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

[Dezza]

A general rule I follow is this:

If you have made a conscious choice to decide which god your character will follow then you know well and truly the belief systems of that god and who you do or don't like and it should be RP'ed accordingly.

If you only pay lip service some a god and want to travel with anyone regardless of who they follow then don't put any diety into the diety field or have your diety field blanked.

But...if you have a diety in your diety field and are not RP'ing accordingly then you are an open target for GM mischief and torment!

[Dorganath]

That's like...three general rules there Dezza.

[Pseudonym]

I just read this thread and found myself nodding with lonn's first post and then Weeblie's answer, then Kirbiana's input, then Dorg's responses and then Acacea's great post.

I have always kept in mind something Weeblie said to me maybe a year or so ago in answer to a question I had at the time which seems relevant to the discussion at hand, it's very easy to have RP excuses for your character's behaviour, try however to have RP reasons.

[AeonBlues]

For clarification, what about buff spells?

For the meat of what I have to say....

While there might be a more extreme example out there of enemy deity relations, am strongly suspecting this issues has arisen from the friendship between Rose cleric of Toran and Nyeaeana the Kithairien druid.  The reason why I suspect this is because we have had not one but at least a couple of DMs talk to us about this.

This frustrates me, as the DMs come in, have no idea about the character back grounds and history of this friendship, and expect us to RP our characters to some kind of pre written script.  In this case Nye is a protector and follower of the great cycle above the worship of his deity, which is acceptable as written in lore on druids.  Now perhaps for different reasons, Toran and Kithairien are both enemies of Corath.  Nye sees undead as a blaspheme to the great cycle.  Thus these characters work together to fight common enemies.

Another point is that the reason Toran and Kithairien are enemies is because Torn upholds laws, and Kithairien dogma is largely about opposing laws.  Nyeaeana is not CN, he is TN.  So the issue Nye breaking laws doesn't come up, but Drama with a capital "D" has surfaced many times with leadership issues as he will not accept any individual as his leader, who's orders he must follow.

Now I think the RP drama that has and continues to exist should be sufficient for the DMs.  What happens is that DMs work with a limited understanding of the characters stories and RP personalities, and then make large assumptions.

Please realize that if you enforce this policy on Rose, then you are breaking up a significant part of my RP community here on Layo.  To say that she can't heal or raise Nye because of his deity which he values less then his devotion to the great cycle, and his commitment to combat the enemies that him and Rose share seems entirely unreasonable to me.

Now I want to say also that both Dalia and Skywatcher can verify that Nye has stretched the IC RP vs OOC boundary for the protecting the greater good of our Layona community.  When I read Leanthar's post and this thread, I feel that a significant part of the community and friendships that I have developed is being attacked.  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.  To say that say that Rose is forbidden to heal Nye is a real big slap in the face to me.  It undermines our characters background.  It undermines the the community and friendships that I have established.

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.

AeonBlues

[Pseudonym]

What happens is that DMs work with a limited understanding of the characters stories and RP personalities, and then make large assumptions.

*grins at the irony contained within this sentence*

[Dorganath]

@AeonBlues:

You know, that's kind of bitter and if I may say so about as one-sided as you are essentially accusing the GMs of being.  Unless I misunderstand, you are saying that all the time, effort, systems, support and meaning behind the relationships between deities doesn't ultimately matter so that people can just RP how they want.  Why not just get rid of the system all together then?  Why not just get rid of the deities?

Yes, those questions were rhetorical.  It's not going to happen.

First let me say something that has clearly been misunderstood:

We are absolutely not attacking anyone for their in-game relationships, their background or anything else.  We are not trying to push anyone out. We are not targeting one specific group.  We are also not saying that anyone is forbidden to associate with anyone else.

Please go back and read that paragraph...then read it again.  I want it to be crystal clear and fully understood.  I'm truly not sure why you would infer that you or anyone else in particular is being targeted or attacked specifically.

This is something that was enforced long before you joined the server.  There have been plenty of people tapped for simply ignoring deity relationships over the years this server has been running.  Your case or anyone else's here is nothing special, nor is it any sort of exception.

I will not comment upon your particular case directly for one simple reason: I only have hearsay and second-hand information upon which to comment. I'll not put myself in a situation where I may be repeating or judging on information that was not accurately or completely relayed to me.  I prefer to only comment on what I've seen, and so I will offer some examples.

Character A is a cleric of Deity A.  Character B is not a member of any clergy, yet is a devout follower of Deity B.  Deity B is considered an enemy by Deity A, and Deity A is considered unfriendly to Deity B. It's entirely possible that Character A and Character B could meet, develop a friendship that does not involve a discussion of their religious beliefs. In the case of Character B, he/she may know that Character A is a cleric of a deity not held in a positive regard by his/her own deity, but being not part of the clergy, Character B can in fact choose to overlook such divine animosity.

For Character A, if the character learned of the religious beliefs of Character B, there should be some sort of inner conflict, perhaps a hesitation in interaction.  There should be some tension, knowing this person supports a god that is an enemy to his/her own.  Perhaps they never discuss it, but if Character A shares his/her deity's blessings (i.e. spells) with Character B, some of those blessings have diminished or non-existent effects than they should. This should be a clue to Character A.  Or if by some chance Character A ends up casting Raise Dead/Resurrection on Character B, Character A will feel a very real penalty.

Am I saying that Character A and Character B cannot travel together? Am I saying Character A cannot cast spells upon Character B?

Absolutely not.

However, what always, always, always, always needs to be taken into account is this:

Character A gets his/her powers from Deity A.  These powers are a gift and a privilege. They are not a right, and as such, they can be taken away at Deity A's will.  While Character A may not care about the relationships between his/her deity and those of other characters, the key issue is that Deity A does care.

A lot.

Deity A will notice if Character A tries to bless an enemy...or heal an enemy...or use Deity A's divine power to return an enemy to life.  

To steer this back into specifics, Toran is the All Watching.  Guess what?

When a divinely empowered character chooses to ignore his or her deity's wishes, and yes, the deity's relationship with other deities, that deity is well within its rights to deny power to said character, in part or in full.  

It's been done before.

It'll be done again.

So what is the point of all this?

The relationships should not be ignored.  Period.  How one chooses to RP that is really up to the individual, but the relationships should never, ever be ignored. However, if a character chooses to do so, then the character should be prepared for his or her deity to take notice and take action.

This does not mean that such character cannot travel together, only that the RP should appropriately reflect the relationships between deities.

Deity relationships are just one of the many dynamics of this world. Try to embrace them and incorporate them rather than finding a way around them.

[Pibemanden]

AeonBlues, while I understand where you are comming from and what you aree pointing out here we have to consider the RP of it all. Yes there is surely a lot of RP reasons that Rose and Clarissa would like Nye, and I am sure that you are not just getting along like that because of your differences. However one thing remains unanswered, why would Toran care?
Toran is a god not a human being so he doesn't really care about the people worshipping him all that much, surely he is happy to have followers but it isn't like he is on his knees begging people to follow since he has already ascended and he has many other npc followers so he can pretty much do as he pleases. And he doesn't really care if your character falls in love with the most understanding and loving person of an enemy faith, if you are of the faith you better follow his words and not just do as you please yourself.
This might sound really harsh and make it seem like you have no freedom at all as a member of a clergy, but the truth is, it isn't about the freedom you have but the powers your god gives you. Not everyone can just walk up to someone and touch their shoulder saying a few words and the person is healed from all injuries, neither can everyone act as a paladin or even more a champion of his/her god/godess without really being in (full) favor with the god/godess.
Yes I can understand it is hard saying goodbye to IG friendships, but no one says you can't have an OOC friendship plus there are still many other people that you haven't met out in the world of layonara that you might enjoy playing with. And it is even more sad that this hasn't been taken up at a way earlier stage so that the IC bonding would never have happened. But really, this is the way it is supposed to be both seen from a IC and OOC perspective, people have fallen from their gods graces in the past, believe me when I started a whole lot(maybe not all that many but it seemed like a lot) of toranites suddenly feel from grace due to them doing things that went against Torans will(Not really sure if it has happened with other gods but this is what I remember).
One final thing, yes I agree that we could use every single member of the community as it is, however it doesn't change the fact that this server runs with a custom set of rules made by the team and has a huge story that most people aren't aware of even half of, but still we have to work with the things as they are, sure some things might seem like that is just the way they are but the last few days have made me see that it isn't quite so and many things have a very good reason to be as they are. Divine relationships can be hard and yes it is very late that they come into play for some and it might seem harsh if you haven't seen how it used to be before, but really it is all for the betterment of RP on the server and not just in place because someone wants to bash you in the head with a rulebook and say that is just the way it is.

[Dorganath]

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 want to respond to this comment specifically.

I have heard far more complaints from people, long- and short-timers, about being dissatisfied and feeling like leaving over people not bothering to properly RP their characters, dogmas, etc. than I have people grumbling about the restrictiveness of the same.

And for what it's worth, GMs discuss a lot of things like this.  We get input from other GM's who have observed the characters to get as full of a picture as possible.  But keep in mind, a huge part of a GM's responsibility is maintaining the integrity of the world.  We'd not be doing our jobs if we ignored such a large part of that integrity.

[Rowana]

I will reiterate just to be completely clear, we are not telling anyone who they can and cannot group with. We are speaking directly of divinely inspired characters (clerics, paladins and champions) respecting the oath to which they swore. Not just part of it but the whole thing. A ranger of Folian continent crawling with a sorcerer of Corath isn't going to do more then raise some eyebrows. A cleric of Folian running with a cleric of Corath where there is no issue of philosophy, and if they are casting upon each other and proffering their deity's gifts -upon their enemies- of their faith, furthering the goals of their sworn patron's -enemies- is going to inspire some retribution from the gods. Does that not scream heresy? Does that not scream traitor? The gods, while relatively involved in their own dealings will notice these things and they will take care of the problem.  
 

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.

I am on the campaign bandwagon that when we approve characters that agree to the oaths of their deity that we should expect them to uphold that oath or that they will bear the consequences there of. Other wise what is the point of the oath in the first place?

~row

[merlin34baseball]

*hammers a huge hide painted in gray and black onto the wall*
Prove the gods exist.

Tyrian

//sorry.. hee...///

[LynnJuniper]

I agree with all of it, and with that, I offer a suggestion:

Along with the OOC oath that is given to players of divine faith (Clerics, Paladins) that they have to explicitly state in their character submission, perhaps an addition to that stating something like:

4) I understand that if at any time I forgo following any and all of my character's oath the team /the god can and will take neccesary action to either put my character on the right path or eradicate him from the faith thereby loosing some and/or all divine power.

I say this because although I do agree , I also, as Pibe said, think its sad that the correcting procedures on some people had to happen so late into their IC relationships with other characters. Yes, they should have been playing the deity relations from the start, but having to change or give up IC connections that in turn the player(s) have grown connected to is always hard. and so perhaps this addition will get people to understand right off the bat: This is serious


//Hey Tyrian: Its not that they don't exist, its that they don't care unless you're a brainless loyal dog of a follower, then they dote over you just enough to make their presence known ....Rhynn doesn't like the gods either //

[AeonBlues]

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.

AeonBlues

[Pibemanden]

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.

Actually every deity X vs. diety Y where Y is an enemy of X is an extreme example, just a heads up so we are on the same page. Surely it might seem like everyone save the dieties who actually like Corath has a reason to hate him, not just a little, but a whole lot. He is CE crazy and pro raising undead armies and such...
But that doesn't mean that any other enemy relationship is lesser compared to that, as soon as some deity enters a enemy relationship with some other diety it is serious, dead serious.

[Rowana]

It doesn't really matter who the gods are, you can replace the example I made above with Az'atta vs Dorand, Katia vs Vorax, Vorax vs Aragen... The point is, if a cleric of one faith uses the blessings granted to them by their god up on the enemies of that god it is a kick in the teeth, period.  By using the blessings that they grant their supremely devout upon the followers of their enemies, one may question are they indeed as devout they claim to be or a pretender?

And personally I don't see the trouble of keeping up a relationship by speaking while sitting about on a grassy patch somewhere. It is an RP server after all.
~row

[miltonyorkcastle]

Function less cohesively in battle, but what about everything else? There is oh so much more to do. I don't know. I just don't see why her not casting spells on Nye is going to be such a friendship breaker, IC or out. For heaven's sake, Nye doesn't get the benefit of her best spells anyway. I've been with Nye and Rose on trips where she never had to cast a spell on him.

But that aside, I'm going to repeat myself, but here it is:

Clerics and Paladins are supposed to be the HARDEST classes to play.

Don't play one unless you're really willing to make the sacrifices. Sure, they're crazy powerful, but they come with heavy, heavy RP restrictions.

[Dorganath]

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.

I think you're still not quite seeing the picture.

With full respect to your 6 months of RP, deity relationships have been around here for over 5 years.  That's RL years, not game years.  Frankly for as frustrated as you might be, we're even more frustrated by both watching people just ignore important aspects of their characters (i.e. requirements of the class) and hearing far too many comments from players who don't understand why some people get away with ignoring these things that have gotten others in trouble in the past.  Are you seriously asking that we as a server just drop all the precedent, work, backstory, lore and effort that has amassed over the last 5 years, plus whatever Leanthar brought in before NWN was even a glimmer in Bioware's eye, simply because a few people don't really care enough to abide by it?

I am 100% certain there is some other way to work out your particular case can be RPed out that works for everyone...something between fully disbanding the group and a loss of powers by the Toranites. If you need suggestions, I'm sure there are those in the community who can provide some constructive input.

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.

[Shadowblade225]

I was considering suggesting that myself Lynn. I think it's a good idea.

During the character creation process for any cleric, paladin, or otherwise, there should be some official binding agreement (more so than the current bio requirements).  Something rather simple like the statement above that will lead the player submitting this character to the conclusion that diety relationships must be important and that they will be enforced.  Just because you submit a LG paladin of Toran does not mean you get to be friendly and merry with all. (But then again, I'm so mean that I think Paladins should be a PrC with players starting out as fighters first) :x

I know it's tough to strike that balance between a fun game and a realistic RP setting.  But these rules enhance the setting to make the game more fun. I'm sure you know that as well as anyone.  

Unfortunately, deity relationships just haven't been enforced and the result of which has led to characters seldom RPing these relationships other than maybe a quick comment here or a grumble there.  This has been going on for some time.  Many characters who were able to be a little lax with this have established would-be-forbidden relationships with other characters that unfortunately were allowed to continue and develop.  This makes it harder to all of the sudden turn on that deity enforcement switch.  For this I don't know what to tell you, but it has to be done. 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.  Sadly, most of these "deity offending" characters/players aren't even aware that they may be on thin ice.  The best advice to everyone that plays a cleric/paladin/etc... is to know your characters dogma and take that as priority number 1.  You wanted to play a paladin/cleric/champion here and you need to agree to the rules to play him/her.

You can still develop friendships both OOC and IC. Yes it will make who you party with more selective and yes that will mean that you won't be able to run around and adventure as much as you can.  But unfortunately that's the case and that's how it should be. There shouldn't be any dispute about that.  If this were not the case, then this server wouldn't be about RP. At least realistic RP.

[AeonBlues]

@ 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.

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.

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.

AeonBlues

[Dorganath]

@ 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.

Do you have any idea how much of that "boring tedious work" characters (including my own) went through stockpiling curing/healing potions and Raise Dead scrolls in preparation for things like the plot Finale about a year ago?  I'll give you a hint: It was a lot, and there was a lot of RP that came along with it.  Yeah it's tedious, but we never designed crafting for mass-production.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't gain sympathy in my mind, and I say that as a player of a character that is a 17th level Alchemist.

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.

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."

It's not hard to see why Toran and Kithairien are enemies.  Their respective dogmas are so far opposed it's not even funny.  Alignment's not even an issue here.  The only real saving point is that your character is not a member of clergy. I have no idea how devout he is, but non-clergy have a greater degree of freedom with these things than non-clergy.  Your character is a druid, yes? 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.

If GMs saw fit to comment upon your group, then perhaps they were not seeing the divinely-empowered members in proper observance of their deity's wishes.  I honestly don't think that's too much to expect of any player of a divine class, and they did agree to it upon approval.

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.

Yes, it does!  But having said that, the greatness of that relationship would reach its full bloom in the context of those fundamental conflicts between the core beliefs of each character.  If those are being dismissed for the convenience of free association, then someone's doing a disservice to themselves and those they interact with.

Once more: I'm not saying anyone in your group, or any other group, should hate each other or not associate with each other.  But there absolutely should be some tension...some friction...some consideration of the massive opposition between faiths and dogmas.  As I said a few posts back, I cannot say one way or the other if that statement does or does not apply to your group, as I have never directly observed it.  I'm speaking generally, and all your characters' backgrounds aside, if a GM saw fit to comment to you all, then perhaps something was lacking.

Don't look at this as a "Thou shalt not...." kind of decree.  Look at it as more of an opportunity to expand your RP.

Trust me, I've enjoyed adversarial and long-term IG relationships with people who I can remain friends with OOC.  It can be done.

[Dorganath]

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.

100% correct, Shadowblade.  

It is not specific to Rose and Nye or any one particular individual or group. It is something that has sadly gone unenforced for a time. No one should take this as a personal affront to themselves.  We're not out to get any particular player or group of players.  

This is solely about IC and IG consequences for IC and IG actions.  This is not an unreasonable thing, in my opinion.