A small question why

[Hellblazer]

I'd just like a better understanding on why Folian would be friendly toward Aeridin who is considered a pacifist god, but not toward Az'attan who is also a pacifist god. is it as simple as, Az'attan is a dark elf goddess?

[Dorganath]

Heh...how many times have we said the gods have their own moods and are fickle and difficult to know?

It goes beyond pacifism, alignment...even the original race of the deity, though one never knows...it could just be that Folian is racially biased against Az'atta.

In general, the reasoning behind the complexity and nuances of deity relationships fall into three main categories:[LIST=1]

• dogma
• some event, recent or ancient, that occurs involving, directly or indirectly, the deities in question that brings them together or pushes them apart.
• because the deities are fickle and have their reasons, however irrational they may seem to lowly mortals.

Maybe Folian and Aeridin were like...best buddies ever in life.  Maybe it's that Folian and Aeridin are both nature-y sorts of gods.  Maybe their kids play on the same football team. Maybe Az'atta wouldn't go out with Folian and he's still bitter about that.

[Hellblazer]

lmao...!

[twidget658]

Folian is a pack lover, I am sure he likes football and all other team sports.

[lonnarin]

True.  But if the gods themselves have these qualms about one another, and nobody knows why as its not written in their scriptures, their history or known to any mortal, then how does this impact how their oblivious mortal followers interact with one another and with how those gods treat the oblivious followers of other gods?  Is Folian punishing every Azattan now through his clerics because she would not date him?  Sounds petty enough to drop him from a good alignment.  If a doctor had the cure to a suffering child's ailment in his hands, and chose not to deliver it and instead to sit back and smirk as the child died, simply because the child's father picked on him in grade school, wouldn't that doctor get evil points?  Say if he forbade the nurse under his command from administering treatment... perhaps a more direct analogy.

Which brings me back to my earlier suggestions that Azatta would allow any follower of any god to be raised in order to serve as an example of mercy, despite their allegiance to any god which she dislikes.  She once followed Caduz, so does she loathe herself?  If she was once a follower to an enemy god, then does she view herself as unworthy of redemption?  When her followers use the eye for the soul to determine whether or not to raise a fallen stranger's corpse, is she shrieking into their spiritual ears that these people are unworthy of mercy or redemption, when she herself would have once failed such a litmus test?  Would a Toranite refuse to heal a Prunillite, even if Toran dislikes Prunilla?  His very scripture would indicate not, as the happy farm families are just the sort of people who a paladin is SUPPOSED to protect.  Note that Toran also dislikes Beryl.  So then, is it good RP for a LG paladin Toranite to shrug and stand by when a dastardly villain like Rael executes Berylite Deep Gnomes in Sulterio's name? "Raise up the weak and empower them so that they might see the strength and compassion of Toran." --- unless Toran holds a grudge against them for something their god did long ago.  Interestingly enough, he is unfriendly to at least 6 goodly gods and goddesses, but does not look down at all upon genocidal, greedy and cruel Sulterio.

[SteveMaurer]

True.  But if the gods themselves have these qualms about one another, and nobody knows why as its not written in their scriptures, their history or known to any mortal, then how does this impact how their oblivious mortal followers interact with one another and with how those gods treat the oblivious followers of other gods?

This touches on a broader issue with Layonara, which is that at present, much of its background is simply too indistinct to support deep roleplaying.    It's pretty good for a D&D world, but Tekumel or Glorantha it ain't.

I suspect that the reason for this is because Leanthar and Ed have much stronger feelings about what Layonara is not than they do about what it is.

In this case, Layonara is not supposed to be a classic munchkin "good vs evil", where good guys are the pretty people and bad guys are the ugly ones (except for the really pretty/sexy bad guys who symbolize sexual danger).   Such is the classic D&Dism, which lets you feel OK about trespassing, invading, murdering, and looting, because rote combat is the easiest and cheapest way to add dramatic tension to a game - it is, in fact, the reason D&D was always more popular than any of its more morally complex rivals.

So in rejection of that, D&D's concept of objective "good" is still kept, but  at least gods of "good" are allowed to dislike, or even hate each other.     But the actual reasoning behind the various gods quarrels is something that really isn't considered important.  What's really important is that  Layo isn't D&D anymore.

I suspect they actually intend, some day, to get to answer some of these deeper questions.   Certainly, the degree to which they resist others aid in defining things (even for such things as trivial as the gestation period of elves), leads me to that conclusion.       But what that also means is that for real world years, while you will know your PC's god hates some other PC's god, you won't be allowed to actually know or come up with any plausible reason why - even if your PC is a cleric that spends their time studying the liturgical minutia of their chosen deity.

That's why I really suggest trying to stay away from a lot of roleplaying based on aspects of Layonara.  Light banter, personality conflicts, and combat gaming are great, but playing a cleric or paladin is likely to be a profoundly frustrating experience, especially since there are supposed to be real world consequences to not following your God's semi-defined whims.

[Dorganath]

That's why I really suggest trying to stay away from a lot of roleplaying based on aspects of Layonara.  Light banter, personality conflicts, and combat gaming are great, but playing a cleric or paladin is likely to be a profoundly frustrating experience, especially since there are supposed to be real world consequences to not following your God's semi-defined whims.

Why?  Is it a cleric's or paladin's imperative to know and understand every aspect of his/her deity? Or are they to take the words that have been given as dogma and fulfill those to the best of their ability?  Faith is not a matter of knowing all the details, but rather believing in, and living, the ones that are given.

Sure, they can ask the questions, but then the wise among the clergy would say, "Perhaps it is in pursuit of that answer that you will get closer to {insert deity's name here}."

Without bringing specifics into play here (and please, do not do so in follow up posts), look at all that's been written about real-life religions.  Thousands and thousands of pages taken all together.  And yet, there's disagreement even among the most learned of each faith, nevermind between faiths.

So really...rather than avoid approaching the details in the absence of "facts" to go with them, why not explore the possibilities IC?  Maybe you'll be wrong, but it should be fun all the same.

As for the "semi-defined whims", they're still pretty broad, and the GM team generally looks at such things with a tolerant view.  We look for patterns of behavior, not one instance of a Toranite paladin thanking a Lucindite paladin, for example.

Extending the example, Toran says, "I don't like Lucinda" that should be enough.  Asking "why" of one's deity would suggest there's some debate in the matter or that Toran can be convinced to look the other way.  That's not going to happen. That's not to say something significant couldn't happen to change his mind, but one renegade paladin saying "I don't agree" is not, and Toran will not look too favorably on that.

To each his own though. It just seems a same to avoid something due to a lack of answers when life itself is a search for answers to questions that may never be answered!

[Gulnyr]

Generally speaking, I like to know the answers and like it when I can see all the pieces so things make sense, so I certainly wouldn't have a problem learning why this Layonara god feels that way about that god over there.  But all that is overpowered by an understanding that religion necessarily involves faith, and faith is all about belief without certainty.

A faithful character, then, trusts his god enough and/or believes firmly enough in his gods' agenda to act without need to know why his god feels the way he does about some other god.  It can be messy and seem senseless (even more so since we don't know all the background), like Lonn's Az'atta example, but playing a faithful character shouldn't be simple and predictable.  The character has a mind of his own and may act on how his mind perceives the dogma, and it's in that way that our characters can explain the relationships of their deities however they like, if they want to think about it, even though those explanations are completely unofficial and non-canonical to us players.  If that idea strays too far from what the god (and the bosses) really intend, the god (and the bosses) will let the character (and the player) know one way or another.

[Dorganath]

It's worth pointing out a reminder to all that there is this text at the bottom of every deity page in LORE:

Nearly two hundred pages of information on the deities beyond what is detailed above can be found in Layonara: The Pantheon, soon to be available!

So there is more information, and we're not just being stingy and spoon-feeding you.  The Pantheon is not fully edited, however, and thus it is not available.

I'm not going to promise, or even imply, that questions like "Why does X dislike Y" will be answered, but there is lots of additional background information. Some may be legend, some may be myth, some may just be a creative story someone's passed along for years.  Who knows!  

Now, I wanted to take another pass a this, which I didn't do above because I think they're separate and I didn't have the time:

I suspect that the reason for this is because Leanthar and Ed have much stronger feelings about what Layonara is not than they do about what it is.

I can say with some certainty that this is not the case. The fact that there are some key, private, universe-plot-relevant things that they're not disclosing is not an effort to keep everyone in the dark and unknowing.  

As well, expect a ton of new information in the upcoming World Setting book, which at last count swelled past 300 pages and which is still being edited.

So in rejection of that, D&D's concept of objective "good" is still kept, but at least gods of "good" are allowed to dislike, or even hate each other. But the actual reasoning behind the various gods quarrels is something that really isn't considered important. What's really important is that Layo isn't D&D anymore.

This is incorrect.

There are two people who know, and yes it is very important why they feel as they do.  You seem to think that Leanthar and Ed have arbitrarily scattered the relationships among the deities with no rhyme or reason.  

This could not be further from the truth.

There is rhyme...there is reason...and they existed long before our move away from D&D.

Did you know that at least one deity and several major NPCs, especially in the prior campaign, were actually characters played by people in Leanthar's original Layonara pen-and-paper campaign?  Did you know that events that happened in that campaign still ripple today? This game world, in one way or the other, has existed for over 20 years.

I suspect they actually intend, some day, to get to answer some of these deeper questions. Certainly, the degree to which they resist others aid in defining things (even for such things as trivial as the gestation period of elves), leads me to that conclusion.

Some yes, and some no.  Any "resistance" you might be sensing now is due to a couple of factors. First, we did, in fact, enlist the community's help in defining and fleshing out a lot of things that were previously vague, and we got, as a result of that, a tremendous amount of content, much of which is going into the campaign setting book when it is released.  Second, at some point, when one is trying to release any published work, one must say "OK, this is enough for now. If we keep going, we'll never get this done."  In the technical industry, this is called "feature creep".

But what that also means is that for real world years, while you will know your PC's god hates some other PC's god, you won't be allowed to actually know or come up with any plausible reason why - even if your PC is a cleric that spends their time studying the liturgical minutia of their chosen deity.

Is this really a problem? There are stories out there that seek to explain it.  Some whimsical, some with an air of truth and the weight of legend.  As a paladin, is it yours to question why or to explain your deity's preferences?  No, it's not.  If someone asks, give an answer of faith if one of fact does not exist. Isn't that part of the role of a paladin?

[SteveMaurer]

Why?  Is it a cleric's or paladin's imperative to know and understand every aspect of his/her deity?

If that cleric or paladin has even the slightest similarity to humans and/or human religions, the answer to that is an absolute unqualified yes.    While many religions have the concept of things that are beyond human ken, stuff defining basic morality is always explained, usually in detail.

How else do you think that proselytizers go about their business?

To use your example, don't tell me there is no story between how Toran and Lucinda got on each others' bad side.   There are likely actually three: Toran's side, Lucinda's side, and the truth.

But so far that story has clearly not even been written.   And no amount of hand-waving is going to make it into something for which there would be no story, because unexplained antipathy is not the hallmark of honor or justice, which they both claim as their own.   In fact, even if they were not behaving honorably, they would at least explain to their followers why they thought they were (and the followers would be expected to believe that dogma).

But there is nothing like that.  Nor is the behavior expected of a cleric or paladin in the face of a worshiper of a disliked God, or even enemy, defined either.    So players don't know what to do.

Dogmatic religions aren't like that.  You always know what you are supposed to do.   What it is may seem stupid to some, but you know.

Without bringing specifics into play here (and please, do not do so in follow up posts), look at all that's been written about real-life religions. Thousands and thousands of pages taken all together. And yet, there's disagreement even among the most learned of each faith, never mind between faiths.

Disagreements are rarely centered on the facts (of settled belief among the faithful), but rather what those facts imply your behavior should be.   A religious figure had only male disciples (fact) - does that mean that women can't be leaders in the faith? Or merely that, back in those days, common folk didn't let women go following some presumably crazy prophet around in the desert?

Extending the example, Toran says, "I don't like Lucinda" that should be enough.  Asking "why" of one's deity would suggest there's some debate in the matter or that Toran can be convinced to look the other way.  That's not going to happen.

Well, actually, the schism between the Paladins and Justicers tends to imply that the gods of Layo aren't that interactive.   Otherwise, Toran would have stated his decision, one way or the other, before it got so out of hand, and harmed his church.    Reading between the lines on Grand and Dorand, you get the same idea.  Dorand doesn't even notice he's got a friggin' orc worshiping him until he wins Dorand's crafting contest.    Daily allotment of spells or no, this seems to imply a certain basic inattention on the part of the gods.

To each his own though. It just seems a same to avoid something due to a lack of answers when life itself is a search for answers to questions that may never be answered!

Actually, I'd love to play a Paladin of Toran - specifically because to my mind, paladins are nearly always misplayed as arrogant sanctimonious a--holes who are constantly trying to pick fights.     But I'm staying away from it specifically because a real Paladin would not only tell you what his God has decided about a specific issue, but also why that is the only possible decision that is good and just, and that those who disagree should be forgiven, loved, and aided, despite  their mortal imperfection.   I'd have to come up with that dogma, but Ed would probably make me have to continually walk back.

[SteveMaurer]

Did you know that at least one deity and several major NPCs, especially in the prior campaign, were actually characters played by people in Leanthar's original Layonara pen-and-paper campaign?

Actually, I suspected that many of the Gods were originally PCs.  I'm surprised to find it is only one.

[Dorganath]

If that cleric or paladin has even the slightest similarity to humans and/or human religions, the answer to that is an absolute unqualified yes.    While many religions have the concept of things that are beyond human ken, stuff defining basic morality is always explained, usually in detail.

How else do you think that proselytizers go about their business?

To use your example, don't tell me there is no story between how Toran and Lucinda got on each others' bad side.   There are likely actually three: Toran's side, Lucinda's side, and the truth.

But so far that story has clearly not even been written.   And no amount of hand-waving is going to make it into something for which there would be no story, because unexplained antipathy is not the hallmark of honor or justice, which they both claim as their own.   In fact, even if they were not behaving honorably, they would at least explain to their followers why they thought they were (and the followers would be expected to believe that dogma).

But there is nothing like that.  Nor is the behavior expected of a cleric or paladin in the face of a worshiper of a disliked God, or even enemy, defined either.    So players don't know what to do.

Please take no offense at what I'm about to say, but I'm going to stop this particular thread of discussion here. It's not personal, but it stands the danger of bleeding into a RL religious debate.

That said, I refer to my prior comment.  If everything were spelled out exactly in RL dogmatic faiths, there wouldn't be so much disagreement, so much difference in beliefs among people of the same general faith (i.e among Christians, or among Muslims, etc.)

Dogmatic religions aren't like that.  You always know what you are supposed to do.   What it is may seem stupid to some, but you know.

Heh...you mean like it seems stupid that the Good deities Lucinda and Toran dislike each other?  Isn't this a perfect example of knowing what you're supposed to do even if it may not make sense to a mortal?

Disagreements are rarely centered on the facts (of settled belief among the faithful), but rather what those facts imply your behavior should be.   A religious figure had only male disciples (fact) - does that mean that women can't be leaders in the faith? Or merely that, back in those days, common folk didn't let women go following some presumably crazy prophet around in the desert?

Nope.  Disagreements are on the details and implementation. Your question, by the way, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Why does Toran dislike Lucinda (fact)?  Did he want to date her and she snubbed him?  Was she always making electro-shock magical traps for Toran's armor? Yes, these are whimsical questions, but maybe it's just as simple as the fact that Lucinda and her dogma are all about the Al'noth and magic in general...all magic, including Necromancy, and Toran may have a fundamental issue with Necromancy because of how Evil tends to use it.  That's not to say that Lucinda condones Evil, but rather, encourages her faithful to embrace magic in all its forms.  It might be that simple!

I'm not saying that's it, but that's one plausible possibility.

Well, actually, the schism between the Paladins and Justicers tends to imply that the gods of Layo aren't that interactive.   Otherwise, Toran would have stated his decision, one way or the other, before it got so out of hand, and harmed his church.    Reading between the lines on Grand and Dorand, you get the same idea.  Dorand doesn't even notice he's got a friggin' orc worshiping him until he wins Dorand's crafting contest.    Daily allotment of spells or no, this seems to imply a certain basic inattention on the part of the gods.

I suggest you look a bit deeper into how the whole break between the Justicars and Toran came to be.  The tale started long, long ago and culminated with Justicers forgetting the words of Toran.

Actually, I'd love to play a Paladin of Toran - specifically because to my mind, paladins are nearly always misplayed as arrogant sanctimonious a--holes who are constantly trying to pick fights.     But I'm staying away from it specifically because a real Paladin would not only tell you what his God has decided about a specific issue, but also why that is the only possible decision that is good and just, and that those who disagree should be forgiven, loved, and aided, despite  their mortal imperfection.   I'd have to come up with that dogma, but Ed would probably make me have to continually walk back.

You have a good start there, but where you should be looking is at the dogma as the basis of such statements. The "why" of the just and right decision is based upon that, and from that, your paladin would put forth mortal words, empowered by his faith.  He does not need to be able to say, "Well, you see, in the year 5013 Pre-Cataclysm, Lucinda stepped on Toran's bare foot with the heel of a high-heeled boot, didn't say she was sorry, and he's never forgiven her."

I'll point out, since it's brought up so often, that D&D's deities are lightly defined at best, at least in most official publications I've seen.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let me make one further comment on having detailed specifics for the various dogmas.

It would be right to consider what we have written on the deity pages as the "Ten Commandments" of each faith, meaning the basic core of the religion.  This is what the deity cares most about.  His or her reasoning for saying those things need not be disclosed, only that he or she says "It is so."  Everything else is story, allegory, examples, details, supplemental information or whatever. It's not core to functioning in the faith.

While I'm sure it would be insanely cool to do so, it would be impractical to produce works equivalent to the Bible or the Qu'ran for each of the 28 deities would be an epic task.

[SteveMaurer]

As a paladin, is it yours to question why or to explain your deity's preferences?  No, it's not.

Those are two separate questions you inappropriately combined into one.   It is never a paladin's role to question his deity's judgment.

However, it is his duty to explain that judgment to others not of the faith so that they may be brought into it.

Further, it is the duty of a lawful good deity not to invite such questions.    A deity that engages in acts of cruelty and dishonor is, regardless of whether his paladins are allowed to question those acts, not of an alignment that should support the paladin class.  (At least in classic D&D.)

[Dorganath]

Those are two separate questions you inappropriately combined into one.   It is never a paladin's role to question his deity's judgment.

However, it is his duty to explain that judgment to others not of the faith so that they may be brought into it.

Further, it is the duty of a lawful good deity not to invite such questions.    A deity that engages in acts of cruelty and dishonor is, regardless of whether his paladins are allowed to question those acts, not of an alignment that should support the paladin class.  (At least in classic D&D.)

True enough, but the answer to the question of "why" can be as simple as "because Toran says it is so."

A Paladin is less of a recruiting tool; that task falls primarily to the clergy and lay members, and that's where the primary part of interpretation and explanation occur. That's not to say Paladins don't interpret for others, but it's much less common.  Paladins are more the "enforcement squad" and Champions are thought to be an extension of the deity itself.