To anyone/everyone that has a problem with OP playing an "atheist cleric," I see where you are coming from. Consider this, though, he asked if it would be more viable for him to play a druid, but the DM was on board with the cleric! So how is it the OPs fault then when the OP plays their priest how they want to? I blame the DM, because if he was not okay with cleric being an atheist he could have said no, compromised or had OP switch classes, or dropped him. Instead, he chose the "passive-aggressive" stance and then ultimately tried to force OP to play how HE wanted the OP to play in HIS game. This was a highly preventable horror story not because the OP didn't communicate with the DM but rather the DM wasn't transparent nor did he communicate back with the OP.
@@nebbygetinthebag7263 Interesting, I always thought Druids were SUPER-HIPPIES that got their powers from nature or some form of spirits from nature. My point still stands, though, if there was a problem the DM should have communicated. Not try to force things.
@nebbygetinthebag7263 Not necessarily. Though it depends on if you consider spiritualism and religion the same. After all spiritual atheists exist. Druids tend to focus moreso on spiritualism than strict religions or deities
@@TortoiseNotTurtle Hell, I played a Circle of Stars druid who was basically just a lonely guy who practiced astronomy and astrology. I'm currently playing a circle of spores druid who is more of a doctor than anything else; trying to find a cure for the rot that has taken his people. I also played an atheist paladin who was just a doctor who wanted to find the grand panacea.
DM putting dreams into my characters head doesn't mean I have to play out that hook. I shouldn't be a evil player or the bad guy for not doing it. Furthermore, a text mail or better a pre game lunch meeting to fill me as a player into the new hook would have gone a long way to getting that DM what he wanted. ~Brian
To play devil's advocate (heh), it's said that Clerics from planes that have no gods like Ravnica instead devote themselves to the concept of their subclass itself. So yes, it IS possible to play a Cleric that doesn't worship a god.
Yep, I played a multiclass knowledge domain cleric who basically worshiped being able to do stuff and called everyone Wesley (a nod to the good episodes of Clone High). Granted, they were primarily a college of lore bard whom I was trying to get to have every (barring that the vast majority of) skills in the game... I think I missed 2.
Nor do you need to actually follow a god as a cleric in DnD 5e. But i get you. The reflavoring was so interesting though, and i get the intended rédemption arc from the DM was also an interesting idea, just not when it disrespects the player's clearly-stated boundaries.
The DM absolutely was in the wrong in the first story. How are you gonna have a rule 0 with your player about their character idea and accept it fully knowing you have a problem with, even though your player offered up an alternative! And look like a complete idiot when your player has had enough of you trying to force something onto them when they specifically said they didn't want that. For those who think the player is in the wrong, I genuinely want to know how? And if you give me the answer that a cleric has to worship a deity of some kind then just know that that is a bold face lie. There are clerics in other setting that have no need to worship deitys to get their powers so an aethist cleric is entirely possible. I get it, gods exist and what not in DnD, but the player knew that, he did not have his character not think otherwise, he simply just did not put his faith into them and did not want anything to do with them. There was so many ways to solve this problem, but all in all, the player leaving the game was the right call.
You've been very sensible throughout the comment section, and brought up some excellent points that I hadn't even considered despite agreeing with them! Thanks for the effort
I really appreciate you input in the comments as well. I don't understand how people hate on the OP, it's almost like they didn't listen fully to the story.
Yes. Player was uncomfortable with something, asked if they could keep it out of their game. DM agreed to a compromise. I love arguing in-universe lore and technicalities as much as the next person but the how's and why's of subjective rules for a fictional world are not the most important thing in life. Even if what the player wanted wasn't possible and there was no way to compromise, that doesn't justify a DM trying to force a player to play out the one thing they said they were uncomfortable with.
@@gl8172 They didn't ask the DM to keep it out of their game, they asked the DM to not require worship or religious rites of their character. Those are very different things.
@@shadenox8164 So you were able to discern what I meant by "it" so precisely that you felt obligated to resurrect a two month old conversation just to tell me I was wrong. Astounding. And yet even if you had been right it would not have changed the point I was trying to make at all.
or just a cause, or they just have it similar to bards and sorcerers. Honestly? You could easily say your "magic" is just application of practical things. Cure wounds? That's you opening a medkit. Blindness? You threw dirt in their eye. Revivify? Smelling salts.
@@TamTroll Is it not bad enough that D&D coddles players enough with things like a long rest? Why coddle them further with changing "magic" to some absurd equivalency of "practical things?" Or perhaps, they are actually bound by the consequences of their choice?
@@craigtucker1290 Craig this is called reflavouring. That's not coddling. Good lord, you're talking about consequences like reflavouring actually makes shit easier when it changes literally nothing mechanically its just for story fun. You're whining just to whine at this point.
@@shadenox8164 No, this is coddling, not "reflavouring" as you put it. Something many DMs are guilty of because, much like writing a story, while anyone can DM, not many are good at actually good at it. And yes, it changes things be divorcing the requirement to further a powers goals and aims to be effectively a sorcerer that just gets access to priestly magic without regard to their actions. The game is already coddled these days by removing memorization requirements with one of the few things left being the moral requirements of faith and you just want to nerf that too? Why have the priest class at all? Why not make all spells just arcane? You are making a disingenuous argument that what you call reflavoring is harmless and not just coddling, power gaming, and nerfing of another mechanic in a different form. You sound like a player, not an experienced DM, who would know better.
I have a problem with the commentary around 4:30 about the story. I feel it should be left up to the one listening to decide for themselves, not be told what to think. That said, I totally agree with OP. The idea of this atheist cleric is one I'd support in a heartbeat, and using dreams and visions of angels is ABSOLUTELY something I'd do. Atheists are something Asmodeus, lord of all devils, craves. He was an angel himself, once, so posing like that is precisely what he'd do to try to secure one of the godless souls he needs. That would have made for such a better arc than pushing that divinity crap on the guy. Tempt the 'cleric' with 'real' power and try to lead him astray.
As a DM & a very religious person myself, I totally back the player in the first story. The DM was downright rude and disrespectful. It is common courtesy to discuss significant character arcs with the owner of the character. I often discuss potential small arcs with my players. Sometimes they go with it, often they don't. They have their own ideas for their character, and I just have to accept it and roll with it, no matter how much cooler I think my ideas are.
First the cleric is noth atheist is Antitheist, he belives, more knows that gods exist in that universe but he refuses to follow them, as a characther concept is cool. second rules as writen you can do that whit a clerig third WHAT REDEMTIOM? the dude was already helping people so this leads us to the four point, DM is an idiot XD
I mean i dont think anyone is obligated to play any game they arent enjoying and the dm clearly wasnt listening the player tried to communicate and he wasnt having it
I usually encourage all my players to reflavor their characters and classes pretty wildly. The classes only exist to be mechanical guidelines and you should strive to make every players character unique. What I mean is if a characters is a half-orc barbarian, i wont ever refer to them as a barbarian. I would refer to him as "a warrior of the wolf tooth clan" or whatever his backstory is. Its a small detail, but it makes a big difference for how the player perceives their own character, his ability to rage is no longer just a mechanical feature of a class in a book, its part of the lore, a trait of the warriors from his clan. A trait which an old grizzled soldier now working as a towns guard might recognize from his own experiences having fought against or besides warriors from that clan. That player might have played several barbarians in the past. But he wouldnt compare his warrior to any of them, despite them having identical mechanical functions.
4:37 NTA seriously you made your stance clear, you attempted multiple conversations to try to resolve the issue politely, an the DM kept railroading a story on you that you had clearly stated under No Circumstances were you interested or comfortable with that story arc for your character, the DM & by ASSociation all of the Players who decided to side with him are a Bunch of Arseholes
Honestly the first story I think the dm could have done better to work with that player. Instead of a cleric, I'd have suggested a celestial warlock, with the celestial in question bestowing the power without the player knowing. This way the 'cleric' niech is filled, and the player won't have an overbearing god pushing em around. The celestial could reveal themself at some point if desired, but it's not nessisary. As to why, perhaps it simply saw someone who would make good use of its gift, and that's the only reason it have the pc it's gift. A little out of the box thinking could have saved this whole situation.
Divine Soul sorcerer is another option, they get access to the cleric and sorcerer spell lists, they might get their power directly from a deity, but that doesn't mean they have to follow that deity or have faith in them, maybe the deity granted the gift to reward the character for their undaunted pursuit of the healing arts.
@@faylinnmystiquerose2224 Divine Soul sorcerer going fully cleric spells seems wasteful. Much of the cleric class is tied to the versatility brought by being able to use different spells every day. That isn't to say sorcerer of this origin shouldn't be a healer, just that they shouldn't be expected to do a lot of healing-adjacent stuff like restorations.
...i don't even think you can be permakilled in dnd. Death has always been more of an inconvenience than anything, with tons of spells to bring back the dead. Short of a sphere of annihilation or being sucked into a lich's phylactery i don't think anything kills your character beyond the point of bringing him back, and even then with a quest or wish spell anything is possible.
@@Medorcrit only on rare occasions. I've been playing for over 14 years and it's never happened to me...matter of fact i don't think i've ever seen any other pc die from anything that wasn't reversable except in hardcore survival games or low magic settings...but low magic settings suck, so i stay away from those.
@@Medorcrit been thinking about this for a bit since my first reply, and i actually don't think there is permadeath in a game unless the gm runs it with that in mind. Think about it, you've got revivify, raise dead, resurrection, true resurrection, and if all that fails wish. Also, all the afterlives in dnd are planes you can actually visit. Which means, if all else fails, as long as the gm is willing to set up the quest there's nothing stopping you from just going to whichever afterlife your buddy ended up and just taking him back.
@@clericofchaos1 The thing is, you can do anything you want in your game as a DM. If you want a 9th level spell to destroy souls, you can do it and then death would be definitive. Of course you have to warn your players they can permanently die in your game first, but you can do it. In my opinion, it makes it even more fun since there is incentive to play smarter and be more careful.
Or... just a cleric. In 3.x edition, you do not have to worship a deity to be a cleric, it's in the player manual. You can warship a principle, like good, evil, nature, travel, anything and pick domains that are in line with that. No need to go for an oracle.
A change from 2nd edition when you pretty much had to if one wanted to use divine magic. But this is when D&D started to do a way with consequences of choice, limitations, and penalties.
I'd honestly love to play atheist characters who just wouldn't change their ideas about gods or religion even if the "angel in my dreams" stuff happened.
*squints* did...did you make the narrators character look like that dude from House M.D?! Anyway YIRBEL LIVES, wow the DM actively stoked this players every concern before going into this campaign! This feels entirely avoidable on the DM's part, rather careless even.
For the first story, I think it likely the DM himself was religious and believed (correctly) that the player was non-religious/atheist. The DM probably wanted the player to have some sort of religious reconciliation through D&D, which is why he leaned so hard into the Cleric having religious dreams with angels. I'm glad the player decided to leave the table when the DM went too far. Alternatively, the player could have flipped the script on the DM. He could have told the party that he dreamt of angels contacting him through a dream, and trying to convince the party that these angels are only in it for themselves, and will sell them up the river as soon as they got what they wanted. In response, the party should find out what they want, find it, and either use it against the angels, or destroy it.
Let me ask though does this DM have a history of just going after the person who disengages thus making players feel like it's a pointless move? Also what kinda AC does the rest of the party have? And does this DM make healing permanent HP loss fixable? As these questions matter as these factors change the story in key ways. Like I would have just let the wraith die at 1 hp like it's 1 hp. I'm sure at least one player forgot a bonus damage something.
... Bro... WTF DM? The whole POINT of the character was to NOT BE INVOLVED WITH GODS! and the /first/ thing you do is start shoving god stuff on them!? I'm sorry but WTF!? You agreed to building this non-god cleric for the explicit purpose of not involving divinity! WTF are you actually thinking??? Say the guy gets the powers from being a great person or a "Cause" or something, like how Bards and Sorcerers do. the magic doesn't explicitly need to come from a god to be viable.
As a lifelong atheist with theist friends? Religious consent matters. In real life and in ttrpg fiction. That DM was a grade A a-hole who should go and become a missionary instead of forcing things on people. Kinda funny you never get this with pagans btw. Second tale's DM is reasonable though.
for the first story. I would not have a problem with a non religious cleric. However.... I'm not going to remove Religion from the campaign purely because of a player not liking it. There are gonna be cults and the like. I won't force the player to interact with it but if they want to go help the sister save her brother from the evil monster. Turn out the monster is this man who has enslaved the village into a cult then thats what happens but i won't force the player to belong to a religion if they don't want to.
Okay. While I thin OP's hangups were unreasonable for someone specifically choosing to play a fantasy game where divine beings are 100% verifiably real, the DM pretending to be okay with it then trying to force accepting divinity onto him was terrible DMing. I say this about OP bring a staunch atheist myself. I don't believe in magic either, but that doesn't stop me from accepting and using magic in a fantasy game.
I mean no, his accommodations were perfectly reasonable. He didn't demand the gods weren't real, only that he not be required to worship them or practice religion as a requirement of the story. Also his issue wasn't magic, he had no issues using the magic, listen to it again. He wanted to stay away from religious stuff specifically due to previous trauma. Which... is pretty easy to not involve characters in. Hell not even like not seeing it, just not requiring him to practice it.
On the first story: I can't help but think of that one d&d story that had that Christian who wanted to play a follower of Bahamut and that atheist who gave him all kinds of grief. I do believe the DM did not make things easier, and the player was justified in leaving. But imo if you aren't willing to entertain religion in a roleplay setting, then you shouldn't have joined a religious based game, even if you were going to play a non religious class. There is just no way the game like that wouldn't end with not fighting gods and their heralds, and you might end up needing a god to survive.
DnD is not a religious based game nor was this campaign. A setting where gods are real can still have non-believers in it. A non-believer would take a stance that is more, "I don't agree with how the gods work" vs "I don't believe that the gods exist despite the undeniable proof they do." Plus, RAW, a cleric doesn't have to worship a god to get their powers, it comes from faith or belief in something.
@@seannelson636 Maybe I'm incorrect, but this campaign sounded different from a regular game of d&d where religion is in the background of the world. Maybe the player always brought this up as at session 0s, but imho I would think to bring up religion as an issue, if the campaign was focusing on that.
To be fair, op did offer to play a druid instead as an alternative. This is entirely on the DM for not taking that suggestion if he didn't want the player to be an atheist cleric.
Wraiths sure have been nerfed. They used to drain levels with every successful attack. Even nerfed, I find it hilarious the paladin got themselves killed, like it was some sort of hack and slash game of trading blows. Considering how much of D&D has been nerfed (including death), it is amazing that PCs seem to die at a similar rate as they did when the game was way more deadly.
@@shadenox8164 Depends, as do most experiences in the game. It was more of an issue in early D&D, when there wasn't too many ways to avoid it. But later in the game, it was quite avoidable provided one wasn't playing with just the basic rules or screwing around with the rules. I never found it to be much of an issue, and while players always dreaded the creatures capable of it, they had ways to mitigate the danger, much like avoiding deadly poisons. Still, it wasn't as bad as many make it out to be. It is not as bad as dying, losing a limb, or a permanent attribute loss, all of which were generally unrecoverable conditions. At least with level drain, one could always gain XP back, though some DMs made this more difficult than how it was supposed to work. Which is the point. If you take the game off track from how it is supposed to work as the game designers have made, then things like level loss will be reviled. If however, one plays the game as it intended to be played, then it isn't as big of deal.
I feel like if you play a cleric who is an atheist, you're just asking for trouble. There's a reason why devotion and oaths are a thing for clerics and paladins. They are swearing loyalty and worship to those the follow. Having a cleric who is an atheist genuinely doesn't make sense. Becusse what are you following then? What is giving you your powers? Trying to play an atheist cleric, is like trying to play a bard who thinks music and poetry is stupid. The class just falls apart then. It'd be one thing to avoid a responsibility for a destiny you feel is higher than yourself. But to outright deny what your powers come from when you are LITERALLY TRAINED BY SOME TYPE OF DEVOUT ORDER TO FOLLOW AND WORSHIP A GOD, is kinda stupid. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. And this player learned that the hard way. Though I can't deny that the DM was bad at communicating what the plan was, and didn't explain why certain things were happening off board. TL:DR: Both of them were being ridiculous.
Agreed. The OP was wanting his cake and wanting to eat it too. If he wanted to be a healer, why not opt for Druid or Bard? They both have healing abilities, but don't require deities to bless them with magic.
I get your point, but I must add a counterpoint. He asked the DM "if it would be more viable for me to play a druid?" To which the DM said no, it's not necessary. Except, it apparently was necessary, because why then would DM keep trying to pressure OP. Like DM, dude, just let the player play their character, or compromise, or don't. I've read/listened to too many stories where the DM lets the player play their character and isn't okay with it. However, instead of communicating like adults they do this weird passive-aggressive nudging or whatever and then later try to force character change. Meanwhile, they could have said something sooner, but they didn't. Either, because they didn't want to argue, or they thought they'd be able to change the OP's mind, or whatever. Say what we want about a cleric or another class that is religious or not. I'm not arguing that. Bottom line, if you have a problem with a character the player has come up with, discuss it. If it doesn't fit your world, then compromise. If all else fails, then drop the player and find another.
You can have a cleric who doesn't worship a god or anything. Dark Sun has clerics, and they're literally removed from any type of divine presence. They draw their power through worship of one elemental types of the elemental planes. Ravnica clerics also don't worship gods or anything either. They get powers through worship of ideas. And that can range from quite a lot. Case in point, you don't need to worship a god, deity, etc. to be a cleric. So an atheist cleric is entirely possible.
@@natexeon9957 true. Though I'm gonna assume that neither the OP or DM knew this, otherwise it probably would've been brought up and made the whole situation avoidable.
Tbh if religious stuff is an issue for you then you just shouldn't play a divine class. Druid, bard, ranger, and artificer are all there. Edit: DM is still an a-hole and not the player, but the point stands.
Disagree hard with the first story. OP joins a game with religious themes, plays a character whose an inherently religious class but works against that theme and then throws a hissy fit when the religious setting is religious. OP is an idiot.
Not necessarily. A) Homebrew exists and you can easily make a godless cleric. Doing so isn't antithetical to the cleric, it's just a unique way of playing cleric. I thought dnd was about creativity? B) The OP offered to play druid but the DM said they wanted to work with the OP on doing a cleric. If there was an issue then it's on the DM to clarify this. The DM did not and when the OP showed they were uncomfortable the DM refused to change course. C) The DM went out of their way to constantly throw religion at an OP who didn't want it. Like even if they were a religious cleric stuff like holding a ceremony or being blessed isn't needed. The DM could've easily just made those NPCs not want that.
Uh no, OP floats the idea but says they're happy to play a druid instead. DM says it was okay and forces the divine stuff they knew the player didn't want instead of just saying "Yeah druid is probably a better idea. Fault is entirely on the DM.
Completely disagree with your take on the story. It’s DnD. While it’s completely acceptable for someone to have limits to what they’re ok with. More and more I keep hearing stories about people who have to live their life in a tiny little bubble and then quit because they don’t get their way. The person chooses a cleric then loses their powers because they dont believe in a god. Thats the game. We need to stop being so obsessed with every tiny little thing that one person has to have when it affects the rest of the table. Sounds like the group dodged a bullet with the person taking their selves out.
Oh come on! Dude asked before hand not to get involved with a religious story, even offered to play a druid instead of his character idea to avoid it and the DM told him not to be concerned before throwing him in the thick of everything he asked not to be involved in. This isn't about not branching out of your comfort zone, the DM deceptively tried to rail road the Narrators story, then threw a fit and ignored him every time the narrator tried to address the issues. If anyone can't adapt it's the DM.
@@GreaterGrievobeast55 The player shouldn't have even joined, even if the DM was mature enough to not push him. I can't help but see the story moving towards fighting gods and allying with gods, and that player would have been a spoil sport then if he said "No compromises, even in the face of Armageddon." and either quit, or his character ended up dead.
He quite literally said it was ok for him to play a godless cleric, the gm was just a dick for trying to force something onto a pc to the point where the gm changed the pc class entirely
@@GreaterGrievobeast55op joined a game with religious themes and got pissy when it had religious themes- I wont say the DM was perfect but OP was an idiot.
The dm tried to force the player to change their character's personality against the player's wishes. That is totally against what roleplaying is about: Playing the character you want to play. And there was clear communication about the character and the player's wishes before and during the game. If the dm wasn't willing to accept the concept, he should have openly adressed that out-game before the first session.
A Cleric is a Religious figure...he lost his powers because of not believing in a god. Lesson here? Don't choose a class that is antithetical to your personal drama, common sense and it's why I don't play Barbarians, most bards, or certain sub-classes of other classes. Not the A-Hole but definitely a putz.
Nope no fault on OP at all here. They floated an idea and suggested playing a druid if that was an issue, the DM okayed it saying it wasn't an issue when it was. You also sound like you' be very boring to play with if you can't handle reflavouring something.
To anyone/everyone that has a problem with OP playing an "atheist cleric," I see where you are coming from. Consider this, though, he asked if it would be more viable for him to play a druid, but the DM was on board with the cleric! So how is it the OPs fault then when the OP plays their priest how they want to? I blame the DM, because if he was not okay with cleric being an atheist he could have said no, compromised or had OP switch classes, or dropped him. Instead, he chose the "passive-aggressive" stance and then ultimately tried to force OP to play how HE wanted the OP to play in HIS game. This was a highly preventable horror story not because the OP didn't communicate with the DM but rather the DM wasn't transparent nor did he communicate back with the OP.
A druid would be just as stupid considering that Druids have a TON of religious themes which ties into their powers and disciplines.
@@nebbygetinthebag7263 Interesting, I always thought Druids were SUPER-HIPPIES that got their powers from nature or some form of spirits from nature. My point still stands, though, if there was a problem the DM should have communicated. Not try to force things.
@nebbygetinthebag7263 Not necessarily. Though it depends on if you consider spiritualism and religion the same.
After all spiritual atheists exist. Druids tend to focus moreso on spiritualism than strict religions or deities
@@nebbygetinthebag7263 Priest: If it wasn't for me you'd still be worshiping the sun.
Someone trying to practice sun-worship: The sun actually exists.
@@TortoiseNotTurtle Hell, I played a Circle of Stars druid who was basically just a lonely guy who practiced astronomy and astrology. I'm currently playing a circle of spores druid who is more of a doctor than anything else; trying to find a cure for the rot that has taken his people.
I also played an atheist paladin who was just a doctor who wanted to find the grand panacea.
DM putting dreams into my characters head doesn't mean I have to play out that hook. I shouldn't be a evil player or the bad guy for not doing it. Furthermore, a text mail or better a pre game lunch meeting to fill me as a player into the new hook would have gone a long way to getting that DM what he wanted. ~Brian
To play devil's advocate (heh), it's said that Clerics from planes that have no gods like Ravnica instead devote themselves to the concept of their subclass itself. So yes, it IS possible to play a Cleric that doesn't worship a god.
Yep, I played a multiclass knowledge domain cleric who basically worshiped being able to do stuff and called everyone Wesley (a nod to the good episodes of Clone High). Granted, they were primarily a college of lore bard whom I was trying to get to have every (barring that the vast majority of) skills in the game... I think I missed 2.
@@jonathanstern5537 Knowledge domain and Lore Bard. Now that that is big THINKING. You knew stuff about other stuff lol
Or be the cleric from 8-bit theater and just shop around for a gods blessing whenever you need it.
I actually like how that guys character ended their story in the first one, it sounded like it turned out to be a solid story by accident!
There is also the celestial warlock, who could take a cleric role but be just someone who has some sort of a contract with, say, an empyrian.
"Cleric-sized hole" just speaks to the player not understanding that you do not need to be a cleric in 5e to heal or buff the party.
Nor do you need to actually follow a god as a cleric in DnD 5e. But i get you.
The reflavoring was so interesting though, and i get the intended rédemption arc from the DM was also an interesting idea, just not when it disrespects the player's clearly-stated boundaries.
He literally offered to play druid, the DM said it was okay.
The DM absolutely was in the wrong in the first story.
How are you gonna have a rule 0 with your player about their character idea and accept it fully knowing you have a problem with, even though your player offered up an alternative!
And look like a complete idiot when your player has had enough of you trying to force something onto them when they specifically said they didn't want that.
For those who think the player is in the wrong, I genuinely want to know how? And if you give me the answer that a cleric has to worship a deity of some kind then just know that that is a bold face lie. There are clerics in other setting that have no need to worship deitys to get their powers so an aethist cleric is entirely possible.
I get it, gods exist and what not in DnD, but the player knew that, he did not have his character not think otherwise, he simply just did not put his faith into them and did not want anything to do with them.
There was so many ways to solve this problem, but all in all, the player leaving the game was the right call.
You've been very sensible throughout the comment section, and brought up some excellent points that I hadn't even considered despite agreeing with them! Thanks for the effort
I really appreciate you input in the comments as well. I don't understand how people hate on the OP, it's almost like they didn't listen fully to the story.
Yes. Player was uncomfortable with something, asked if they could keep it out of their game. DM agreed to a compromise. I love arguing in-universe lore and technicalities as much as the next person but the how's and why's of subjective rules for a fictional world are not the most important thing in life. Even if what the player wanted wasn't possible and there was no way to compromise, that doesn't justify a DM trying to force a player to play out the one thing they said they were uncomfortable with.
@@gl8172 They didn't ask the DM to keep it out of their game, they asked the DM to not require worship or religious rites of their character. Those are very different things.
@@shadenox8164 So you were able to discern what I meant by "it" so precisely that you felt obligated to resurrect a two month old conversation just to tell me I was wrong. Astounding. And yet even if you had been right it would not have changed the point I was trying to make at all.
Clerics don't have to get their power from gods, they can get them from any source, such as fiends or fey.
Depends on edition as this has changed multiple times.
or just a cause, or they just have it similar to bards and sorcerers.
Honestly? You could easily say your "magic" is just application of practical things. Cure wounds? That's you opening a medkit. Blindness? You threw dirt in their eye. Revivify? Smelling salts.
@@TamTroll Is it not bad enough that D&D coddles players enough with things like a long rest? Why coddle them further with changing "magic" to some absurd equivalency of "practical things?" Or perhaps, they are actually bound by the consequences of their choice?
@@craigtucker1290 Craig this is called reflavouring. That's not coddling.
Good lord, you're talking about consequences like reflavouring actually makes shit easier when it changes literally nothing mechanically its just for story fun. You're whining just to whine at this point.
@@shadenox8164 No, this is coddling, not "reflavouring" as you put it. Something many DMs are guilty of because, much like writing a story, while anyone can DM, not many are good at actually good at it.
And yes, it changes things be divorcing the requirement to further a powers goals and aims to be effectively a sorcerer that just gets access to priestly magic without regard to their actions. The game is already coddled these days by removing memorization requirements with one of the few things left being the moral requirements of faith and you just want to nerf that too? Why have the priest class at all? Why not make all spells just arcane?
You are making a disingenuous argument that what you call reflavoring is harmless and not just coddling, power gaming, and nerfing of another mechanic in a different form. You sound like a player, not an experienced DM, who would know better.
I have a problem with the commentary around 4:30 about the story. I feel it should be left up to the one listening to decide for themselves, not be told what to think. That said, I totally agree with OP. The idea of this atheist cleric is one I'd support in a heartbeat, and using dreams and visions of angels is ABSOLUTELY something I'd do. Atheists are something Asmodeus, lord of all devils, craves. He was an angel himself, once, so posing like that is precisely what he'd do to try to secure one of the godless souls he needs. That would have made for such a better arc than pushing that divinity crap on the guy. Tempt the 'cleric' with 'real' power and try to lead him astray.
As a DM & a very religious person myself, I totally back the player in the first story. The DM was downright rude and disrespectful. It is common courtesy to discuss significant character arcs with the owner of the character. I often discuss potential small arcs with my players. Sometimes they go with it, often they don't. They have their own ideas for their character, and I just have to accept it and roll with it, no matter how much cooler I think my ideas are.
First the cleric is noth atheist is Antitheist, he belives, more knows that gods exist in that universe but he refuses to follow them, as a characther concept is cool.
second rules as writen you can do that whit a clerig
third WHAT REDEMTIOM? the dude was already helping people
so this leads us to the four point, DM is an idiot XD
Yeah in older editions of D&D atheist was used as a stand in for antitheist.
Cleric one is definitely a DM issue. If DM wanted to do something like this they should have ran the basics of the plan through op first.
The dm just wanted to help him, huh? Bro if he wants help he would have asked im sure.
I mean i dont think anyone is obligated to play any game they arent enjoying and the dm clearly wasnt listening the player tried to communicate and he wasnt having it
I usually encourage all my players to reflavor their characters and classes pretty wildly. The classes only exist to be mechanical guidelines and you should strive to make every players character unique.
What I mean is if a characters is a half-orc barbarian, i wont ever refer to them as a barbarian. I would refer to him as "a warrior of the wolf tooth clan" or whatever his backstory is.
Its a small detail, but it makes a big difference for how the player perceives their own character, his ability to rage is no longer just a mechanical feature of a class in a book, its part of the lore, a trait of the warriors from his clan. A trait which an old grizzled soldier now working as a towns guard might recognize from his own experiences having fought against or besides warriors from that clan.
That player might have played several barbarians in the past. But he wouldnt compare his warrior to any of them, despite them having identical mechanical functions.
Not a ahole for both these storys
Flavoring a cleric to be atheist sounds great and the DM is a jerk
4:37 NTA seriously you made your stance clear, you attempted multiple conversations to try to resolve the issue politely, an the DM kept railroading a story on you that you had clearly stated under No Circumstances were you interested or comfortable with that story arc for your character, the DM & by ASSociation all of the Players who decided to side with him are a Bunch of Arseholes
Honestly the first story I think the dm could have done better to work with that player. Instead of a cleric, I'd have suggested a celestial warlock, with the celestial in question bestowing the power without the player knowing. This way the 'cleric' niech is filled, and the player won't have an overbearing god pushing em around. The celestial could reveal themself at some point if desired, but it's not nessisary. As to why, perhaps it simply saw someone who would make good use of its gift, and that's the only reason it have the pc it's gift. A little out of the box thinking could have saved this whole situation.
Divine Soul sorcerer is another option, they get access to the cleric and sorcerer spell lists, they might get their power directly from a deity, but that doesn't mean they have to follow that deity or have faith in them, maybe the deity granted the gift to reward the character for their undaunted pursuit of the healing arts.
@@faylinnmystiquerose2224 Divine Soul sorcerer going fully cleric spells seems wasteful. Much of the cleric class is tied to the versatility brought by being able to use different spells every day. That isn't to say sorcerer of this origin shouldn't be a healer, just that they shouldn't be expected to do a lot of healing-adjacent stuff like restorations.
I'd bet dollars to donuts the DM in the first story was trying to convert the player by introducing religion to him in game.
...i don't even think you can be permakilled in dnd. Death has always been more of an inconvenience than anything, with tons of spells to bring back the dead. Short of a sphere of annihilation or being sucked into a lich's phylactery i don't think anything kills your character beyond the point of bringing him back, and even then with a quest or wish spell anything is possible.
yes perma death is a thing in dnd. DMs can always change that but yes Perma-death is a thing
@@Medorcrit only on rare occasions. I've been playing for over 14 years and it's never happened to me...matter of fact i don't think i've ever seen any other pc die from anything that wasn't reversable except in hardcore survival games or low magic settings...but low magic settings suck, so i stay away from those.
@@Medorcrit been thinking about this for a bit since my first reply, and i actually don't think there is permadeath in a game unless the gm runs it with that in mind. Think about it, you've got revivify, raise dead, resurrection, true resurrection, and if all that fails wish. Also, all the afterlives in dnd are planes you can actually visit. Which means, if all else fails, as long as the gm is willing to set up the quest there's nothing stopping you from just going to whichever afterlife your buddy ended up and just taking him back.
@@clericofchaos1 The thing is, you can do anything you want in your game as a DM. If you want a 9th level spell to destroy souls, you can do it and then death would be definitive. Of course you have to warn your players they can permanently die in your game first, but you can do it. In my opinion, it makes it even more fun since there is incentive to play smarter and be more careful.
@@rebaxbayushi577 right but the gm has to go into the game with the plan of permadeath. otherwise it's totally reversable in almost every situation.
Should have played a 3.x edition oracle. Solved this problem.
Or... just a cleric. In 3.x edition, you do not have to worship a deity to be a cleric, it's in the player manual. You can warship a principle, like good, evil, nature, travel, anything and pick domains that are in line with that. No need to go for an oracle.
A change from 2nd edition when you pretty much had to if one wanted to use divine magic. But this is when D&D started to do a way with consequences of choice, limitations, and penalties.
I mean the obvious solution was the DM being an adult and saying no if it was a problem.
For the first story, literally - Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I'd honestly love to play atheist characters who just wouldn't change their ideas about gods or religion even if the "angel in my dreams" stuff happened.
*squints* did...did you make the narrators character look like that dude from House M.D?! Anyway YIRBEL LIVES, wow the DM actively stoked this players every concern before going into this campaign! This feels entirely avoidable on the DM's part, rather careless even.
For the first story, I think it likely the DM himself was religious and believed (correctly) that the player was non-religious/atheist. The DM probably wanted the player to have some sort of religious reconciliation through D&D, which is why he leaned so hard into the Cleric having religious dreams with angels. I'm glad the player decided to leave the table when the DM went too far.
Alternatively, the player could have flipped the script on the DM. He could have told the party that he dreamt of angels contacting him through a dream, and trying to convince the party that these angels are only in it for themselves, and will sell them up the river as soon as they got what they wanted. In response, the party should find out what they want, find it, and either use it against the angels, or destroy it.
Let me ask though does this DM have a history of just going after the person who disengages thus making players feel like it's a pointless move? Also what kinda AC does the rest of the party have? And does this DM make healing permanent HP loss fixable? As these questions matter as these factors change the story in key ways. Like I would have just let the wraith die at 1 hp like it's 1 hp. I'm sure at least one player forgot a bonus damage something.
It should be fixable with restoration or greater restoration I'm not sure which.
@shadenox8164 right but GM might have special rules thus my point on need to know these things.
OP should have played a druid
DM should have said no if there was a problem.
IMO wanting to be an atheist cleric is a bit annoying but could be cool and the DM should have said no if they didn’t want it, but they didn’t.
Nah, this guy is NOT the A. Besides, it's a great character with an appropriate retirement.
... Bro... WTF DM? The whole POINT of the character was to NOT BE INVOLVED WITH GODS! and the /first/ thing you do is start shoving god stuff on them!? I'm sorry but WTF!? You agreed to building this non-god cleric for the explicit purpose of not involving divinity! WTF are you actually thinking???
Say the guy gets the powers from being a great person or a "Cause" or something, like how Bards and Sorcerers do. the magic doesn't explicitly need to come from a god to be viable.
NTA in either scenario.
As a lifelong atheist with theist friends? Religious consent matters. In real life and in ttrpg fiction. That DM was a grade A a-hole who should go and become a missionary instead of forcing things on people. Kinda funny you never get this with pagans btw. Second tale's DM is reasonable though.
for the first story. I would not have a problem with a non religious cleric. However.... I'm not going to remove Religion from the campaign purely because of a player not liking it. There are gonna be cults and the like. I won't force the player to interact with it but if they want to go help the sister save her brother from the evil monster. Turn out the monster is this man who has enslaved the village into a cult then thats what happens but i won't force the player to belong to a religion if they don't want to.
Okay? The OP didn't raise any objections to religions or gods existing.
Atheist Cleric? That just screams be counter productive to the story
Mmmm chess
Okay. While I thin OP's hangups were unreasonable for someone specifically choosing to play a fantasy game where divine beings are 100% verifiably real, the DM pretending to be okay with it then trying to force accepting divinity onto him was terrible DMing.
I say this about OP bring a staunch atheist myself. I don't believe in magic either, but that doesn't stop me from accepting and using magic in a fantasy game.
I mean no, his accommodations were perfectly reasonable. He didn't demand the gods weren't real, only that he not be required to worship them or practice religion as a requirement of the story.
Also his issue wasn't magic, he had no issues using the magic, listen to it again. He wanted to stay away from religious stuff specifically due to previous trauma. Which... is pretty easy to not involve characters in. Hell not even like not seeing it, just not requiring him to practice it.
On the first story: I can't help but think of that one d&d story that had that Christian who wanted to play a follower of Bahamut and that atheist who gave him all kinds of grief. I do believe the DM did not make things easier, and the player was justified in leaving. But imo if you aren't willing to entertain religion in a roleplay setting, then you shouldn't have joined a religious based game, even if you were going to play a non religious class. There is just no way the game like that wouldn't end with not fighting gods and their heralds, and you might end up needing a god to survive.
DnD is not a religious based game nor was this campaign. A setting where gods are real can still have non-believers in it. A non-believer would take a stance that is more, "I don't agree with how the gods work" vs "I don't believe that the gods exist despite the undeniable proof they do." Plus, RAW, a cleric doesn't have to worship a god to get their powers, it comes from faith or belief in something.
@@seannelson636 Maybe I'm incorrect, but this campaign sounded different from a regular game of d&d where religion is in the background of the world. Maybe the player always brought this up as at session 0s, but imho I would think to bring up religion as an issue, if the campaign was focusing on that.
To be fair, op did offer to play a druid instead as an alternative. This is entirely on the DM for not taking that suggestion if he didn't want the player to be an atheist cleric.
@@FoolsGil It only sounds that way because the DM was pushing that onto the guy's character.
Dude could have picked a fighter. Problem solved.
The DM should have suggested a different class.
1:14 dude even offers playing a druid as a different idea. I don't know why the DM didn't encourage that
Wraiths sure have been nerfed. They used to drain levels with every successful attack.
Even nerfed, I find it hilarious the paladin got themselves killed, like it was some sort of hack and slash game of trading blows. Considering how much of D&D has been nerfed (including death), it is amazing that PCs seem to die at a similar rate as they did when the game was way more deadly.
Level drain was just bad.
@@shadenox8164 Depends, as do most experiences in the game. It was more of an issue in early D&D, when there wasn't too many ways to avoid it. But later in the game, it was quite avoidable provided one wasn't playing with just the basic rules or screwing around with the rules. I never found it to be much of an issue, and while players always dreaded the creatures capable of it, they had ways to mitigate the danger, much like avoiding deadly poisons.
Still, it wasn't as bad as many make it out to be. It is not as bad as dying, losing a limb, or a permanent attribute loss, all of which were generally unrecoverable conditions. At least with level drain, one could always gain XP back, though some DMs made this more difficult than how it was supposed to work.
Which is the point. If you take the game off track from how it is supposed to work as the game designers have made, then things like level loss will be reviled. If however, one plays the game as it intended to be played, then it isn't as big of deal.
I feel like if you play a cleric who is an atheist, you're just asking for trouble. There's a reason why devotion and oaths are a thing for clerics and paladins. They are swearing loyalty and worship to those the follow. Having a cleric who is an atheist genuinely doesn't make sense. Becusse what are you following then? What is giving you your powers? Trying to play an atheist cleric, is like trying to play a bard who thinks music and poetry is stupid. The class just falls apart then.
It'd be one thing to avoid a responsibility for a destiny you feel is higher than yourself. But to outright deny what your powers come from when you are LITERALLY TRAINED BY SOME TYPE OF DEVOUT ORDER TO FOLLOW AND WORSHIP A GOD, is kinda stupid.
You can't have your cake, and eat it too. And this player learned that the hard way. Though I can't deny that the DM was bad at communicating what the plan was, and didn't explain why certain things were happening off board.
TL:DR: Both of them were being ridiculous.
Agreed. The OP was wanting his cake and wanting to eat it too. If he wanted to be a healer, why not opt for Druid or Bard? They both have healing abilities, but don't require deities to bless them with magic.
I get your point, but I must add a counterpoint. He asked the DM "if it would be more viable for me to play a druid?" To which the DM said no, it's not necessary. Except, it apparently was necessary, because why then would DM keep trying to pressure OP. Like DM, dude, just let the player play their character, or compromise, or don't. I've read/listened to too many stories where the DM lets the player play their character and isn't okay with it. However, instead of communicating like adults they do this weird passive-aggressive nudging or whatever and then later try to force character change. Meanwhile, they could have said something sooner, but they didn't. Either, because they didn't want to argue, or they thought they'd be able to change the OP's mind, or whatever.
Say what we want about a cleric or another class that is religious or not. I'm not arguing that. Bottom line, if you have a problem with a character the player has come up with, discuss it. If it doesn't fit your world, then compromise. If all else fails, then drop the player and find another.
You can have a cleric who doesn't worship a god or anything.
Dark Sun has clerics, and they're literally removed from any type of divine presence. They draw their power through worship of one elemental types of the elemental planes.
Ravnica clerics also don't worship gods or anything either. They get powers through worship of ideas. And that can range from quite a lot.
Case in point, you don't need to worship a god, deity, etc. to be a cleric. So an atheist cleric is entirely possible.
@@natexeon9957 true. Though I'm gonna assume that neither the OP or DM knew this, otherwise it probably would've been brought up and made the whole situation avoidable.
@Keiji555 He did opt for Druid, the DM was the one who instead suggested that OP work and tweak cleric.
Tbh if religious stuff is an issue for you then you just shouldn't play a divine class. Druid, bard, ranger, and artificer are all there.
Edit: DM is still an a-hole and not the player, but the point stands.
😃 promo sm
Player was wrong. Just dont play a cleric if you have issues with religion
Disagree hard with the first story.
OP joins a game with religious themes, plays a character whose an inherently religious class but works against that theme and then throws a hissy fit when the religious setting is religious.
OP is an idiot.
Not necessarily. A) Homebrew exists and you can easily make a godless cleric. Doing so isn't antithetical to the cleric, it's just a unique way of playing cleric. I thought dnd was about creativity?
B) The OP offered to play druid but the DM said they wanted to work with the OP on doing a cleric. If there was an issue then it's on the DM to clarify this. The DM did not and when the OP showed they were uncomfortable the DM refused to change course.
C) The DM went out of their way to constantly throw religion at an OP who didn't want it. Like even if they were a religious cleric stuff like holding a ceremony or being blessed isn't needed. The DM could've easily just made those NPCs not want that.
Uh no, OP floats the idea but says they're happy to play a druid instead.
DM says it was okay and forces the divine stuff they knew the player didn't want instead of just saying "Yeah druid is probably a better idea.
Fault is entirely on the DM.
Completely disagree with your take on the story. It’s DnD. While it’s completely acceptable for someone to have limits to what they’re ok with. More and more I keep hearing stories about people who have to live their life in a tiny little bubble and then quit because they don’t get their way. The person chooses a cleric then loses their powers because they dont believe in a god. Thats the game. We need to stop being so obsessed with every tiny little thing that one person has to have when it affects the rest of the table. Sounds like the group dodged a bullet with the person taking their selves out.
Oh come on! Dude asked before hand not to get involved with a religious story, even offered to play a druid instead of his character idea to avoid it and the DM told him not to be concerned before throwing him in the thick of everything he asked not to be involved in. This isn't about not branching out of your comfort zone, the DM deceptively tried to rail road the Narrators story, then threw a fit and ignored him every time the narrator tried to address the issues. If anyone can't adapt it's the DM.
@@GreaterGrievobeast55 The player shouldn't have even joined, even if the DM was mature enough to not push him. I can't help but see the story moving towards fighting gods and allying with gods, and that player would have been a spoil sport then if he said "No compromises, even in the face of Armageddon." and either quit, or his character ended up dead.
He quite literally said it was ok for him to play a godless cleric, the gm was just a dick for trying to force something onto a pc to the point where the gm changed the pc class entirely
@@GreaterGrievobeast55op joined a game with religious themes and got pissy when it had religious themes- I wont say the DM was perfect but OP was an idiot.
The dm tried to force the player to change their character's personality against the player's wishes. That is totally against what roleplaying is about: Playing the character you want to play. And there was clear communication about the character and the player's wishes before and during the game. If the dm wasn't willing to accept the concept, he should have openly adressed that out-game before the first session.
A Cleric is a Religious figure...he lost his powers because of not believing in a god. Lesson here? Don't choose a class that is antithetical to your personal drama, common sense and it's why I don't play Barbarians, most bards, or certain sub-classes of other classes.
Not the A-Hole but definitely a putz.
Nope no fault on OP at all here.
They floated an idea and suggested playing a druid if that was an issue, the DM okayed it saying it wasn't an issue when it was.
You also sound like you' be very boring to play with if you can't handle reflavouring something.
@@shadenox8164 You're free to have your wrong opinions.