gods of X so long as they each cover different areas or are worshipped by different peoples. While even Forgotten Realms tried to do this (poorly) with groups like the Mulhorandi pantheon, the pantheons tended to be weakly deliniated. Which might be possible with cultures bleeding across borders, but that rarely felt like it was happening.

Realistically speaking, yes... Every major culture should have their own separate pantheons, religious festivals and beliefs. They should vary across species and cultures as well.

The game table reality, however, is all about what is "Gameable". Having 100 different Gods in the setting, even if many of them are the same God wearing different masks may be "Realistic" but it's a pain in the ass to keep track of for players AND DMs.

Hence why something like "30 Gods" and some of them being the same God wearing different masks, tends to be the maximum in Fantasy settings.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 10, 2024, 07:12:36 PMWFRP does a fairly good job of polytheism despite the Empire having Sigmar as it's primary patron diety.

It's not entirely bad, certainly better than anything D&D ever turned out. But they failed to really go all the way with it.

If one was so inclined you take a pantheon like the Nordic one; make Odin the "all-father" the supreme Diety, and have the other members of the pantheon act in exactly the same way 'patron saints' do in Catholicism. i.e. asking them for their prayers to intercede with the all-father on your behalf.

Which would be one way of still having a 'fantasy pantheon', but with it essentially being stealth-monotheism.

I just cut straight to the chase, but some might find doing something like that useful.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 10:49:54 AMThese days it feels like the attachment to using some type of paganism for rpg fantasy settings stems as much from a sort of spite at Christianity for its tangential association with the Satanic Panic as anything else.

Basically this. Lots of looking back at the satanic panic with a very jaundiced eye.

Quote from: Orphan81 on December 12, 2024, 02:35:55 PMThe game table reality, however, is all about what is "Gameable". Having 100 different Gods in the setting, even if many of them are the same God wearing different masks may be "Realistic" but it's a pain in the ass to keep track of for players AND DMs.

I have found that for pure 'gameability' - monotheism is the hands down winner.

Players are already familiar with the concept, even if just through film and tv. The GM doesn't have to remember a 30-100 "gods" and what they all do. It just makes incorporating religion as a belief system of the people in the places they travel to much easier all around.

I think a lot of people think 'must have pantheon' because 'D&D game have pantheon'. But no, you really don't.

Quote from: Orphan81 on December 12, 2024, 02:35:55 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 11, 2024, 11:03:17 AMOne of D&D's weaknesses is that their gods & worshippers tended not to be localized. It's OK to have multiple gods of X so long as they each cover different areas or are worshipped by different peoples. While even Forgotten Realms tried to do this (poorly) with groups like the Mulhorandi pantheon, the pantheons tended to be weakly deliniated. Which might be possible with cultures bleeding across borders, but that rarely felt like it was happening.

Realistically speaking, yes... Every major culture should have their own separate pantheons, religious festivals and beliefs. They should vary across species and cultures as well.

The game table reality, however, is all about what is "Gameable". Having 100 different Gods in the setting, even if many of them are the same God wearing different masks may be "Realistic" but it's a pain in the ass to keep track of for players AND DMs.

Hence why something like "30 Gods" and some of them being the same God wearing different masks, tends to be the maximum in Fantasy settings.

Parochial gods are also a bit of an issue in a world where the Gods provably exist and do what their religions say they do. You can't have two different Gods that both ferry the sun across the sky each day, unless you're willing to engage in some Pratchett-esque "belief is reality" shenanigans. Hence the usual "same god, different name" excuse.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 12, 2024, 04:55:26 PM

QuoteThese days it feels like the attachment to using some type of paganism for rpg fantasy settings stems as much from a sort of spite at Christianity for its tangential association with the Satanic Panic as anything else.

Basically this. Lots of looking back at the satanic panic with a very jaundiced eye.

Yeah, it continues to amaze me how difficult it is to get the average role-player to actually play a Christian. The last two campaigns I've run were both in medievalesque settings with a "Catholic church with the serial numbers filed off" dominant religion, and both games had majority pagan parties.

I still use the old Deities and Demigods book, even with other editions of D&D

I never got into the Gods of the Forgotten Realms, whatever.

Here I talk about the 10 most powerful Gods in the Deities & Demigods, just to have some fun and do some comparison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKsomVetyBs&t=992s

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 12, 2024, 09:53:55 PMYeah, it continues to amaze me how difficult it is to get the average role-player to actually play a Christian. The last two campaigns I've run were both in medievalesque settings with a "Catholic church with the serial numbers filed off" dominant religion, and both games had majority pagan parties.

  I think Greg Stafford said once that he included paganism in King Arthur Pendragon, despite its minimal presence in most of the classic literature, in part as an alternative for players (including some of his) who weren't comfortable playing Christians.

  Now, Stafford was at most one step removed from Marion Zimmer Bradley, so I'm not surprised that was in the environment and take on Arthuriana he was running games in.

I think many players opt to play non-Christians for similar reasons to wanting to play non-humans: In an activity focused on escapism, the exotic holds more attraction than the familiar.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 13, 2024, 11:52:25 AMI think many players opt to play non-Christians for similar reasons to wanting to play non-humans: In an activity focused on escapism, the exotic holds more attraction than the familiar.

That explains it for me then. Unlike others I know who use exactly the argument you cite, I've always preferred to embrace the classic tropes of heroic fantasy, so my ideal PC for the genre is a Male Human Warrior, ideally a Christian one.

Because it IS so rarely employed by other players it ends up standing out as distinctive as a result.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 09:38:08 AMWhy would anyone have fun with such a pile of nihilistic bullshittery?

(https://img1.reactor.cc/pics/post/Warhammer-40000-Adeptus-Ministorum-Ecclesiarchy-priest-1338675.jpeg)

Nihilist, grimdark seems to have it's fans.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 13, 2024, 11:02:30 AMNow, Stafford was at most one step removed from Marion Zimmer Bradley, so I'm not surprised that was in the environment and take on Arthuriana he was running games in.

Eww, that's not a good thing...

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 13, 2024, 11:52:25 AMI think many players opt to play non-Christians for similar reasons to wanting to play non-humans: In an activity focused on escapism, the exotic holds more attraction than the familiar.

Which has always been a bad excuse.

They can call me back when the majority of players stop playing non-humans like humans in cosplay.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 13, 2024, 02:27:21 PMUnlike others I know who use exactly the argument you cite, I've always preferred to embrace the classic tropes of heroic fantasy, so my ideal PC for the genre is a Male Human Warrior, ideally a Christian one.

Because it IS so rarely employed by other players it ends up standing out as distinctive as a result.

What's funny is that they will cite that argument with a straight face, then turn around and do what most players do; proceed to ignore their pantheon entirely during the game unless it is directly relevant to their Clerics ability to use "divine magic"...

Quote from: Jaeger on December 13, 2024, 03:58:51 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 13, 2024, 02:27:21 PMUnlike others I know who use exactly the argument you cite, I've always preferred to embrace the classic tropes of heroic fantasy, so my ideal PC for the genre is a Male Human Warrior, ideally a Christian one.

Because it IS so rarely employed by other players it ends up standing out as distinctive as a result.

What's funny is that they will cite that argument with a straight face, then turn around and do what most players do; proceed to ignore their pantheon entirely during the game unless it is directly relevant to their Clerics ability to use "divine magic"...

I didn't say it makes sense. I said I've heard the argument before, practically word for word as justification for why they always played the weirdest race allowed by the GM.

That they don't actually play it as anything but a human with a rubber forehead doesn't change the truth of the argument which I think, ultimately, stems from wanted to be seen as special or noteworthy that they're not finding in their real life.

I mean, lets not pretend I'm not pretending to be something I'm not either... that degree of combat prowess and athleticism is never something I've had in real life.

The main difference I think is that my fantasy is pretty much to be myself only more competent in what the game is focused on, while theirs is to actually not be themselves for awhile.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 13, 2024, 03:58:51 PMWhich has always been a bad excuse.

I gave a potential explanation, not an excuse. No 'excuse' is required as the decision to play a non-Christian is not a fault, and does not require justification.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 13, 2024, 04:23:27 PMThe main difference I think is that my fantasy is pretty much to be myself only more competent in what the game is focused on, while theirs is to actually not be themselves for awhile.

Both are fine approaches to roleplaying.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 13, 2024, 11:52:25 AMI think many players opt to play non-Christians for similar reasons to wanting to play non-humans: In an activity focused on escapism, the exotic holds more attraction than the familiar.

That's a plausible explanation, but it doesn't track with my own experience. The (admittedly small) number of practicing Christians I've played with have been more willing rather than less to play Christian-analogue characters. I'd be more inclined to ascribe it to a general desire people have to play an outlier in whatever setting they're playing in. A lot of people would only play a Christian in a non-Christian setting, which might be why the outspoken man of God is a bit of a sci fi trope. I get that. I like playing a foreigner in whatever setting I'm in and being the fish out of water.

But also, a lot of people in the RPG scene just never grew out of the 90s edgy atheist phase.

As much as designers try to make classes and spells universal for any setting, these things are best when integrated strongly, and in fact imply a setting. A world where fireball exists means nobles must think twice before building wooden castles.

Same thing goes for a cleric. If healing is good and raising skeletons is evil, what does that say about the moral alignment of the universe? What does that say about the gods?

I haven't read the new books, but good for them if this is the approach they're taking. One of the things I liked the least in 5e was how the setting was baked into the rules a bit. I just happen to not like the Forgotten Realms.

Maybe they want to move away from the deities disign for reasons of religion being a topic most people don't want to discuss while gaming.

Or as someone else stated, they may charge so much later per deity down the raid. Money, money, money.

Quote from: Chainzjade on December 19, 2024, 07:26:10 PMMaybe they want to move away from the deities disign for reasons of religion being a topic most people don't want to discuss while gaming.

Or as someone else stated, they may charge so much later per deity down the raid. Money, money, money.

Resurrecting this thread, to say that religion isn't the only basic content that was cut from 2014, to 2024 D&D. 

Even something as basic as information about a classic player race, such as Dwarves, was removed.  3 pages in 2014, was reduced to 1 page in 2024.  Shucks, I like Dwarves.  Why minimize Dwarves?

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 26, 2025, 02:03:18 AMResurrecting this thread, to say that religion isn't the only basic content that was cut from 2014, to 2024 D&D. 

Even something as basic as information about a classic player race, such as Dwarves, was removed.  3 pages in 2014, was reduced to 1 page in 2024.  Shucks, I like Dwarves.  Why minimize Dwarves?

I still don't have any of the 2024 books, so I'd ask - is this about removing setting-specific lore? Do the other races all still have three pages each? Do they still have specific references like "Mark of Gruumsh" for orcs?

Removing setting-specific lore isn't necessarily minimizing. It can be seen as a positive for GMs who are creating their own settings -- or opportunity for more customization in setting books.

Quote from: jhkim on January 26, 2025, 02:21:33 AM

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 26, 2025, 02:03:18 AMResurrecting this thread, to say that religion isn't the only basic content that was cut from 2014, to 2024 D&D. 

Even something as basic as information about a classic player race, such as Dwarves, was removed.  3 pages in 2014, was reduced to 1 page in 2024.  Shucks, I like Dwarves.  Why minimize Dwarves?

I still don't have any of the 2024 books, so I'd ask - is this about removing setting-specific lore? Do the other races all still have three pages each? Do they still have specific references like "Mark of Gruumsh" for orcs?

Removing setting-specific lore isn't necessarily minimizing. It can be seen as a positive for GMs who are creating their own settings -- or opportunity for more customization in setting books.

There is less information on each race.  The differences between player races, are less important now.  Just a further continuation, of the changes found previously in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.  Player races are becoming more and more vanilla.

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 26, 2025, 04:35:20 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 26, 2025, 02:21:33 AM

Quote from: Man at Arms on January 26, 2025, 02:03:18 AMResurrecting this thread, to say that religion isn't the only basic content that was cut from 2014, to 2024 D&D. 

Even something as basic as information about a classic player race, such as Dwarves, was removed.  3 pages in 2014, was reduced to 1 page in 2024.  Shucks, I like Dwarves.  Why minimize Dwarves?

I still don't have any of the 2024 books, so I'd ask - is this about removing setting-specific lore? Do the other races all still have three pages each? Do they still have specific references like "Mark of Gruumsh" for orcs?

Removing setting-specific lore isn't necessarily minimizing. It can be seen as a positive for GMs who are creating their own settings -- or opportunity for more customization in setting books.

There is less information on each race.  The differences between player races, are less important now.  Just a further continuation, of the changes found previously in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.  Player races are becoming more and more vanilla.

Reducing species (nee race) to the same level of importance as Background with the two together becoming "origin" is their intention. While this is new(ish) for D&D, it's becoming fairly common in other more modern games.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 26, 2025, 10:41:07 AMReducing species (nee race) to the same level of importance as Background with the two together becoming "origin" is their intention. While this is new(ish) for D&D, it's becoming fairly common in other more modern games.

"Common" does not equal "good."  It represents part of the shift away from zero-to-hero RPGs (with emergent story) and towards PC fantasy superheroes whose "backstories" are more important than their adventures.

And before some moron asks, "But how does reducing the influence of race make backstories more important?  Seems like it would do the opposite."  Race, random ability scores, backgrounds, hard class niches, etc. all act to define characters in ways that are not always conducive to player choice.  Rolling an 11 for Int really limits your character's chances of being a powerful mage (in older editions).  Playing a dwarf came with cultural and ability score constraints.  Sure, some DMs bent those for players on occasion, but playing a dwarf with 11 Int generally precluded the player from playing a 6'5" tree-loving, claustrophobic, master wizard.  You played an elf or druid if you wanted something like that.  (And for the folks that say, "That sounds cool for a dwarf to be those things,"  that's because most of the people posting here are experienced enough to play against type and still be successful.  Not so much a newbie...).  But now, if I want my dwarf to be a hermaphroditic, purple-haired, 6'5", magical snowflake ("who's kind of random.. LOL!"), there's nothing in the race to stand in my way.  We can all be anything!  (Which is the great lie that schools and media are telling all of our children... but that's another topic.)

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 26, 2025, 11:01:09 AMthe shift away from zero-to-hero RPGs

Good riddance to that. It gets repetitive. Look at Traveller for an early example of chucking that defective pattern.

On a practical level, I don't know if listing pantheons in the PHB is really necessary or even worthwhile any more.  It was one thing when studying mythology meant going to the library and multiple books.  Now, anyone can find out anything they want to know just by pulling their phone out and Goggling it.  There doesn't need to be a description of any real world pantheon or even popular fictional pantheon in the book.  People can just go watch a Youtube video about it.

As someone who has the 2024 Books, I can give concrete information on this stuff rather than heresay.

With 2024 Clerics, you're given a connection to the Divine Realms and magic that can't be taken away. Yes you can be the classic God worshipping Cleric who was given their divine magic through pledging yourself to that God....but now that it's given it can't be taken away. Or it could be a full pantheon empowered you. Or it could be your soul was simply aligned towards Divine magic.

The point is, they left it open, Most likely so each DM can customize how Clerics work metaphysically in their own campaigns.

As for the races being reduced in content, it's because they pulled out all the Forgotten Realms stuff from 2014. You're given a basic gist of the species in terms of broad strokes of culture and physical traits. Than given the game mechanics of any species abilities, low light or dark vision, and size.

As for Backgrounds, which make up the other part of Origin, they're all humble in nature and don't suppose you've already conquered every thing in front of you. It's open so you can min max if you want (Playing a Wizard so you pick one of the backgrounds that gives you a bonus to Intelligence) or can make for some more interesting RP picks (Playing a Wizard so you pick the Street Urchin or Soldier background to show your Wizard has a more colorful past than having been a scholor from the get go. Origins also give you a Feat so that's something to take into account)

But yes... The 5.5 edition does away with Racial Modifiers for better or worse, so locking in your Elf Wizard for the Bonus Intelligence is no longer a thing. Races are slightly less stereotyped and iconic in the exchange for allowing broader character concepts like a gruff stupid soldier Elf, or a Brilliant Orc Wizard.

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 27, 2024, 01:20:04 PMI'm curious why they left them out?

What was their logic?

Just curious, I suppose.

WoTC demands from you to bow to the alters of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness.

No other gods are permitted.

(I say this with PARTIAL irony)

Quote from: blackstone on January 27, 2025, 12:15:37 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on November 27, 2024, 01:20:04 PMI'm curious why they left them out?

What was their logic?

Just curious, I suppose.

WoTC demands from you to bow to the alters of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness.

No other gods are permitted.

(I say this with PARTIAL irony)

   You forgot Asmodeus. :D

  (I was looking at the 2024 DMG, and they state: 'One quick and easy way to build a pantheon is to assign a deity for every one of the Outer Planes, except for the Nine Hells, where Asmodeus rules, and the Abyss, which is ruled by demons.' And WotC has been pushing Asmodeus ever since they took over the game, pretty much. The demons have Paizo's loyalty. :) )