The World of Layonara

The Layonara Community => Roleplaying => Topic started by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 01:35:04 PM

Title: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 01:35:04 PM
Alright, ill begin by saying lets keep this as clean and friendly as we can, so please avoid hostility otherwise it will lose it's purpose really quick.
 
As I've recently made an Aeridinite the "eternal struggle" that is the Dogma came up to my head, I've talked it over with plenty and, well, I want to bring the discussion to public because some sort of explanation has to be set in stone, no?
I'll address each and every point and well, let's discuss it! Or at least hope one of the big guys comes and clears it up.
_______________________________________________________________
 
Problem number one: death and raise dead
Alright, so we're clerics and we gain the ability to raise the dead (Dead PC's, not skeleton chieftens, mind you). The Dogma states "bear in mind that in the Great Cycle of life, death also has its place" right? Now what do we do with raise dead? Is the death within the great cycle a death of old age or any death?...
 
 
Example for an unnatural death:
Mr.Pickles and Bob are traveling the roads when suddenly a group of bandits ambush them, then Mr.Pickles jumps to defend Bob, the defenseless cleric of Aeridin and dies doing so, oh woe is Bob.
But 'lo! Bob happens to have the spell raise dead within his spellbook, what is Bob to do?
_______________________________________________________________
 
Problem number two: following groups
Alright this one is a serious bugger; as clerics of Aeridine are meant to protect and preserve life monster bashing is out of question - and I agree! BUT... what prevents a cleric of Aeridine to follow a group using heals and buffs to preserve THEIR life? (and their can refer to family, friends and anything important!)
 
 
The following comes in mind:
"Do not refuse to aid those who need it" - Doesn't the group need it?
"Preserve and protect life" - Isn't the life of the group worth protecting?
 
 
Okay, so you can counter-argue it by saying "Yes but they go out seeking to end life yadda yadda"... Correct, to a degree, heres a few points I thought of:
 
 
(1) What if these monsters the group seeks to put an end to are a threat? The Ogres in the Ore Hills threat Dalanthar, Hammerbound Giants threat Llast and so forth... by not killing them how many peasants perish under their savage rage? How many are put to an unnatural end because of these evil monsters? (pity we don't have detect alignment spell, no?)
 
(2) What if the group is infact just wandering around looking for CNR spawns or something of that nature when suddenly a group of ogres attack them? Self defense is forbidden - shouldn't a cleric of Aeridine at least try and preserve his own life if not the monster-bashing group? Hehe.
Now one can simply say "don't go to places where monsters spawn"... but, duh, monster-spawns are not exactly an in-character term, no? The dogma does state "Do not harm or kill others except in the most dire of circumstances"... what is considered a dire circumstance? Is life on the risk not dire enough to pick up a quarterstaff or at least heal those that pick up swords?
_______________________________________________________________
 
Point number three: the fun factor
How much do these restrictions actually limit the players fun? We are here first and foremost to have fun fun fun. Now theres the very simple "play a cleric of a different god" response. But you'd be surprised how small our selection of gods really is... proof enough is that we lack many aspects to worship (for example trying to make something along the lines of a pain bearer of Ilmater is not possible) - And don't get me wrong, I like our gods.
 
How much of the fun factor do we limit by saying "don't do this, don't do that, you can't do this, it's forbidden"? Not everyone can attend DM quests every week, not everyone can sit in Hempstead when it's most crowded and hope a DM is nearby so he might a bit xp... and yes, everyone wants to level up because it opens doors to the more interesting places in Layo.
_______________________________________________________________
 
 
 
And again, let's keep this civil and friendly!
:rolleyes:
 
 
~Witch.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Interia_Discordius on March 21, 2007, 01:43:23 PM
What I'd personally like to know is how far is too far when stretching the dogma of your deity.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Faldred on March 21, 2007, 01:55:04 PM
Quote from: Witch Hunter
The Dogma states "bear in mind that in the Great Cycle of life, death also has its place" right? Now what do we do with raise dead? Is the death within the great cycle a death of old age or any death?...

I think this is intended to largely refer to the undead, as evidenced by another part of the dogma:[INDENT]Seek out the undead and put them to rest, so they can rejoin the Great Cycle.
[/INDENT]Besides, if Aeridin granted them the Raise Dead spell, then she obviously doesn't consider that to be artificially prolonging life, does it?  ;)
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 01:57:28 PM
Yep but without mentioning names I've been told otherwise, which is why I wrote it!
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Kindo on March 21, 2007, 02:09:16 PM
Regarding the Raise Dead question. As I have been told in the past, all characters in Layonara have some sort of special purpose, which is what allows them to bind their souls to selected parts of the world and return to life if they die - unless the Soul Mother has managed to remove enough strands that keep the soul bound to the body. This basically means that the Cleric should know that the fallen comrade in question, is still not through with her/his purpose in life, and thus, raising them on the spot would not violate the idea behind "the Great Circle", seeing how their souls have yet to be denied contination of life.

Correct me if I'm wrong about this whole special purpose deal.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Weeblie on March 21, 2007, 02:12:13 PM
Hmmm... Aeridin is a... HE... *Coughs.*

Anyway... A little bit pressed of time for the moment, but I'll add a lengthy nice post about this topic later, heh. :)
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Gulnyr on March 21, 2007, 03:40:04 PM
Quote from: Witch Hunter
As I've recently made an Aeridinite the "eternal struggle" that is the Dogma came up to my head, I've talked it over with plenty and, well, I want to bring the discussion to public because some sort of explanation has to be set in stone, no?

No.  Or, at least, not necessarily.  

Every deity has a limited scope of what he or she governs, and there are rules within the dogma covering that range, but there is wiggle room within that confined space.  As you pointed out, there seems to be some contradiction or grey areas in Aeridin's dogma.  That doesn't necessarily need to be clarified and set in stone.  Every religion has conservatives and liberals, or orthodox and reformists, or whatever you want to call them.  There is space within the dogma for characters who look at the same doctrines from different perspectives, which makes the faiths dynamic and fun to roleplay rather than cookie-cutter plain and predictable.  

On a smaller scale, though, you are right.  Each individual Cleric should have a personal concept of the dogma more or less set in stone.  The extra paragraphs required at the end of a submission are meant to get the player to consider just exactly how the character perceives the dogma, and make sure that concept is inline with the spirit and nature of the faith.  That way, the player knows how to play the character's view of the dogma as soon as he steps into the world.

I might have some responses to your specific examples later to hopefully explain what I'm saying a little better.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on March 21, 2007, 04:22:28 PM
Let's not forget, also, the Oaths and Vows (http://nwn.layonara.com/oaths%20and%20vows) of Aeridinites (though they're specifically for Paladins, I would certainly think they'd apply to Clerics and other devout characters).

I've been playing a devout of Aeridin for a while, now, and I've come to the conclusion that he's terribly fundamentalistic. He won't (and hasn't!) ever kill(ed) a living being. He feels that it's Just Plain Wrong, and beside that, against the will of the Lifebringer.

I've heard the argument time and again that "if you don't go to a place looking to fight, but looking for, say, gems, then it's not bad if you have to kill to protect yourself! It's the intent that matters!" I have to say that that is purest rubbish. Sure, spawn points are OOC knowledge. But really... If you go into a place known as "The Red Light GOBLIN Caves," it's rather obvious you're going to find goblins. Goblins are warlike, typically speaking, and busting into their place... Well... That's going to end in violence. Solution? Don't go.

Ceviren is on track to become an Undead Slayer... After all, it's all he does. Kill deaders. He cleanses the crypts and makes potions... A working-class cleric, if you will.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Skywatcher on March 21, 2007, 05:26:31 PM
It seems to me that the point of the thread is to get concrete guidance from the team on how this is to be interpreted.  Even devout people can differ on their interpretation of dogma so one cleric of Aeridin may think that preserving the life of his friends is paramount and another may say that stepping on grass is killing and thus wrong.  Requiring that everyone have the same interpretation just removes the flexibility for RPing diffent slants on belief.  The real problem for clerics and paladin types comes when a particular interpretation is actually in opposition to what the diety thinks and would thus result in the removal of the diety's support.  So what I think is needed is for the team to lay down any specifics that must be adhered to and then for the players to go ahead and have their interpretations and RP it out.  Here are a few specific questions the team could answer that might help everyone understand Aeridin's intent.

1.  Does Aeridin disapprove of killing to get at CNR (I know this is OOC). To say it another way, does killing what attacks you while you are going somewhere for some non-killing purpose violate the dogma of Aeridin?

2.  Does healing your party and preserving their lives while they are killing for whatever reason violate the dogma of Aeridin?  Does it depend on what the party is doing?

3.  Does raising the dead violate the great cycle?

4.  Does protecting life by taking life violate the dogma of Aeridin?  (An example of this would be thinning the giants in the Hammerbound Mountains to protect the peasants of Fort Llast)

These answers would be very helpful.  If a black and white answer is given then there is no room for interpretation.  If the answer is that it depends on the curcumstances and frequency of such activity then there is room for interpretation and different characters can RP it differently as long as they are self consistent with  their interpretation.

*waits for a response from an avatar of Aeridin*
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Pseudonym on March 21, 2007, 05:37:54 PM
G'day Witch Hunter,

Not sure if you have been granted access to the Aeridin forum as yet ... but there are a few posts there that address some of your questions of interpretation of dogma (perhaps most notably by Weeblie).

I played a priest of Aeridin for some time and let me tell you, it is not easy. The questions that Skywatcher asks above are not easily resolved ... when is it right to take a life to save a life, etc, etc? It is very easy to come up with RP excuses over RP reasons.

Anyway, check out the forum if you haven't already done so and I hope you enjoy the ongoing RP challenge that comes from playing a servant of the Lifebringer.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Pseudonym on March 21, 2007, 05:49:46 PM
PS. Here were some of my IC thoughts on the matter.

http://www.layonara.com/development-journals-discussion/108339-letters-harred-valtara.html
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: LynnJuniper on March 21, 2007, 06:26:29 PM
I remember my attempt at a Paladin of Aeridin. one of the first questions I came to was the bindstone itself, as Aeridin's principles seem to contridict the unnatural prolonging of life. Why bind at all?

A good person to talk to in game would be Elladan. He is a cleric of Aeridin and could answer some in game questions. I know I've gone to him at least once with my paladin

Unless I am mistaken, Rhizome is an Aeridinite as well, and can be found in game on occasion.

the other cleric I know of Aeridin who may be able to help is Alleina.

As Pseudonym said, you can check the forums, ask in game, and in addition remember: The new handbook is coming out and may answer some questions....or cause more to arise. I won't say ;)
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 06:42:04 PM
Quote
I've heard the argument time and again that "if you don't go to a place looking to fight, but looking for, say, gems, then it's not bad if you have to kill to protect yourself! It's the intent that matters!" I have to say that that is purest rubbish. Sure, spawn points are OOC knowledge. But really... If you go into a place known as "The Red Light GOBLIN Caves," it's rather obvious you're going to find goblins. Goblins are warlike, typically speaking, and busting into their place... Well... That's going to end in violence. Solution? Don't go
Alright, let's consider this for a moment.
First of all when I enter an area I don't refer to it as how its called within the mod, the "Red Light GOBLIN Caves" is simply "A Cave That Glows Very Red", but alright, I've there once or twice and I know the goblins are down there and decided I won't go. Okay, where do I get Greenstone now?
The desert caves! No, wait, those are full of bandits too...
 
 
Well my point is there is a thin line between whats frustrating to a player to what would be roleplaying the Dogma.
 
 
Now let's look at the dogma....
"preserve and protect life" - being a passive cleric that doesn't defend himself is NOT protecting life, it's throwing your life away to protect the life of your attacker, which is BAD. But then you can just say "Don't go there"... Which infact means playing a cleric of Aeridine is limited to not going everywhere and not experiencing the world as a player should which means the player is limited in having fun just because he chooses a god that focuses on healing.


BUT!!!


That is not what I asked! I agree that the cleric himself SHOULDN'T do the slay, but healing a fighter or following a group into "hunting grounds" just for heals and buffs is considered bad also? How is he meant to get xp (sorry for the blunt term, but xp is something that people want)? DM quests? Those involve fighting too on occasion.


And extend it a bit... would Aeridine really deny a cleric its powers if it was healing an injured person even though that person is fighting HOSTILE beings that attacked him?
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on March 21, 2007, 06:47:58 PM
My Aeridinite is more or less a non-rabid fanatic. His views are rather... Unyielding. That said, I agree with him; if Aeridin doesn't want you to kill except when there is a direct threat on you, don't. Part of that is not provoking those threats whenever possible.

That strict a view on the dogma really cuts into the fun factor for most players, I understand.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 06:55:32 PM
Few quotes off the paladin dogma:
 
"Devote yourself to life. If there is any way to prevent death and preserve life, it is the way of Aeridin. "
 
Refer to Ogres being a threat to X location
 
"Help others live a full life, and harm not the harmless."
 
Refer to Ogres carrying big clubs and beating people with them
 
 
And no where in the dogma/paladin code did I find "Aeridin doesn't want you to kill expect when there is a direct threat on you" - it would be selfish.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on March 21, 2007, 07:01:32 PM
I repeat: Fanatic. One still searching for an appropriate mentor so he can enter the church of Aeridin officially, I should add.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 21, 2007, 07:04:27 PM
You have the dogma on lore, which from my knowledge Lore is mostly ooc and you got the dogma in game found on the statues of Aeridin and this is what is written.

Preserve and protect life, the gift to exist is not one to be taken lightly and thus one must live an exemplary life, devoted to benevolence and care. Tend to those who ail. Offer your gift of healing to make their stay in the mortal realm a wholesome experience, yet once death has taken its toll, respect the passing and enjoy the found memories of their life. Do not dwell or mourn those who past for too long, death is sadness, but without understanding sorrow, one can not understand happiness.

Promote health and the well being of the body and mind before everything else. Any extension, transformation, alteration and corruption to the natural form and shapes of being, is an affront against the sanctity and purity of life and should be confronted at first, with gentle lessons and benevolent teaching, and if such ways do not work, with a stern and firm stance instead. Violence is the last option; use it only on those who defy these teaching.

undeath is the most blatant aberration to the sanctity and purity of life. Put them to rest by any means necessary so that their souls may reach their homes. use the gift of the Caring light, to bring brightness to the darkest of places, never succumb to its temptation for they only bring a taint on the spirit

Now if we go by simple facts. The only thing the character would have access to is what he would find at the temple or at a library. As a matter of fact it happens that this piece of written was take from the shield that guards the entrance of the Aeridin temple in north point. And when you enter and look at the statue inside the temple you get again, "Aid those in need"

Now as Stephen pointed out, the vows of the paladin could be applied to the clerics and so here it is:

Devote yourself to life. If there is any way to prevent death and preserve life, it is the way of Aeridin.
Judge not others. By judging others, you yourself are judged.
Honor your words and live by them. Your oath is as true as these laws.
Help others live a full life, and harm not the harmless.
Help those in misfortune, for gold is valueless next to life.
Heal the sick and wounded who ask for assistance. Those whom you have deathlessly defeated remain your responsibility.
Abandon all greed, hatred, and evil feelings towards others. These close the mind to truth and engender a hatred for life.
Pay homage to life by living freely and allowing others the same.
Respect those who would teach you and ask nothing of those you teach.
Respect the laws of mortals, but remember always that your fealty is to the laws of Aeridin.
Pledge your life, soul, and word to Aeridin. Never should you worship another and never should your faith falter.
Not Pride, Humility. Not Greed, Generosity. Not Envy, Love. Not Wrath, Kindness. Not Lust, Temperance. Not Gluttony, Moderation. Not Sloth, Zeal Never Evil, always Good. Bring light to the darkness and you shall always be counted among Aeridin's blessed.
Wear the symbol of Aeridin with Honor, Love, and Devotion. Never rape, steal, or murder.
Take only what you need, and give only what you can.

Now when you check lore for that it is plainly written These are the laws of Aeridin.

Devote yourself to life. If there is any way to prevent death and preserve life, it is the way of Aeridin.

Help others live a full life, and harm not the harmless.

Now what makes a harmless? I think it is someone that how ever angered he is or hatred he has could never result in harming someone. Now would someone who charge at you weapons drawn, fist close, saying I'm gonna smash you harmless?

Many people say that Aeridin shun violence and that it is forbidden, but yet he asked of us to go forth and bring the light, to do every thing necessary to give rest to the souls of the undead and even to teach the lessons to those who defy the teaching of Aeridin. First with caring and benevolence, then with stern and firm stance.

Also a fact, if a God is purely about peace and life, he would not have enemies and yet, Aeridin has a few.

Pytcheron
Shadon:
Branderback:
Corath:
Baraeon Ca'duz:
Vierdri'ira
Grand

I know that a lot of people have a resistance toward the alignment, but if you look at the one of Aeridin, it is everything that is good from chaotic to Neutral

Neutral:
Never attack or kill an unarmed foe.
Never harm the innocent.
Always tries to help others.

Lawful:
Never attack harm or kill an innocent foe.
Never harm the innocent.
Always help the others.

Chaotic:
Never attack or kill an unarmed foe.
Never harm an innocent.
Never kill for pleasure.
Always tries to help others.

And the most illogical one for this faith

True neutral:
May or May not attack and kill an unarmed foe.
May or May not Use, hurt and kill an innocent without a second thought or for pleasure.
Will not kill for sheer pleasure.
Unlikely to help someone only to kill or rob him.

All of these are to be taken into consideration when you play your character. As some says, the alignment is a representation of a fraction of the persona of your character and his response to certain events. But when ever you take all of this into consideration one things remains, beside for True neutral, and it is the Always help others, Never harm a innocent.

Now for certain if someone comes to you and ask you please go kill this man he walked on my land, you should not go and kill him. What you would do instead is go talk to that man and try to make him understand that his presence on the land of the person who came to you, is undesirable.

But at the same time, if someone comes to you and ask for you guidance, clerical help and protection while they are doing business in an area that may be dangerous to them, the dogma is plainly clear in that, Aid those who ail, extend your healing gift so they can live longer ( that is the essence of what is written) and a wholesome life, Never refuse to help. Help other lives a full live but do not harm or kill the harmless. If so that we should always refuse to help because there would be the risk that can harm or kill someone, then every Aeridinite should refuse to get out of bed in the morning, fearing he might step on a small ant and kill it. Also, the do not go to areas that you know if you know there is foes there and there would be killing, instead go to places that you do not know. After a while, you get around, and there isn't many places you have not seen, does that mean that you should abandon your call as a cleric to heal and help the people?

Now if we take this example, A father or mother that comes to you and ask for you help, while he or she gathers the resources he/she needs to make his/her craft and put food on the table of his/her family and you refuse to go because there might be the possibility that you will end up fighting and killing a living creature. Do you obey the tenants? I think not and a result in that could very well be that this person dies and no one is left to support the needs of that family. They get thrown into the street and die of famine. It doesn't mean that you will go ahead and charge in, no it would mean that as a cleric or any other member of the faith, wither it be a paladin, monk, sorcerer etc, that you would stay back and defend yourself and the person you are accompanying and heal them.

There is a blatant difference between a cleric and a priest. The priest remains at the service of the temple and aid those who comes to them. The cleric will go out and meet those who needs their help.

As to the not raise the dead, as you also receive spells that deals with instant death, you receive the spell to raise the fallen.  Now I am sure that if the team wanted them to, the could very well take the spell out based on the alignment and deity, after all they were able to customise the summons based on deity and alignment. But I may be wrong. Instead view it like kindo stated, as long as they have soul strand, they have a strand of life still in them, and as a cleric it falls onto you to make sure that this person lives a full life, until it is said other wise by Aeridin and the soul mother.

If someone died from a natural cause, or sickness, it would fall into the has made its time. But falling dead from killing is after all, an abrupt end of life, that is not natural.

When I started Lex, I had some of the same questions and after RPing with Eghass it came down to, it is the intent behind the action that defines if it is within the dogma or not. In this I am referring to the fact that, Lex had went with a group of clerics and RPied making the mountains near shoufal (sorry don't remember the name) safe for travelers and the town itself. The intent was not to kill, but to preserve the town people from raids made against it by Giants. Some may argue that it is wrong some may argue that is it alright. But it all comes down to how you yourself will interpret the dogma, and how conscious you will make decision based on that interpretation of it.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 07:11:33 PM
Very well said and points out many of the things I failed to pharse.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 21, 2007, 07:24:49 PM
OK, in actuality, the dogma of Aeridin recently (a few months ago) underwent a bit of a shift due to events that happened in-game.  This is outlined on the Aeridin forums to which you may request access. I suggest that should be the starting point of any further discussions, if you have not already consulted that resource.

I do want to say that the information on the statues in-game is not necessarily the most current version of the dogma for any deity or that deity's relationship to the other deities.  In reality, since it's far easier to change, the dogma that appears on the forums and LORE are likely to be the most up-to-date and accurate.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 07:43:37 PM
Well I applied to the fourms earlier, still havent gained access.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on March 21, 2007, 07:55:32 PM
I've got forum access, and can't really tell what you're talking about on that one, Dorg. There was the deity relation shift, but that's all I can figure - not any real dogmatic changes.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 21, 2007, 08:03:40 PM
Same here i have read them board and never saw that changes for myself. Only a notice of a complaint made about the church it self and the last edit to teh lore page was in october.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 21, 2007, 08:16:38 PM
*sheepish grin*

Sorry...I'm thinking about something else... :\\

There's some updated info in the release of the upcoming handbooks, and that's what I was thinking about.  I had thought that it was in part released to the Aeridin forum, but I got it confused with the deity relationship change.

Terribly sorry for any confusion.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 21, 2007, 08:30:28 PM
Happens to the best, and since your one of them we shouldnt hold it against you:)
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Pankoki on March 21, 2007, 08:43:02 PM
The statue in North Point has the latest dogma, however this is greatly extended in the Aeridin writeup in the next handbook. So yes, that which Hellblazer posted is accurate of the changes made to Aeridin.


Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 08:48:20 PM
If that's the case then it's simple!
"Violence is the last option; use it only on those who defy these teaching."
 
Any baddie that is hostile and kills people is defying those teachings, no?
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Tanman on March 21, 2007, 09:21:52 PM
I have always RP my thought that we one should leave that as a last resort. Which means I do not purposely go to hunt bandits, whereas I would do so for undead.

While my character would help even if he has an issues  with the people that were gathering and such, he also focuses on worldly matters any chance he can get.

For me Aeridinites always have a feeeling that they would help anybody even those that they don't like. They may act begrudgingly but they would help. They don't say "I'll not help him/her because I don't like them.

EDIT 4:34pm NZ  Time: there are circumstances and situations because of race and such that will make things complicated. For example, my character who is an Aerdinite woodelf would have a hard time helping with Drow no matter what the case because of the deep seated hatred between the two. Common sense is required here.

When I say that they don't like someone, I mean on a personal level...so say my character doesn't like someone because he was annoying...that doesn't mean that he wouldn't help in their endeavours depending on what it was.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 21, 2007, 10:15:51 PM
Exactly. We think alike.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 11:28:53 PM
I was also wondering about the following: Golems, Demons and Elementals... how does the faith treat those?
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Tanman on March 21, 2007, 11:43:46 PM
IMHO, Aeridin's view on constructs are pretty much the same as undead. This is the reason why...a Golem is a construct...which means that it is an animated being brought to life by magic. This to me sounds like animated dead.

Elementals are fine....in fact one of the summons for an Aeridinite cleric is a Water Elemental and a Fire Elemental.

Demons across the board (not just for Aeridinites) but I think are hated just by their very nature.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 21, 2007, 11:51:59 PM
But it's not like a construct was once part of the cycle, no? unless we're talking about a flesh golem/brain golem/bone golem or anything that uses the remains of the dead.
 
So how do they treat golems? :P
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 12:00:47 AM
Constructs are not alive. They are animated.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Tanman on March 22, 2007, 12:01:33 AM
This is the thing...any life that is artificially constructed would be *frowned* upon. For me, depending on what the construct does, an Aeridinite may start whinging, but if it started attacking, then the normal drill  of battle goes.
 *grins*

*EDIT* rephrased to what Dorg said. Any *construct*....

Thanks Dorg :D
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 12:12:22 AM
Alrighty, still waiting for a final word on the three main problems (And yes I've now read the Aeridin fourms... didn't shed too much light on the situation :( )
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Acacea on March 22, 2007, 12:31:27 AM
Disagree with stance on constructs, really...mechanical creations are pretty different from anything concerned with the Lifegiver... if you can make a box that can wave a metal arm, why should Aeridin care? It has nothing to do with undead without stretching it way too much, especially for a deity that is already rather restrictive. :)

Edit- Except as stated, when using the remains of the dead and such.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: stragen on March 22, 2007, 02:02:36 AM
One aspect of Aeridin, and an important one at that is the greater cycle of the natural world.  I'm not talking about trees, and animals here.  I talking about the seasons and the elements, earth, water, air and sun.

Aeridin appears to be the primary god concerned with the cycle of these elements.  This can cleary be seen by the domains avaliable to clerics of The Lifegiver.

Speaking to the sun archer in game would give a different view of Aeridin.

Quote

Domains
# Air
# Earth
# Healing
# Sun
# Water
# Good
Clerics of Aeridin often combine the healing domains with one of the other domains.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 22, 2007, 03:44:05 AM
Quote from: Acacea
Disagree with stance on constructs, really...mechanical creations are pretty different from anything concerned with the Lifegiver... if you can make a box that can wave a metal arm, why should Aeridin care? It has nothing to do with undead without stretching it way too much, especially for a deity that is already rather restrictive. :)

Edit- Except as stated, when using the remains of the dead and such.


that what they mean. It is not alive then it is not frown upon for an aeridinite to terminate its "artificial" life.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 22, 2007, 03:46:06 AM
Quote from: stragen
One aspect of Aeridin, and an important one at that is the greater cycle of the natural world.  I'm not talking about trees, and animals here.  I talking about the seasons and the elements, earth, water, air and sun.

Aeridin appears to be the primary god concerned with the cycle of these elements.  This can cleary be seen by the domains avaliable to clerics of The Lifegiver.

Speaking to the sun archer in game would give a different view of Aeridin.


i think the reason for that is, take away any of these lements and you have no life. Thus no circle of life.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Acacea on March 22, 2007, 04:32:46 AM
*Grumbles something about Grannoch being the elemental goddess*

Edit - And Hellblazer, not objecting to a construct being destroyed is much different than stating Aeridinites see constructs in the same manner as they do undead, frowning upon their creation and presence if not outright going after them etc, which is what was stated, and what I was disagreeing with.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Weeblie on March 22, 2007, 04:50:14 AM
Please note that the following answers are from my and my thoughts alone. It's the answers I have come to conclusion after asking them to myself during the time playing my own cleric of Aeridin. It's most probably not the "stereotype/official" view.

Problem number one: death and raise dead

This was so much simpler before, when everyone was called by Ozlo. The calling set forth a purpose in a character's life, which also could be used to define "untimely death" and the permission to use the Raise Dead/Resurrect spell.

Now, with that gone, it's much, much more difficult to tell. If a group of people are traveling through the forest and some bandits ambushed them, killing one before withdrawing. What gives you the right to decide "this should not have happened". Maybe "it should have happened"? If it was a PC that died, the first is most probably true. If it was a NPC that died, the second is most probably true instead. But, as one's character have no way of telling whether someone is a PC or a NPC, it's most probably better to stay inactive in this case.

Raising someone that shouldn't be raised is one of the biggest crimes, if not -the- biggest crime, according to the dogma of Aeridin. A cleric of the Lifegiver would most probably not dare to perform the raise, if there would be any doubt of doing wrong.

Heh, to put it simply, if one did wrong and Aeridin was specifically watching one, do expect a lightning-bolt from the sky or withdrawal of all gifts!

My general policy (which... isn't 100% followed nowadays, as Alleina is slowly drifting away from her faith):

1. Raise only people I know that are Dragoncalled.
2. Raise only people with soulstones present.
3. Do not raise people following an enemy deity unless there are some extraordinary reason which hasn't happened yet.

Problem number two: following groups

No where in the dogma says that one has to stick to the local temple for the rest of one's life because one is a cleric of Aeridin. One is allowed to travel. One is allowed to defend oneself if being attacked, though it should be used as a last resort, preferable talk the way out or flee first.

It does touch the border of "excuse" instead of "reason". Walking into the big mine with huge signs saying "Warning! Danger! Ogres attacking on sight!" would most probably be... kind of... double-moral ("I cannot start the fight... but... what if... I taunt them into fighting me...?"), though, even that can be fixed with a completely valid IC-reason also:

"*She looks impatiently at the others present.* We can't just let the ogres terrorize the poor townspeople here! We have to do something! I know... We go in... and we tell them this is wrong and ask them to leave! What do you think about that?"

Same goes for CNR spawns:

"*She takes a firm grip of her amulet and glances at the cave opening before turning back to face the others.* How many coins do we have? I have heard that the bandits here are very greedy ones. Maybe if we can negotiate with them? Coins for the coal they have no use of..."

Simply use one's imagination! The dogma leaves a lot of wriggle-room and isn't half as strict as one can believe. It's surely a lot more effort to play a cleric of Aeridin in these situations than the Barbarian Half-Orc of Vorax ("BATTLE! FOR HONOORRR!! RAAAAWWRRR!"), but that's what one has signed up for, if one wishes to play the first, right?

Point number three: the fun factor

As a cleric of Aeridin, one -is- going to level slower. The "XP dry" periods are much, much longer and more common than what could be with any other class/deity combination. One -is- going to get less XP from combat, simply because one -is- going to attend fewer of them.

If one is a very level/XP oriented person, then I would suggest one not to play a cleric of Aeridin, as it will most probably going to give out a "boring" feel. One's mouth is most probably going to be one's primary weapon and not one's sword/claw/teeth/spellbook/whatever!

Is it less fun than the other class/deity combinations?

Absolutely not! The theological crashes stemming from this is something I would never want to miss. I've spent hours (in game)... not just one hour or two, but to the level of 50+ hours arguing back and forth on this topic. It surely gives one's character an aura of arrogance around him/her. Yes! Even for Alleina if she's in her really, really preachy mood! Though... that's how it should be. Aeridin is an elven god, after all. ;)

---

I don't want to reveal too much, but please note that there are some changes to the dogma of Aeridin that might out-date the responses about the elements...
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Weeblie on March 22, 2007, 05:00:17 AM
Quote from: Hellblazer
There is a blatant difference between a cleric and a priest. The priest remains at the service of the temple and aid those who comes to them. The cleric will go out and meet those who needs their help.


This is actually not completely accurate. A cleric may or may not travel the world and he may or may not spend all his life in a local temple.

Cleric is simply a person in a religious order, a member of the clergy.

A priest is also a member of the clergy.

From what I've understood, "priest" seems to be a subset of "cleric", if we are talking in group-theory terms. :D
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 22, 2007, 05:37:15 AM
Quote from: Weeblie

Raising someone that shouldn't be raised is one of the biggest crimes, if not -the- biggest crime, according to the dogma of Aeridin. A cleric of the Lifegiver would most probably not dare to perform the raise, if there would be any doubt of doing wrong.


The game settings that we have makes it very clear that until you perm, you still are allowed to live. It is not as if someone is actualy going into a graveyard and starts to raise the dead that have been dead for years. It is a matter that the cleric is present or came by int he vacinity of a death that just happened. The body is still there and it is still warm (in a sence)

Now except in a quest, I have never seen an npc be raised and the only time i have seen this for myself, was on a queset runned by mr. bones.

The theory that somone should only raise the people he knows to be dragon called, is streching it in my views, as all from that period of time until now, are given the same number of strands and the same benefits from losing one. This is not an ooc matter as perming is as much part of the game cycle as it is part of the character development. And again, for a cleric of Aeridin not raising someone, due on fear of going against the dogma, I think this is negating the fact that the souls of all that are alive ( and controled by a player ) are binded to the land and bind points. That is what set's the diference between the heroes and the "commoner" game wise.

Now I agree to a certain degree that one should not raise an enemy for other faiths, but not doing so would go straight against the dogma it self that says, extend the gift of your healing so the person can enjoy a wholesome experience ...  In fact, since the person just died and his soul was not claimed, I woul categorise this as the biggest healing process one could undertake.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 22, 2007, 05:55:16 AM
Quote from: Acacea
*Grumbles something about Grannoch being the elemental goddess*

Edit - And Hellblazer, not objecting to a construct being destroyed is much different than stating Aeridinites see constructs in the same manner as they do undead, frowning upon their creation and presence if not outright going after them etc, which is what was stated, and what I was disagreeing with.


Aye but, if i am not mistaken, the process for creating those constructs means that life has been infused in them by an non natural or Divine means In essence it is artificialy creating life as much as necromancy can artificially refuse a decaying body with a soul and taking them under their ontrol. IMHO
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Weeblie on March 22, 2007, 06:09:47 AM
To put it very simple: How do you know a person has not permed?

Normally, a person perms the -first- time he dies. A NPC dying is not respawning to a bindstone. If he dies, he's dead. If you raise him, you are breaking against the "laws of Aeridin".

It could in theory be done by probing for the soul of the dead, though, I have a feeling that the rolls involved are not trivial ones.

Otherwise, you have to present a IC-way to distinguish between PCs and NPCs or you would be pushing into the realm of metagaming (or pushing into the realm of doing against the god's wishes!).

My dragoncalled policy is a way to justify that, though, granted, it's far, far from perfect. Oh... one more thing... NPCs could in theory be dragoncalled also, which would, if the deity was right, and the presence of a soulstone was there, also grant a ressurect from Allei. :P
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Kindo on March 22, 2007, 08:23:10 AM
Quote from: Weeblie
This was so much simpler before, when everyone was called by Ozlo. The calling set forth a purpose in a character's life, which also could be used to define "untimely death" and the permission to use the Raise Dead/Resurrect spell. Now, with that gone, it's much, much more difficult to tell.
What I would like to know, then, is what the in character-reason for the Soul Strands and the ability to bind one's soul to the various bindpoints around the world. How is that explained nowadays, for the characters who were created after the call of Ozlo?
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 08:28:59 AM
Okay, I'd like to begin by saying that while you said they are your personal thoughts you used the general clerics of Aeridine as an example, which as a DM means quite a lot - by saying a lightning bolt would hit someone if they raise the dead you scare the heck out of us.
 
 
Now i'll respond to the lot of it.
 
 
Problem number one: death and raise dead
 
 
Alright so heres -my- thoughts (as before I only stated the problem)
We have a line in the Dogma that states "Tend to those who ail. Offer your gift of healing to make their stay in the mortal realm a wholesome experience"... a WHOLESOME experince is NOT dying in battle REGARDLESS of reason/cause, saying that raising someone who did not die of natural causes (old age mainly, and a huge debate on disease but that would be rarely faced) is a crime is like saying healing is a crime as far as I see it.
 
 
Now you said Aeridin would smite us with a lightning bolt (which mind you, seeing as you're a DM it's quite a scary possibility)... Is Aeridin an evil god? Does he often smite those that pledge their life in order to heal and preserve others?.. No, and this I can answer without doubt.
Now taking away all his powers, that would also be silly... considering a cleric that can raise the dead is a cleric of considerable power there would be more involved (in my opinion) than a tell saying "you suddenly feel you cannot channel Aeridins divine essence anymore" or so, it would require a lot - If at all, because in my opinion Aeridin would not frown upon it.
 
 
Now, as for the points you mentioned (raise people you only know are Dragon Called etc etc) From what I've read I'm led to believe Alleina is selfish, a bit, why? I'll answer each one.
(1) Why not extend your hand a bit if you already raise the Dragon Called? Is it that tough to believe everyone has a purpose beyond dying to a sword/club/insert nasty method of death here. Not to mention the soulstrand factor.
 
(2) Here is where being a cleric of Aeridin truly becomes what it means, rather than not raise them one SHOULD raise them, this is what differs Aeridin from other gods, the importance of preservation and a full life. Since we are speaking about personal conclusions I can say full heartily that I'd raise regardless of soul stones, especially considering my characters background and personality.
 
 
(3) Why not raise them? Does Aeridin deny their right to live? Truly doesn't sound like an act of the goodiest two-shoe god out there, especially considering the Dogma states: "Do not refuse to aid those who need it"... who are we to deny them the right just because Aeridin isn't their favorite person? How do we promote such likeness to Aeridin if we do not show his gifts to anyone?

 
Problem number two: following groups

 
I agree with that, infact I support it. BUT as I stated before, not everyone has the time nor means to wait for a DM to join in and take the bandit-bribe or be the Ogre Chieften willing to talk with us...
So we're lead to the AI of the monsters, right?... let's try to put a roleplay aspect to it instead of saying "That's their AI and you shouldn't be using it as an excuse" (not that you said that)... how about they are just very hostile and uncaring and rather kill us than talk? Alright, that's it... time to heal the fighters that kill the bandits in order to protect our own lives! (....ha!) That's about as bad as it gets.

 
"Simply use one's imagination! The dogma leaves a lot of wriggle-room and isn't half as strict as one can believe"
I would, but... without telling names or pointing fingers I've heard some DM's were REALLY strict over this and forbidden people to do specific stuff. I already have an idea of the Dogma from how I've read it... but what assures me that a huge boulder won't fall on my head if I play it out? now one would just say "Just roleplay it if something happens!" but uh... my character was following the dogma, why does that have to happen in the first place?
The main reason why I brought this to public debate is so people can form some sort of idea regarding the "wriggle-room" the Dogma so we can form our own wriggle-room from the wriggle-room of the wriggle-room, or something along those lines.
 
 
Point Number Three: the fun factor
 
Alright so they gain slower XP compared to who? A cleric of vorax that's sole purpose is war?
How is that fair to the player himself? Now you said something about being a level/xp oriented person but that's very easy for you to say at level 17 with access to all the glorious aspects of being a cleric (level 1-9 spells being one!)... lots of people want to be good, mainly because everyone is advancing rather than them being "level/xp oriented"... Not to mention that tossing a heal spell rather than cure serious wounds is much more impressive and fun.
 
 
 
 
Again it's all personal opinions waiting to be cleared by an admin :D
 
EDIT: adding the following...
 
Quote
To put it very simple: How do you know a person has not permed?

Normally, a person perms the -first- time he dies. A NPC dying is not respawning to a bindstone. If he dies, he's dead. If you raise him, you are breaking against the "laws of Aeridin".

Okay so here's the deal:
You're a cleric, you have healing domain... you are level 10 (the level required for raise dead spell I believe)... you are strong enough to sense the essence of life (AKA by their less lame name: Soul Strands) within a certain person.
 
That's how I see it :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Kindo on March 22, 2007, 09:04:54 AM
Quote from: Witch Hunter
Alright so they gain slower XP compared to who? A cleric of vorax that's sole purpose is war?
How is that fair to the player himself? Now you said something about being a level/xp oriented person but that's very easy for you to say at level 17 with access to all the glorious aspects of being a cleric.
This brings up an interesting point. As much as a Warrior (or Cleric of Vorax) gain experience from battle, if we Aeridinites aren't supposed to "fight", shouldn't we gain our experience from what we do best, then, which is Healing and caring for life? Of course I realize this is more or less impossible to accomplish, but seeing how the game is the way it is, we really have no choice other than to go out on fighting excursions in between the events we can attend to, or the limited amount of quests there are. If my Cleric of Aeridin wants to become better at what she does, she must help out in fights. It's that simple.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 09:16:01 AM
Well put out *claps*
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: aragwen on March 22, 2007, 09:41:12 AM
I wont get into to the dogma of Aeridin as I believe there are others much more equipped to do that.
 
I will however make the following comment.
 
The class, race, alignment any player choose to make his character will in many instances affect the level at which that character will progress. The fact of the matter is that it is a choice you make, which comes with consequences. So certain classes, races and alignments do come with constraints and it is not fair to compare all combinations and argue they should be the same is they will never be.
 
Let me take an example, a dark elf NE cleric of Corath, will have way less people to travel with and that will affect his progression. A brownie CG bard due to his size and knowledge of the lands will progress way slower. I could go on and on. More relevant, a battle cleric of Vorax will in all likelihood progress much quicker than an elven healer of Aeridin.
 
So basically it comes down to, if you not willing to live with the consequences of a choice, then dont make the choice. Nobody is trying to take fun away or say you must stay at a lower level for longer, but rather choose and play with the consequences of your choice.
 
Quote

Now you said something about being a level/xp oriented person but that's very easy for you to say at level 17 with access to all the glorious aspects of being a cleric (level 1-9 spells being one!)

Now to be fair to Alleina, that character was created 2006-01-06 and almost 15 months later she is only level 17, where many others in the same time period would be way further ahead. So I am sure she had her fair share of waiting for those "nice" spells to come around.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 09:42:36 AM
An array of responses...

Quote from: stragen
One aspect of Aeridin, and an important one at that is the greater cycle of the natural world.  I'm not talking about trees, and animals here.  I talking about the seasons and the elements, earth, water, air and sun.

Aeridin appears to be the primary god concerned with the cycle of these elements.  This can cleary be seen by the domains avaliable to clerics of The Lifegiver.

Quote from: Acacea
*Grumbles something about Grannoch being the elemental goddess*

Look for this to be clarified when the new campaign/setting info is released (pantheon, handbook).  That's all I'll say for now.

Quote from: Acacea
Edit - And Hellblazer, not objecting to a construct being destroyed is much different than stating Aeridinites see constructs in the same manner as they do undead, frowning upon their creation and presence if not outright going after them etc, which is what was stated, and what I was disagreeing with.

Quote from: Hellblazer
Aye but, if i am not mistaken, the process for creating those constructs means that life has been infused in them by an non natural or Divine means In essence it is artificialy creating life as much as necromancy can artificially refuse a decaying body with a soul and taking them under their ontrol. IMHO

The process for creating constructs is vastly different than that for creating undead.

Read about golems...they're automatons built for a particular purposes....a magical/mechanical hybrid with no real "life" and generally no real "intelligence".  The modern equivalent would be "robot" or "android" or something. They are not infused with anything remotely resembling life. Nor are they necromantic in anyway.  They are unnatural yes, but they have absolutely nothing to do with life or unlife.

The possible exception to this might be a flesh golem, though still not living at all, the raw materials used come from once-living beings, which I can see Aeridin not liking at all.  Though again, there's no life involved.  It's simply animation of inert material.

The undead were once alive in the accepted sense, and have become...not dead, but  not alive.  They are "unliving" to put it another way, and pretty much an affront a dogma centered around life.  Undead are not given some kind of odd form of life, but rather they are stuck somewhere between life and death.  Either way, it's not something that would make Aeridin or any of his followers all that happy.

Quote from: Kindo
What I would like to know, then, is what the in character-reason for the Soul Strands and the ability to bind one's soul to the various bindpoints around the world. How is that explained nowadays, for the characters who were created after the call of Ozlo?

I believe this too is being clarified in the up-coming handbook.  I'm not entirely sure what form that clarification will take, but there is something that has to do with why the common folk do not use the bindstones.  As to the bindstones themselves, the current handbook has a brief description of them, what they are, how they came to be, etc.  It's not terribly detailed, but it is something.

On the question of NPCs and whether or not one should be raised by an Aeridinite...

In my personal opinion, this is one question that does not have a single answer. Here's some scenarios...

1) Relatively important and/or innocent NPC is killed before the party by some hostile action, or perhaps a terrible accident that may or may not have been caused by the party.  Should this death have happened?  Should an Aeridinite cleric just look at the body and shake his head in disappointment, but do nothing even though the body may still be warm?

2) The long-dead (say 100 years) and quite inanimate remains of some prominent historical figure are discovered.  This figure may be the key to unlocking some mystery, or may have had some key information, etc.

Now, remember that there's an important difference between Raise Dead and Resurrection.

In scenario 1, much like a modern paramedic or doctor might be able to revive a patient who has died in some way, why wouldn't an Aeridinite restore life to someone, through Raise Dead for example, who perhaps shouldn't have died in the first place?  To draw the line at NPCs just seems quite the wrong perspective, in my opinion.

In scenario 2, Raise Dead would have zero effect, as the limit for that spell is 1 day/caster level. Resurrection however is something like 10 years per caster level.  Clearly such a resurrection would require GM intervention.  Now, it is unlikely that an Aeridinte cleric would perform or sanction such an occurrence because the deceased is long, long dead, having passed on from life and into the next part of the cycle. So in such a case, an Aeridinite probably should not perform the resurrection, and he/she would likely (and probably should) protest if such a thing were discussed or done.

One last point (for now), I think it's a little silly to debate the difference between a cleric and a priest/priestess. They're essentially the same thing.  A cleric is a general term that covers all the clergy.  A priest or priestess often implies one who may spend most of their time at the temple, involved with performing rituals and services, etc., but more often than not, it's used as a title and a sign of respect (i.e. "Thank you, Priestess").
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 09:56:34 AM
Quote from: aragwen
Now to be fair to Alleina, that character was created 2006-01-06 and almost 15 months later she is only level 17, where many others in the same time period would be way further ahead. So I am sure she had her fair share of waiting for those "nice" spells to come around.

I did not mean that in a disrespectful way, I'm just saying it's very easy to tell others to take it slow when you can do all the nifty clerical stuff.
Sure it took him time, much more than the average time - but should everyone follow his example just because he did it?
An evil cleric of Corath could still get along with hunting very easily - mindless slaughter is not something hard to encounter (and there are plenty deityless true neutral people that could help with such an act)
 
It basiclly comes down to Aeridins dogma being the only one that forbids (in some way, although not clear) going on hunts... but there is no actual reward to being a pacifisthealer other than the occasional DM quest. infact, many DM quests are denied from a cleric of Aeridin also, simply because they involve fighting or choices that go againts the Dogma... and I hardly see a level 5 cleric arguing with a level 15 fighter and winning an effective argument!
 
This places me in a very bad position, because it makes me look like I'm xp hungry. But I'd like to point out that the experince I want for my character is nooooooothing more than what normal characters recieve, it's not like I'm hopping from level 1 to 15 in a week.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 10:01:46 AM
Quote from: Kindo
If my Cleric of Aeridin wants to become better at what she does, she must help out in fights. It's that simple.

Yes, that is one way.  Quests are another.  The issue though is whether or not your Cleric of Aeridin should be actively seeking conflict and engaging directly in combat in an offensive capacity.

Remember (and this is not directed at anyone, but everyone), this is a server that encourages RP, and the diversity of our pantheon and the dogmas associated with the various deities give players lots of choices.  However, with all things in life, choices often come with requirements and sacrifices.  One of those sacrifices, as Aragwen stated, may be a slower progression.  But progression isn't the only point of playing here.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Weeblie on March 22, 2007, 10:40:57 AM
Quote from: Dorganath
In scenario 1, much like a modern paramedic or doctor might be able to revive a patient who has died in some way, why wouldn't an Aeridinite restore life to someone, through Raise Dead for example, who perhaps shouldn't have died in the first place?  To draw the line at NPCs just seems quite the wrong perspective, in my opinion.


The main problem is to define "shouldn't have died". A few examples here:

1) A person getting a sword through his heart.
2) A person tripping and falling down a cliff.
3) A person getting a heart attack.
4) A person catching plague.
5) A person having problem breathing in his sleep, and dies of suffocation.

Some are touching the borders between "normal" and "untimely death". For 99% of the deaths, even in real life, there are some "reason" behind it. People don't die of old age, but of the illness that goes hand-in-hand with old age.

I tend to believe a stereotype Aeridinite is like the doctor doing all in his power to "fix" a person, until the moment of death itself (when he murmurs a prayer, saying "We did what we could." and moves onto the next sick person!). This is most probably a very orthodox view of this matter.

Quote from: Witch Hunter
I did not mean that in a disrespectful way, I'm just saying it's very easy to tell others to take it slow when you can do all the nifty clerical stuff.
Sure it took him time, much more than the average time - but should everyone follow his example just because he did it?
An evil cleric of Corath could still get along with hunting very easily - mindless slaughter is not something hard to encounter (and there are plenty deityless true neutral people that could help with such an act)
 
It basiclly comes down to Aeridins dogma being the only one that forbids (in some way, although not clear) going on hunts... but there is no actual reward to being a pacifisthealer other than the occasional DM quest. infact, many DM quests are denied from a cleric of Aeridin also, simply because they involve fighting or choices that go againts the Dogma... and I hardly see a level 5 cleric arguing with a level 15 fighter and winning an effective argument!
 
This places me in a very bad position, because it makes me look like I'm xp hungry. But I'd like to point out that the experince I want for my character is nooooooothing more than what normal characters recieve, it's not like I'm hopping from level 1 to 15 in a week.


No where did I say that everyone should follow the slow level progression of my character. It's just a notification that slow level progression is a very high possibility in case one decides to create a cleric of Aeridin.

I don't really want to make this thread into a discussion about a single character, though I do have to point out that Alleina is in fact not having access to all clerics spells. Some limits are selfimposed (say... I'm not using Darkfire, Bull's Strength and so on) while the level 9 spells are game-mechanic enforced (too low base wisdom).

Heh, I do not expect anyone to follow what I do. I would actually classify anyone doing that as... well... insane... *Coughs.*

Quote from: Kindo
What I would like to know, then, is what the in character-reason for the Soul Strands and the ability to bind one's soul to the various bindpoints around the world. How is that explained nowadays, for the characters who were created after the call of Ozlo?


This is a major part of the puzzle we try to solve. With this question answered, I believe the "Who can we raise?" question will soon be uncovered also!
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Weeblie on March 22, 2007, 10:59:28 AM
Quote from: Witch Hunter
(1) Why not extend your hand a bit if you already raise the Dragon Called? Is it that tough to believe everyone has a purpose beyond dying to a sword/club/insert nasty method of death here. Not to mention the soulstrand factor.


As I said, the policy is nowadays outdated. Originally, the reasoning was that the Dragoncalled get benefits. Their epic purpose was to get rid of Blood, and to do that, they were granted the touch from the Bindstones. I felt it was okay to raise those people, because it was obviously approved from a higher instance (i.e. the god themselves obviously permitted this).

Quote from: Witch Hunter
(2) Here is where being a cleric of Aeridin truly becomes what it means, rather than not raise them one SHOULD raise them, this is what differs Aeridin from other gods, the importance of preservation and a full life. Since we are speaking about personal conclusions I can say full heartily that I'd raise regardless of soul stones, especially considering my characters background and personality.


The reason for why not is quite clear, I believe. Alleina is reluctant to raise anyone, and if she do that at all, she feels that the person in question do have to value the life itself. To activate a soulstone, you have to "sacrifice" a tiny part of your own soul (symbolised by the XP decrease).
 
Quote from: Witch Hunter
(3) Why not raise them? Does Aeridin deny their right to live? Truly doesn't sound like an act of the goodiest two-shoe god out there, especially considering the Dogma states: "Do not refuse to aid those who need it"... who are we to deny them the right just because Aeridin isn't their favorite person? How do we promote such likeness to Aeridin if we do not show his gifts to anyone?


The difference of our thinking on this steems from the fact that we have two completely different views in core about the whole dogma.

Alleina will heal anyone, fellow Aeridinites... Corathities... Voraxians... If you ask her, and she feel the motive for it is not completely out of order. Say... "Please heal me. I was injured when I tried to kill the Queen. I want to try again!"... Heh, I know, this is exagerrating... But it could in theory be a situation one would face. Ah... before anyone start to comment on this... what would she do? Well, she would most probably spending a couple of hours talking with the person first, before doing any healing/rejecting of healing.

Raising people is on the other hand, touching the grey line and seems to be something "optional" for a cleric. And because of my belief that raises should be avoided as much as possible, it's probably self explaining of why she refuses to raise people of enemy deity.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Kindo on March 22, 2007, 11:12:56 AM
Quote from: Dorganath
Yes, that is one way.  Quests are another.  The issue though is whether or not your Cleric of Aeridin should be actively seeking conflict and engaging directly in combat in an offensive capacity.
The problem with quests is that more often than not, they include killing, or at least some kind of objective that is questionable for a Cleric of Aeridin to perform. Not counting the rather unprofitable delivery quests, we only have quests that include killing something else. Even if it is killing Kobolds or Rats for the 'safety' of the city, it's still not so obvious an Aeridinite would perform such a task. The only quests we definitely can take, are the ones involving crypts or undead. In any case, my point is that Aeridinites are very limited to what they can do in order to progress in skill, if they are to follow the Dogma like fanatics. Role-play elements and sacrifices made when choosing character to play aside, this does give a rather unfair advantage to other classes, seeing how we cannot gain any skill by helping the sick or healing the wounded, while a Warrior or the like can easily do what he or she does best, and excel significantly in their skills. This is why I do not think we should be so anal and strict about certain things that dictate the Dogma of an Aeridin Cleric.


Quote from: Weeblie
This is a major part of the puzzle we try to solve. With this question answered, I believe the "Who can we raise?" question will soon be uncovered also!
Yes, I am definitely looking forward to the revised version of the handbook. I intend to read every word, gradually. It should clear many matters up.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: Kindo
The problem with quests is that more often than not, they include killing, or at least some kind of objective that is questionable for a Cleric of Aeridin to perform. Not counting the rather unprofitable delivery quests, we only have quests that include killing something else. Even if it is killing Kobolds or Rats for the 'safety' of the city, it's still not so obvious an Aeridinite would perform such a task. The only quests we definitely can take, are the ones involving crypts or undead. In any case, my point is that Aeridinites are very limited to what they can do in order to progress in skill, if they are to follow the Dogma like fanatics. Role-play elements and sacrifices made when choosing character to play aside, this does give a rather unfair advantage to other classes, seeing how we cannot gain any skill by helping the sick or healing the wounded, while a Warrior or the like can easily do what he or she does best, and excel significantly in their skills. This is why I do not think we should be so anal and strict about certain things that dictate the Dogma of an Aeridin Cleric.

I meant GM-run quests, not "bring me the head of that bad buy" quests from NPCs.

I don't think anyone's saying that a cleric of any deity has to be a fanatic, but he/she should keep that deity's teachings and dogma in mind at all times when playing, and it should guide their actions.

The thing is that game mechanics (i.e. the gaining of XP) should not be used as an excuse for an Aeridinite to go out and bash.  Rather, an Aeridinite might accompany a group that is going out to bash and he/she could provide healing, protection, etc, assuming the purpose is not simply one of "Let's go bash".  The options available to play one's dogma are even greater on GM-led quests, some of which involve little to no killing at all.

If we were to say, "OK, you clerics and believers don't really have to play your dogmas," then there would be no point in having the deities we have.

Imagine how silly it would be to see, "Hi! *waves happily* I'm Grandar, Dread High Priest of Corath!  Would you like a flower?  You look tired...can I get you something to eat perhaps?  Maybe a nice place to sit and rest or a soft bed to sleep in?  Your comfort is my greatest goal."  

Yes, that's an extreme, unrealistic and silly example, but it does illustrate the point that yes, we should dictate how clerics (and paladins...and champions as appropriate) should act.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 12:00:51 PM
Point by point.
 
Quote

1) A person getting a sword through his heart.
2) A person tripping and falling down a cliff.
3) A person getting a heart attack.
4) A person catching plague.
5) A person having problem breathing in his sleep, and dies of suffocation
 

1) Shouldn't die
2) Shouldn't die
3) Shouldn't die
4) Depends, I've no proper answer for this.
5) Impossible unless you're below 4 years old or so :P
 
That's how my characeter sees it.
 
Quote
Some are touching the borders between "normal" and "untimely death". For 99% of the deaths, even in real life, there are some "reason" behind it. People don't die of old age, but of the illness that goes hand-in-hand with old age.
 
I tend to believe a stereotype Aeridinite is like the doctor doing all in his power to "fix" a person, until the moment of death itself (when he murmurs a prayer, saying "We did what we could." and moves onto the next sick person!). This is most probably a very orthodox view of this matter.

There you are wrong.
Only recently did I suffer my first family-death and I was happy enough to discover it happened due to old age alone, no disease no nothing - my grandmother died at the age of 85 in her bed, sleeping.
 
She was ill like any old person is, having weak bones and all that... but you don't die from that.
 
Also (funny that I relate to both parts) my father is a doctor and I've heard him tell me countless times how a person was declared dead yet they managed to revive him, it's not unheard of, typicaly they would try about 2-3 more minutes after death to revive before making it final.
Since we use spells and magics that is beyond the means of doctors.. that 2-3 minutes becomes 2-3 hours or even more.
 
But this doesn't come without a cost... raising a dead person should weaken the caster like no other spell does, hardly roleplayed but it's one of the most interesting facts about the raise dead series... they harm the body of the caster.
 
 
Quote
Heh, I do not expect anyone to follow what I do. I would actually classify anyone doing that as... well... insane... *Coughs.*

I say the same :rolleyes:
 
Quote
The reason for why not is quite clear, I believe. Alleina is reluctant to raise anyone, and if she do that at all, she feels that the person in question do have to value the life itself. To activate a soulstone, you have to "sacrifice" a tiny part of your own soul (symbolised by the XP decrease).

As I stated earlier ANY raise regardless of stone or not should harm the caster. I reckon in PNP the caster loses a few years for doing so (Might be wrong, that's how we played it)... so sure theres self-sacrafice here and a whole lot of mumbo jumbo I don't want to get into.. but here we venture the personal dogma rather than the general one, how one sees Aeridin rather than how the lot sees it and how one sees fit to use his power and health to heal another - I can say full heartily im looking forward for my first raise dead :D
 
 
Quote
The difference of our thinking on this steems from the fact that we have two completely different views in core about the whole dogma.

Agreed full heartily.
 
But my question is... will my character be punished for such an act?
I've heard from others that they got pretty whooped for doing something that went againts the dogma as the DM saw it and then have another DM that sees the Dogma differently react different.
 
Quote
Raising people is on the other hand, touching the grey line and seems to be something "optional" for a cleric. And because of my belief that raises should be avoided as much as possible, it's probably self explaining of why she refuses to raise people of enemy deity.

Alright then it's personal grounds that each character experinces, I think if faced with the dilemma mine would raise and would be ready to face whatever punishment Aeridin sees fit.
 
 
Quote
The thing is that game mechanics (i.e. the gaining of XP) should not be used as an excuse for an Aeridinite to go out and bash. Rather, an Aeridinite might accompany a group that is going out to bash and he/she could provide healing, protection, etc, assuming the purpose is not simply one of "Let's go bash". The options available to play one's dogma are even greater on GM-led quests, some of which involve little to no killing at all.

 
AHH FINALLY!! this is what I said earlier - can a cleric join a group if his purpose is to heal the wounded and ward them? (not buff, ward.)
Because if so, you cleared the fog for me at least.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 12:47:16 PM
Quote from: Witch Hunter
AHH FINALLY!! this is what I said earlier - can a cleric join a group if his purpose is to heal the wounded and ward them? (not buff, ward.) Because if so, you cleared the fog for me at least.
 A cleric of Aeridin can join a group.  Whether he should join that group should however be determined based on the group's purpose.  I'm not going to go down the slippery slope of trying to define for you under what circumstances a cleric of Aeridin would/should join a group. However, I can give an example of a situation where a cleric of Aeridin probably should not join a group:  Character A: Hey, what do you say we go give the giants in the desert some trouble? Character B: Aye, I could use some training...and some Trues Character A: *nods* Character B: We should bring a healer though...know any? Character A: Yeah,  is one. Character A: *turns to * Hey there, would you like to come train with us against the giants in the desert? We could use a good healer.  So looking at this situation, the entire purpose of the group is to go out, kill stuff and take their loot.  Do you think that's a good group for an Aeridinite?  As for "should" though, I'll leave that up the the judgment of the players.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 01:00:10 PM
Of course not, I wouldnt join that kind of group.
But this is a green light as I've heard that even a CNR group is forbidden.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 01:09:50 PM
From whom have you heard that?

Edit: Actually, it doesn't matter who said that.

The "CNR trips" is a very large and sweeping generalization, and one that can, and has, been misinterpreted.

My answer here will be vague, because I'm not going to be the one to pin down specific rules and conditions. It is not up to me to dictate how your character should RP in a given situation.  That's not RP, that's following a script.

So, the only way I will answer this question is to say that if the "CNR trip" is conducted like a bash-fest with "Oh look....Platinum" peppered in the middle there somewhere, that's probably not a good place for an Aeridinite.  If the party goes out of its way to seek out the metagamed locations of known spawns for the extra XP and loot, that's probably not a good place for an Aeridinite to be.

So the answer to this all is that each player must ask himself if his actions and decisions are in-character and justifiable within the dogma of the character's deity, or to the implications of alignment or any other number of characteristics that define the character.

Play your character.
Play your alignment.
Play your character's dogma (as applicable).

and above all

Use common sense.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: ycleption on March 22, 2007, 01:24:37 PM
If I may try to synthesize points that I think everyone agrees on:

1. Playing a Aeridinite can be difficult. (I know I would have a hard time with it)
2. There are situations where Aerdinites are allowed to kill; it's not a Jainist style pacifism, in general.
3. The dogma has some ambiguities, and it is perhaps more the personal theology of the character, rather than the dogma itself that defines how they act in all these types of situations.
4. If an Aeridinite does engage in combat, it should be justified by legitimate RP reasons, although the type and variety of valid reasons may be different depending on the character.
5. Use common sense. :-)
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 01:49:09 PM
Quote from: Dorganath
From whom have you heard that?

I refrain from naming people to keep this thread on the best side possible, regardless it's good to know that it's not frobidden.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 01:57:25 PM
I've edited my previous post (http://www.layonara.com/468189-post60.html).  Please read it
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 22, 2007, 01:59:18 PM
Dorg your link opens on the home page of Layo.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 02:01:56 PM
Not anymore :)  Refresh your page

Or scroll up a few
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 02:05:13 PM
I've read it and agree.
 
 
 
That's all I have to say, really.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 22, 2007, 02:25:31 PM
Quote from: Dorganath
I meant GM-run quests, not "bring me the head of that bad buy" quests from NPCs.


Just a reference. But for this week the quest are as followed

*gulp* It's getting deeper ... anyone seen the halfling? 5:30 am EDT

The Evil Kobold Trapper what Traps at Midnight Part II 10:30 pm EDT Combat hight, but purpose of protecting the people

A Girl's Dream - Chapter 1 - Moonlight Crystal 7:30 am EDT (12:30 gmt)

What is and What Should Never Be 7:30 pm EDT (Closed party)

The Plot Thickens 6:00 pm EDT good description of the story line, but not much to tell if a cleric of Aeridin should join

Holding a Dragon's tail 4:30 am EDT Level 20+ (lower come at own risk) combat some

White lands, Cold deaths 9:00 Am EDT

* A promise, an opportunity ... * 2 pm EDT

The Legacy 11 am EDT.

My point is that, even if we wanted to do the quest, those that are EDT, CST and PST are hard press to find one. In this list, if you are not in the closed party, and beleive me i was lucky to get in that one, that leaves only two and then you have to go with the how much killing can you expect. I know that it hard to find gms to run the quest for the edt-cst-pst but this is what we as a player have to deal with. Now I am lucky to be self employed and being able to manage my time my won way when I have contracts, but self employed people are usaly the exception. The majority of the quest that are present at the moment are GMT. And for most edt-cst-pst, impossible to attend. So that limits even more the spectrum of things an Aeridinite can do.

On an other note, I'm a bit miffed ( just a tiny little bit, not much truly, but still) that we classify the followship of the dogma only to the cleric. You have a god you follow that god, no matter what class you are. Yes the Cleric and Paladin are more attune to him or her, but truly, the dogma should and would apply to them all. And to my sence if it came down to it, Aeridin would have the power to take the weave out of a wizard or sorceror to, or any skills out of a fighter, Although I agree I didnt see much fighter class for Aeridin.

In my personal expeience, when I created Lex I knew it was going to be harder, but after some talks it came to be ludacrist, untill a week ago and. Maybe I was looking to much into it, maybe I wasn't.

Oh and Dorg, that view single post is a nifty little trick :)
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Talan Va'lash on March 22, 2007, 02:30:51 PM
The spell raise dead or ressurection cannot be used to bring someone back to life that has died of old age. Thats the natural cause that Aeridin would care about. The only way to avoid it is some manner of undeath, which is why Aeridin is concerned with it. Raising someone that was killed by goblins is unrelated to the issues Aeridin is concerned with, namely, undeath.

Talk to Talan if you want a take on Aeridin's dogma that opposes many of those put forth thus far *grins* or read about the lightbringers.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 02:39:54 PM
Dial 127-315-talan for further information.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Dorganath on March 22, 2007, 02:52:46 PM
On the quest issue...

No, there won't be much of an indication as to whether a cleric or other follower of Aeridin should attend a given event, even for events that say they will be dangerous.  I'm sorry if you think it makes it more difficult, but I don't think it would make much sense to list every deity and indicate whether or not that deity's followers would find an appropriate avenue for RP.  That is not for the GM to decide in most cases.

My best and only advice is: Sign up and show up.  And if it's not appropriate, walk off.

On another point...

Yes, we're saying "cleric" a lot here in this discussion, but they are the most visible and applicable example of what following the dogma should entail.  But of course it means just as much, if not more, to Paladins...and really, anyone who places Aeridin in that deity field should show more than a passing dedication to the dogma of the deity....though clearly a cleric of any deity should show more adherence to the dogma (subject to personal interpretation) than the bard or druid (for example...not the only examples) who follows the same deity.  Paladins have an even higher level of expectations, and Champions have even more (as applicable).

If I or anyone else seems to be getting hung up on the word "cleric", it's because it's quite tedious to list out all possibilities.

The dogma of Aeridin clearly does not just apply to clerics, it just applies to them more than the average follower.

I'd suggest that everyone whose questions have not yet been answered take a moment to sit back and think about all that's been discussed in this thread and to look at the big picture, and not get hung up on narrow examples.

I think I may have said all I can say on this.  As with any dogma, there are going to be many "right" ways to conduct oneself within its boundaries, as there will surely be many wrong ways as well. I'm surely not going to spell out precise boundaries for the RP of Aeridinites or any other deity.  Part of RP is to decide how your character will operate within that dogma to the best of your ability.

I will end by saying this though...OOC and game mechanical reasons simply are not valid for a follower of a particular deity to skate around the boundaries that the deity's dogma sets down.  Again, that is not directed at anyone in particular, nor does it just apply to Aeridinites, but rather, it is common throughout all.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Hellblazer on March 22, 2007, 04:21:59 PM
Thats not what i meant Dorg. When they indicate there is heavy RP or heavy combat to be expected, that gives us an indication if it would be appropriate fo us to go. I'm not saying to list all the dieties and which the GM think is fitting for his quest in the description. Just that some gives us better clues of what will be expected than others.
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Tanman on March 22, 2007, 05:41:14 PM
I have done this with my Aeridinite character. Looked at a quest and said yay or nay, and just walked. The same goes for player led events too.

I am lucky that if it doesn't suit my Aeridinite, I just handpick another set of characters. (but thats beside the point.

Quote from: Dorganath
On the quest issue...


My best and only advice is: Sign up and show up.  And if it's not appropriate, walk off.

Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 22, 2007, 05:54:09 PM
Heres another question:
 
What's Aeridins view on hunting animals for food/leather?
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: EdTheKet on March 22, 2007, 06:00:43 PM
Quote
*waits for a response from an avatar of Aeridin*

*A mysterious figure in white appears* (And yes, for those of you to whom this "A mysterious figure in white" sounds familiar, you may despair now ;) ) Dorganath was not entirely mistaken when he mentioned events in game.

Hellblazer's quote of the dogma on the temple in Northpoint is correct, that will be the new dogma of Aeridin when the new handbook(s) is/are released.
I can already tell you that the second paragraph of it, is the core.


On knowing the dogma, if your character is a cleric, he will have been taught about it officially by other followers, she he should know what it is.

Quote
if a God is purely about peace and life, he would not have enemies

Why wouldn't he have enemies? Everyone who wants to wage war, fight, destroy life or otherwise harm (or change!) living things would/could be his enemy.


And as a side note, Aeridin is a he, not a she.


And what Gulnyr stated is totally correct:
Quote
Every deity has a limited scope of what he or she governs, and there are rules within the dogma covering that range, but there is wiggle room within that confined space. As you pointed out, there seems to be some contradiction or grey areas in Aeridin's dogma. That doesn't necessarily need to be clarified and set in stone. Every religion has conservatives and liberals, or orthodox and reformists, or whatever you want to call them. There is space within the dogma for characters who look at the same doctrines from different perspectives, which makes the faiths dynamic and fun to roleplay rather than cookie-cutter plain and predictable.

On a smaller scale, though, you are right. Each individual Cleric should have a personal concept of the dogma more or less set in stone. The extra paragraphs required at the end of a submission are meant to get the player to consider just exactly how the character perceives the dogma, and make sure that concept is inline with the spirit and nature of the faith. That way, the player knows how to play the character's view of the dogma as soon as he steps into the world.


This is a bit of a random reply, now that I look at it, but have to run, sorry :)
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 23, 2007, 10:02:56 AM
No comment about killing animals for meat/pelts?
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Andrios on March 23, 2007, 03:24:16 PM
When I played my Aeridinite, I focused on the Great Cycle.  Death is part of the Great Cycle, especially a "natural" or purposeful death.  The food chain is part of the cycle of life and death.  It may be seem a bit cheesy, but I tend to think of the song from Lion King.  Anyway, predators thrive and survive by hunting and eating other animals.  Predators are part of the cycle, therefore killing animals for meat and pelts is fine.  Killing many animals for the pelts to start a fur store?  Not so much so.  In the end, intentions count for a lot.  

Play your character.
Play your alignment.
Play your character's dogma (as applicable).

and above all

Use common sense.
Hope that helped
Title: Re: Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?
Post by: Witch Hunter on March 23, 2007, 03:44:03 PM
Good stuff there, that song from the lion king is a bit related :P
 
 
Thanks.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2026, SimplePortal