How to RP Diety Relationships w/ topsy-turvy Like vs dislike?

[Varka]

I always go for the extreme in my examples.
Further I mostly use irony in my examples.

You can consider why and look into other posts i have done

Further look at the core of the post not the surface.

[Honora]

Just because characters theoretically *shouldn't* get along doesn't mean that they can and do so on a consistant basis.

Of course, just because they SHOULD is no reason why they have to .  Let's not forget two followers of the same god who cannot stand a) their personalities or b) the individual way that the other choose to worship.

Let's have some in-church strife too!

[lonnarin]

Can't this be turned around?  The Good Clerics can leave fallen followers of an enemy god and consider it better overall for the world, or raise them as a show of mercy and compassion to, perhaps, give them a sense of the power and benefit of the Cleric's (and his god's) point of view.

It may sound silly to expect, say, a Corathite to convert to Toran, but I can't see a Paladin really thinking Corathites aren't so bad just because one raised him.  Why would the Paladin not suspect something?  It sounds silly both ways when you say it like that.

Part 1) Certainly that can be the case!  I seriously doubt even Jesus would have raised John Wayne Gasey the clown-faced child-killer or Hitler out of love.  If evil dies, for the most part, let it die... still though, there is some merit in redemption.  If you don't offer redemption, then you're not very good since all you're doing is enforcing divinity at the end of a sword.  Ultimately, the outcome of the act would merit its worth.  If you raised a corathite and he kept on killing, then your god would be upset with you, if the wicked man instead turned to good, you god would be happy.  Gods are fickle like that, the only care about the results of their followers' actions, not the motive usually.

Part 2) The very fact that there is one exception to his hardline view could very well give him pause the next time he faced a Corathite.  If he was told his entire life that Corathites were evil and without mercy and one showed him mercy, even just to toy with him, it could be a tremendous blow to his faith.  If Toran lied about this, he would wonder, what else is Toran wrong about?  Shaking up concrete theological values does much to assail faith.  Point to the sections of the bible where the loving followers of god commit mass genocide in Deuteronomy and slay women and children of the tribes they conquered in Judges, and many christians will uncomfortably try to change the subject.  Same goes for the example of the kindly corathite... Toranites would quickly change the subject and grow uncomfortable at the mention of it.  Heck, just ask Lucindites why their goddess made babies with the dreaded Corath and the topic changes rather quickly.

[Rowana]

I always go for the extreme in my examples.
Further I mostly use irony in my examples.

You can consider why and look into other posts i have done

Further look at the core of the post not the surface.

With the use of Bloodstone and -those- specific characters as an example there then you didn't make your point very well, I am afraid. For they did exactly the thing you suggest they could not. They found a way to follow the tenants of their faith and still fell the beast that would destroy Layonara.

Have there been quests where deity conflict has mired the "win" and considered a failure? Sure. But we aren't here to 'win' we are here to RP. If we were here to 'win' then hey, we'd be one of -those- other hack and slash servers.

~row

[Dorganath]

Part 1) Certainly that can be the case!  I seriously doubt even Jesus would have raised John Wayne Gasey the clown-faced child-killer or Hitler out of love.  If evil dies, for the most part, let it die... still though, there is some merit in redemption.  If you don't offer redemption, then you're not very good since all you're doing is enforcing divinity at the end of a sword.  Ultimately, the outcome of the act would merit its worth.  If you raised a corathite and he kept on killing, then your god would be upset with you, if the wicked man instead turned to good, you god would be happy.  Gods are fickle like that, the only care about the results of their followers' actions, not the motive usually.

Which is exactly why Az'atta would likely accept the aid of her enemies, if redemption were the goal, as all are worthy of such in her eyes.  She's about the only one though.

Heck, just ask Lucindites why their goddess made babies with the dreaded Corath and the topic changes rather quickly.

A vile, vicious rumor, I assure you!  O.o

Incidentally this gave rise to the rumor that they're enemies now because Corath skipped out on child support payments.

[lonnarin]

Of course, just because they SHOULD is no reason why they have to .  Let's not forget two followers of the same god who cannot stand a) their personalities or b) the individual way that the other choose to worship.

Let's have some in-church strife too!

VERY good point there Honora.  Even when people worship the same god, doesn't mean that they necessarily like eachother.  All we have listed are the gods themselves, but only in a few spots of the dogma have we even mentioned the sects within the faiths.  Lucinda is the prime example with defenders of the weave, shapers, guardians, etc.. they have about 3 major branches/orders which operate and think very differently from one another.  Grandites are horribly prone to infighting since they have trouble deciding between old anscestor worship, purely grand worshipping ways, or even older shamanic rituals of their culture.  No doubt for all of the religions there are numerous sub-sects and "cults" within them which can come to blows with one another.  Just look at Sunnis vs. Shiites in the real world... same allah, still warring.  Catholics and Protestants?  Just believing in a specific God and what he taught hardly guaruntees peaceable cohesion between all of the faithful.  In the asbence of opposed gods to war upon, there spring up opposition within the same faith over smaller differences of logos and practice.  

I bet most Voraxians debate theology via fist-fight!

[Falonthas]

one thing i noticed in this  that hasnt yet been mentioned unless i overlooked it

Druids are not devout of any god

sure we put one during creation and it may shape our background as to what life was before being taken down the oaks path

gods are part of the whole
therfore with Nye being neutral and even though he is a shifter, he still serves the oak

druids are not bound by deity affiliation

again if i read it wrong please let me know

you can be friends with toranites or corathites or all those in between
why because druids are beyond such small viewpoints

[DMOE]

Psst....I don't think anyone was questioning that....More the Clerics and paladins

[Shadowblade225]

Honestly, if a few faithfull didn't falter, fall or convert now and again it'd be a really boring world and there isn't a single rule at creation that says that can't happen.  It just needs RP and if you can, document the process by keeping a character journal.

Fun Fact Time:

I've seen many Toranite characters come and go through the years.  Some came and stayed for a year or more.  Some were very vocal both in game and on the forums (OOC and IC).  Sadly, many of these characters (who have long left) were forgotten.  Some were fairly high level, but yet still forgotten.

Now...here's the fun part....

The majority of Toranite paladins that I've seen through out the years have fallen.  Not one or two.  Not three or four.  The majority...most....many...huge percentage.  I can't count more than two paladins in my own experience that have not fallen. Neither of these players play here anymore (or I haven't seen them in some time). Oh..wait...I can count another two who seldom play. But ya...still the majority have gotten in trouble.  The last year or so was less restricted than it had been in some time.  Less restricted means fewer paladins got in to trouble.

[Dorganath]

@Falonthas: What DMOE said...

And I did say that Nye needs to be a druid first, Kithairienite second.

Granted you'd have to sift through my huge volume of responses, but it's there.

Besides, I also said way more times that this entire issue wasn't specific to Nye, Rose or any other individual or group. No one is being singled out.

[Rowana]

If you put a deity in your deity field you are considered devout enough for it to matter, druid or fighter. If a fighter does something to besmirch the good dogma of a deity, the deity will notice but not necessarily punish as they are more a sheep in the fold rather then a shepherd. If a druid, more a shepherd (especially when considering the nature gods) besmirches the faith of the god by abusing their tenants and wishes, there will be actions taken. However it may not be as serious as if a cleric has done such a thing because as you point out, the druid does not rely upon the deity. Yes druids will abandon their chosen deity if it comes in conflict with the land, but who you get to cast your blessings upon doesn't really come in conflict with the land.

As an OOC mechanism, if you are not devout enough to your deity for deity to matter you might not want to put it in your deity field. However as an IC mechanism, Kith, Folian, Katia whom ever, is still going to look upon you as a follower if you claim to be and if you betray them, they aren't going to be happy about it.
~row

[Falonthas]

ok i figured i had missed it in the mass

[lonnarin]

If a druid, more a shepherd (especially when considering the nature gods) besmirches the faith of the god by abusing their tenants and wishes, there will be actions taken.
~row

How can a nature god who is not the oak themselves take action against a non-clergy member?  The most they can do is not grant spells that they're already not granting, and we here at layo have had the concept etched into our skulls that gods do not take active part in the lives of mortal.  No mortal will ever speak to, meet or dance with their god, so it stands to reason that any wrath beyond refusal of spells is forbidden as well.  It was my understanding that other than the granting or denial of spells, gods are forbidden or unable or unwilling to take action in the mortal realm.

I think in the case of Nyea and Rose, perhaps Rose's diety might be upset with her, and perhaps Nyea's with him... but only Rose has to worry. Kitharian just has to sit there and cry about it for lack of better option, since Nyea's spells do not come from him.  He has to worry about being a good druid, not a good Kitharian.

I admit that it is a strange and unique task, seperating the druid from the nature priest.  In many ways, hardcore druids are more like katia than many Katians; I doubt she worshipped any god before her ascension.  It's an odd choice, to follow in the footsteps of you god, or to follow their word.  So who makes the better Katian, the katian priest who follows her word, or the environmentalist druid who does as she did in life?  whew... that's a strange bit of zen there...

[Weeblie]

The gods have a little bit more wriggle room than just granting or deny spells, but that's not really significant here. For a non-divine follower, they would very unlikely do anything at all, unless we are talking about greater offenses, like an Aeridinite suddenly becomming a mass-murderer or something!

Then, the said deity could simply use the tools he has... and guess what that is?

Yes! Clerics, paladins and champions!

But that... eh... that's of course a danger one always has... regardless of whether you are a follower of the deity or not... Being one though, is naturally lowering the threshold level when the deity will act against you... which would still remain very high!

[Rowana]

How can a nature god who is not the oak themselves take action against a non-clergy member?  The most they can do is not grant spells that they're already not granting,   No mortal will ever speak to, meet or dance with their god, so it stands to reason that any wrath beyond refusal of spells is forbidden as well.  It was my understanding that other than the granting or denial of spells, gods are forbidden or unable or unwilling to take action in the mortal realm.

The gods -choose- to remain inactive in the general day to day lives of mortals. Do not mistake that complacency as inability. As Weebs said, they have many tools, their favorite being the well behaved followers.

If you accept a god in to your life enough to devote your ways to their concepts you invite consequence when your actions do not represent that. Period. If you don't want the hassle, don't invite them in. It is simply more immediate in the long term for those who use the blessings of the gods. Those who do not use the blessings of the gods can find themselves in a pickle just as easily, just that they have more wiggle room.

So your statement of "The most they can do is not grant spells that they're already not granting,  No mortal will ever speak to, meet or dance with their god, so it stands to reason that any wrath beyond refusal of spells is forbidden as well," is severely incorrect. In fact some mortals have met a god(s).

~row

[Tanman]

Or Weebs, Kith could start throwing around his divine trees. :-)

[Hellblazer]

P  If you raised a corathite and he kept on killing, then your god would be upset with you, if the wicked man instead turned to good, you god would be happy.

that always depend on the fact that if your god bases that person actions on his own will or do it at your expense. I don't usually mix RL religions to game but since it has already been done.

If you found a man bleeding to death in the street and you brought him to the hospital and the next week he goes out and kills 10 people. Does God hold that against you? no. Why? because you did what he wanted and it is to help your fellow man. And plus you didn't know who he was.

The same way in game. Unless you use divine relation you do not know if the person laying dead in front of you is from a different deity alignment from you and even then you do not know which deity.

 Even then, if you take a few factors into account of things your character may not know like, he has this deity, was raised to follow it, but does not anymore because he woke up (but due to time constraint the player either did not right a cdt for it explaining how he came to not follow him, or the admin did not have time to switch it yet).  Or if even with that deity he is not in fact a good man bent on helping other. Remember what i wrote before. Depending on your alignment you're personal view of you deity might defer and cause inner struggle, happens all the time even in RL.

Since you don't know that, would your deity really frown on your for being generous and compassionate, when you have no clue who this person is? Now if you knew that character (and I mean character vs character knew each other) and knew what kind of person he was, that would be a different story.

And I know there was something about the character alignment not mattering that much on the views to his faith or something like that in the past that was brought up. But truly, if the alignment is the indication of how a character would react to situations, it is also how he would personally view his own faith. If the alignment is not the basis on the character reactions and views, then take them out. But thats an other debate.

I'm saying this because of this. Alignments are more in the line of the person moral. You chose to follow a faith, you do not chose your morals. People can change faith easily but to change the very fabric of their essence it's almost impossible at the very least a life time undertaking.

[Acacea]

Gods act through their clerics, for the most part, yeah. Druids are quite capable of being devout, using different deities as their focus for the powers they draw from nature. They won't be revoked by the god, no, however if they stray so far from the faith, then they should simply remove the deity from the deity field. A cleric wouldn't read him as an ally anymore because he's not, plain and simple. Calling oneself a Folian follower doesn't make you aligned with his goals and dogma, so if you're no longer doing either, you should remove what allows you to receive his blessings and so on, and continue to call yourself a Folian worshipper...without the name in the deity field.

Regarding nature priests vs druids, personally I think its just a silly attachment we have to classes and their predefined meanings, even if they don't make much sense. Why should people like Katia and Lucinda and Kith and so on have predefined cleric packages such as exist in NWN? Katia's clerics should be basically druids in abilities, should they not? Is she not nature? Kith definitely gets the shaft in a big way when people expect his shepherds to have the 'cleric' class. Lucinda's clerics suddenly don't know jack about arcane magic and 90% of them try to hide full plate under their robes because they have the 'cleric' class package, and since when do they care THAT much about turning undead?

Is a pure cleric of Folian more connected to his god than a devout ranger or mix of the two? Yeah right, that cleric ranges like an elephant, about as well as the Kith one hunts. It's just a silly attachment to what people see as the meaning behind the word 'cleric,' even when the fact of the matter is that no matter how much smart players can bend a class to fit a new definition, it is not suitable in many cases. Sometimes I think the worlds where all divine magic comes from gods, period, have it easier, because then suddenly you can actually have a ranger or druid of a deity that serves nature to a better degree than a 'cleric' class, but is still devout and not pounded out by the less suited cleric. In the current mindset of many people, a pure ranger of Folian means jack. A pure druid of Katia is nothing compared to a cleric. Any pure arcane caster is zilch to Lucinda, though they may hope to serve a mundane position related to the church. Does that make much sense, in the grand scheme of things?

As for gods 'choosing' to remain inactive, I'm not sure I agree with the wording as that seems to imply that they can at any time fix all the problems but just decide not too because they're fickle and useless, which is exactly why people argue against them OOC in the first place. It was my understanding that it was more of a case of being either so difficult to meddle directly as to require their links to the world via clerics, or leave them vulnerable to other gods doing the same and causing all sorts of mess, similar to when they dragons stopped killing each other and decided to politely create toy soldiers (read: races of the world) to fight instead. Kind of them, I know. I sort of prefer the 'hard to meddle directly' over the 'we agreed to use pawns instead' because the latter makes me anti-pantheon, but hey.

Regarding Hellblazer's post, we are mostly going on the assumption that you of course know who the person is and who they worship. Being anonymous would make almost the whole of this discussion moot.

To be a bit more on topic, sort of, not really, I think this whole thread has diverged a bit and fallen once more back into "this god should do this" and "what would god do in this specific scenario," which is beside the point to me. These are deities, no matter what our OOC beliefs, they're gods, and OOC we shouldn't be trying to rationalize them on a personal level, because they don't exist for most people on that personal level. For those that snort and wave their cynic flag and make all the spiteful anti-pantheon talk OOC, whatever man, I'm the opposite of religious in real life but this is in character, it's fiction, they exist and serve a function and role. IC say all you want, but out of character people should be rationalizing why a deity IS serving his role and living up to his alignment and dogma, against greater appearances, not rationalizing the opposite. We know things about them, we know what they are supposed to be, so rather than dragging the concept through the mud and down to a mundane, mortal level, think of ways to exalt it instead. No one is perfect and sometimes DMs and players are honestly going to do a crappy job of representing a god on a greater level than mortal, because most of us are indeed mortal, yes? Don't ruin the concept because of that. Just fix it. I tend to blame clerics before gods to avoid dragging it through the mud

The general point of the whole deity thing is just to remind people that as clerics or paladins, your deity is your life and the source of all you are and what has shaped you, and to keep that in mind at all times and act accordingly. Some people really do forget and put deity several slots down on the list, regardless of what is claimed. Mincing each individual thing and giving examples of stuff is just sort of beside the point, you know? Believe me, I can argue just about everything, from either side, until Layonara's Armageddon, and give a hundred examples of why it should not be so in x case or should be in y, but that's just not the main purpose of the reminder.

(Edit- PS: The Lucinda/Corath/Xeen thing IS a vicious rumor, which everyone of all three agrees on! )

[AeonBlues]

*grumbles*

I admit I overstated things in my first post, and I apologize for that.  We acknowledge that this is not about Rose, Nyeaeana, and Clarissa, though they are severely effected by this policy.  Being told that my character is not going to be able to function as a team with the group that he most often adventures with is not an easy lump for me to swallow.

That being said, as it is required for druids to have a patron deity, I will review my options for finding my character a new faith for political reasons.  My first impression was that Nyeaeana would not want to change faiths for an OOC reason, but it definitely is an IC development, and druids are political by nature

And I will get over this

By the way, this thread has made for some very interesting reading.

AeonBlues

[Dorganath]

That being said, as it is required for druids to have a patron deity, I will review my options for finding my character a new faith for political reasons.

This is not true.

You might want to check out:

[lore]Druid Information[/lore]

The belief system of spiritual harmony and direct connection with nature predisposes druids to be less attached to the gods than many other Layonarans. You will of course find druids among the ranks of worshipers of Katia, Aeridin, Shindaleria, Illsare and many others. But a druid is less likely to be a fervent follower than a cleric whose powers derive directly from the blessings of her or his deity. Katia, for example, personifies nature, and as such can give a druid a very powerful and tangible point of will focus. But a druid’s strength is not gifted from Katia herself. A common druidic philosophy is that the gods themselves are a product of a confluence of natural forces. They evolved. It is considered blasphemous by many and in some places gives druids a hated outsider status, but to them the gods themselves emerged from nature and are in many ways subordinated to its fundamental flows and connections. Thus, druids are not always worshipers of Katia as is commonly thought, and even those that are may view worship in an entirely different light than others.

Also from here:
[lore]Character Submission[/lore]

If your character follows a deity, it must be from the Layonara pantheon (see Deities of Layonara.) Clerics and Paladins must have a deity. No other class is required to have a deity with the exception of the Divine/Unholy Champion Prestige Classes.