Can clerics, paladins and followers of enemy and unfriendly deities interact and associate? Absolutely. Can they travel together? Of course. Can there be mutual respect? Surely! Should they be all hugs and smiles? Absolutely not. Should there be an ever-present tension? I'd say that would be appropriate.
Now whether its BAD RP or not, I'm not gonna say, but each situation should be looked at first before some kind of punishment, retribution or whatever is dealt.
I think another twist on this is the alignment and dogma of the specific deity. For instance Toran is a compassionate god with an emphasis on forgiveness and restoration. There is a particular Mistite who has declared that she would watch Clarissa bleed to death before healing her. That's an understandable RP from the Mistite perspective but when that same Mistite was trapped in the bottom of the rift and needed rescuing and ressurecting a couple of Toranites came to her aid since it is in their dogma to help others in need. The Toranite perspective would still be one of tension since it would be understood that there would be no recognition of the sacrifice involved and no thanks for the help but would feel pity for the one incapable of understanding the importance of that compassion. So there is still tension on both sides but different actions are both justified based on the dogma of the deities.
The botttom line is that deity relations and personal relationships are very complex. In RL there are lots of people who are friends that have divergent beliefs. So it depends on whether the situation is asking your character to act against your deities dogma or not as to whether a particular action or friendship should be avoided.
What happens is that DMs work with a limited understanding of the characters stories and RP personalities, and then make large assumptions.
In my opinion, DMs should have all the information on their scales before they start dishing out punishments based on deity relations. If they make a decision with out weighing all the facts, then they are going to make players not want to play on Layonara, and our community is going to become a bit smaller.
I am on the campaign bandwagon that we need to do every thing we can to make every member of this community feel welcome and appreciated.
Everyone keeps bring out the extreme example of deity X vs. Corath. Be careful about extreme examples as when rules are based on extreme examples will have extreme effects on lesser examples.
Everyone keeps bring out the extreme example of deity X vs. Corath. Be careful about extreme examples as when rules are based on extreme examples will have extreme effects on lesser examples.
I thank Pibemanden acknowledging that end in game friendships that maybe should not have been formed so strongly in the first place. The fact is if Rose can not cast spell on Nye, then they are going to fail to function as a cohesively in a group. This is going to tear my character out of a group of friend that he has developed relationships with to the point where these Toranites stop in their tracks when passing a bear, and agree to not chop down trees for the extra wood. But there is no way Nyeaeana is going to let his friend Rose lose her powers over him.
To say "You can be friends and you can be in a party but if Character A casts spells on character B, then character A is going to have their powers taken away...." This leaves me thinking, "Yah right" Basically we can chat in town, but we can't adventure together.
Dorganath, I am reading very clearly that this is not being targeted at any individual. The problem I have here is this policy is effectively scratching six months of RP development between two characters. Quite frankly, I am more frustrated by this, then having a character permed.
Let me turn the issue around on you. Give me one good reason why Toran would happily and willingly overlook one of his clerics/paladins/champions repeatedly bestowing his divine gifts, especially those of Raise/Resurrection, upon a follower of an enemy diety without so much as a displeasing look. Why would he sanction that?
Because Toran is nice?
Maybe he is, but he still has his enemies, and that which strengthens his enemies weakens Toran.
@ miltonyorkcastle: Besides NEP, DW, & SR, there is always good old Heal spells. It takes Nye like 4 hours in game to make 4 Heal potions. Think every time Rose casts a Heal, she is saving me an hour of boring tedious chore work.
Because they are working together to fight a greater enemy, an enemy that both their deities share. Because while my character's alignment does not reflect his deities. While he doesn't respect laws, he doesn't go out of his way to break them either. Because in the protection of the great cycle, my character does a lot more things that Toran would like then he would have a problem with.
I fully understand the importance of deity relations. I fully understand that Layo has been around a lot longer then I have been playing on Layo. As sated though, I have seen many examples where the extreme problem had a serious effect on others. I also strongly believe that for RP to have real meaning and depth, characters have to freedom to develop relationships where the issues are more complex then a policy that can be cut and pasted onto the back of a box of cracker-jax. Really great RP comes from the complexity of character development and relations.
I can assure you that this recent crackdown isn't solely based on Rose and Nye. At least I'm quite sure it's not, but rather on many many players in the past and present.
Since when did Toran or Kithairien really care about the Great Cycle? And pray tell, who is this grave enemy that threatens both Toran and Kithairien...so much so that either god would say, "Hey, let's overlook the whole mutual enemy thing so that these few folks can do battle against it."
As far as I'm concerned he should be a druid first, and a Kithairienite second. A cleric of any deity does not have the same luxury, as there is no separation between deity and ability.
Now, correct me if I am wrong on this point, but the policy flat out states that any cleric is forbidden to cast any spells on any character that has an enemy deity, on penalty of having their powers taken away. Now I really want to make sure I understand this correctly, because if this is true, then this policy is going to end not just a friendship that my character has established, but it is also going to end his relationship with the most significant group of adventures he associates with.
AeonBlues
Maybe it's just *me* but I think point one covers among other things deity relations and as EVERY clerical and paladin submission MUST have that acknowledgement include to be approved I am failing to see how that isn't clear on what the team wants.....But as I say...that's just my humble opinion.
Also....If a player isn't exactly sure what that means....Well, it sounds simply but they could ask before submitting a cleric or paladin
Corath is the enemy of both Toran and Kithairien. As a druid, Nye seems himself as a protector of the great cycle and destroyer of undead. "Returning them to the cycle" as he says.
This is one of the reasons why this IC friendship exists. I do play my character this way, so a lot of the deity relation conflicts have not existed, while some have and have been played out to a great extent.
Simply put, Nye can't go into the situations this group does with out a cleric backing him up. Like, if he gets severely wounded, he dies if he changes shape to heal him self. While yah I am not getting sympathy about the heal potions, a lot of place are built to kill characters that don't have a cleric casting heal spells.
The problem that I am having is not that these characters should have some conflicts. These problems have gone to the extent that Nye has walked away and left the group in the middle of adventures, and at one time he was almost asked not to adventure with them any more because he was fighting so much over leadership and decision making issues.
AeonBlues
DMOE
"I've not found anywhere it says that those in need can't be turned away"
from Lore: Toran
The temples of Toran are known the lands over as houses of safety and refuge. None in need shall ever be turned away.
Okay it is about the temples, not the clerics or the paladins. But I think it shows it anyway.
Ofcourse a Toranite would not have to help follower of Corath to burn down some houses :D
No serioulsy, if he is asked by a follower of Mist or Kith to help him to return the bards necklace (regiran from hlint I think) wich is a "good deed". Can he refuse, or should he refuse?
Always helps others.
@DMOE: Yes ofcourse it is about the temple but isnt a cleric also a part of it?
And I didnt want to take it word by word, just think the sentence shows as some others how Toran and the religion works. I just dont think it fits to Toran to let some one behind lying in his own blood... For sure he would also say "thank toran" and even try to take this chance to convince him that Toran a god of goodness and help is a far better choice ;)
I also understand that there are rules but that they cant suit to every situation. Just want to know if I am completely wrong
@Lonn: yes, followrs of Corath have the luxury. They can think "let this weak Toranite Paladin bleed in the dirt why should I care?" or the way you pointed out *envy*
You have deity enemies. True
But as I see it (grey zone) it depends on the event, the intensions and the task.
Example:
*Plen, Rhiz, Kobal, Kat, Aca, Angela, Daeron, Storold and 20 others sit around the table.*
Hey tonight we gonna kill Bloodstone! *one shouts*
Cheers, hurray *everyone shouts*
Aye, lads and lass. Ter da dragon da foight *Kobal says and then the shouts stops*
To Roferien? You gotta be kidding me *Angela says* what about the Sea Queen?
*The cheers, laugther and joys have suddenly turned into a debate about the Gods. In the end everyone leaves and 2 years later Bloodstone rules the world. Hurray Hurray*
Now what can we learn of this? Everything is not black and white because then you could write a book about when every rules counts and not.
Everything is general guidelines. I am sure everyone could make an example where you had to break a certain rule.
Every player and DM will have his or her ideas about this but still it is good to talk about. I simply hope that players being confronted with DM will solve this in a good way together. That does actually count both ways.
Just because characters theoretically *shouldn't* get along doesn't mean that they can and do so on a consistant basis.
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.
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.
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.
Heck, just ask Lucindites why their goddess made babies with the dreaded Corath and the topic changes rather quickly.
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! :D
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.
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, 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.
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 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.
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 (http://lore.layonara.com/Aeridin), Shindaleria (http://lore.layonara.com/Shindaleria), Illsare (http://lore.layonara.com/Illsare) and many others. But a druid is less likely to be a fervent follower than a cleric (http://lore.layonara.com/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:
If your character follows a deity, it must be from the Layonara pantheon (see Deities of Layonara (http://lore.layonara.com/Deities%20of%20Layonara).) 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.
GM Quest. Character Falls in battle. Only cleric that can do the raising has a god that is the enemy of the god of the char that fell.
What happens?
I only ask because I'd hate to see a character miss a quest for falling in battle when there's someone there that can raise them
Druids do not need a patron deity.
That being said, as it is required for druids to have a patron deity,
Political reasons?
That being said, as it is required for druids to have a patron deity,
Dorg, can you reword your earlier posts as to how the deity relationships work for me.
Cheers, Pseudo.
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?I think the diety would frown if their "divine powers" (in the case of clerics and paladins, especially when it came to those people who worship an enemy deity.
Having said that, I'm not sure if the spell works on a raiseable corpse. A question for someone more mechanics savvy that I.
My answer did say it would regardless.
I do believe that my statement did ask, would your god hold it against the person who is committing these action or at your expenses.
My thought on this is that it still would. The cleric is *still* using divine powers that he granted them on people that worshipped enemy dieties. Regardless of whether its a compassionate thing or not. I don't think its dependent on that at all.
On the other side of the spectrum there would be a good chance a good align god wouldn't hold it against his cleric, if he saw that his cleric truly acted out of compassion.
Obviously if you're character is following an evil align god, the god would hold it against the cleric even if the cleric did not know.Not true at all. Just because the diety is 'good' alignment, doesn';t mean that they won't resent that action. Look at Toran.
I think you're putting too much thought into this compassionate ignoramus. I don't think any compassionate god is going to ding a Cleric for being accidentally compassionate to an enemy occasionally, but if it becomes a habit, I'm sure the god would take action to stop that sort of behavior until the Cleric wised up. Gods can't have direct representatives running around being utterly oblivious, after all.
Divine relation is what? A level 0 spell? I would have thought a cleric, champion or whomever is the focus of this debate would/should absolutely make liberal usage of this spell. I don't think I have ever been on an adventure with DMOE's Muireann where she hasn't just either cast this at the very start on someone new to her or asked people point blank who their deity was.
Having said that, I'm not sure if the spell works on a raiseable corpse. A question for someone more mechanics savvy that I. If it didn't, maybe an Aeridinte would 'risk it' and raise them but I wouldn't imagine too many clerics of the other God/desses might feel such an obligation.
It CANNOT be emphasized enough then, over and over, that the person on the receiving end of the Divine Relations DOES NOT KNOW IT HAS BEEN CAST. Corba went through this with Jaren, back in the day - she cast it on him and he never let her forget it, reminding her in character that it was "rude". And this was a GM!
Divine Relations can't be seen by the recipient. Just keep reminding yourself of that...and use it!
As I see it, the XP penalty from Raise Dead/Ressurection does not come from your god directly (i.e. your god doesn't smite you). Instead, it's the sacrifice parts of your own soul to bring back another. Like... if a huge amount of power had to be channeled somewhere, and if there are no presence of any soulstone, you have to channel that power through yourself, which puts your own soul into strain.
And why does the XP become worse the worse the relation between the deities are? Well...
Perhaps, if you are trying to ressurect a friendly deity, your own god will "help you a little bit more" compared to when you are ressurecting a unfriendly one! :)
The choice of whether to have scripted penalties or not is like the choice of whether having scripted quests or DM run ones! The first being 110% fair while the later is surely more fun, even though at times they can be perceived as unfair (like one DM allows X but not Y and another DM allows the opposite)...