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

[Dorganath]

It's up to the cleric, really. There's not really any difference in situation between a quest and regular RP time.

The GM might make some allowance or accommodation based on the situation, but all the conflict and consideration the cleric would normally have in that situation would still apply.

Now, if that person had to sit out the rest of the quest as a result, well I suppose that's a possibility, but that would also mean people were RPing their characters properly.

Then again, who says that dead person would have to miss the rest of the quest?  Who's to say some adversary of the group, perhaps one they don't know about, won't happen by and raise that poor adventurer and turn him/her against the group?...

"You call them your friends, but you fell and they abandoned you.  I saw it, I did...."

And so forth.

There's always options!

[DMOE]

Can't speak for the team obviously, but I wouldn't break my character's deity relations to raise simply due to a quest without a very, very good IC incentive.

What happens on a quest if there is no cleric and a character falls?  Actions have consequences and while it's not fun to lie dead on a quest....I've done it due to lack of a cleric.

Why should it be different because a cleric is there?  Having a cleric is not an automatic raise and nor should the party expect it to be.  My cleric won't raise if the person has no soul stone, working on the principle that the person obviously doesn't wish to be raised.....That's just one example but there could be many non deity relation reasons a cleric may decide not to raise on a quest.

There have been cases in the past of clerics losing more XP than they actually gained for questing because the party expected them to raise enemies simply to keep the quest moving forward.

Doesn't matter if your the same religion, allied, non-religious or enemy...You should never expect a raise off a cleric just because they are on a quest with you.

Of course...any cleric refusing to raise for non-deity related reasons has to deal with the consequences of their actions from the party

Although...equally so....remember if you don't like the party cleric and RP that, which is fine....that has consequences too!

[Honora]

As far as roleplay goes, keep in mind that some of the best literature and scripting is built off of the interaction of opposites.  As Eor said, I hope this discussion not end up in a spate of "you are a Toranite, I therefore hate you" and "you are a Voraxian, die in my sight" mentalities.

Dogma has it's place, but I feel that exceptions do as well when the history and roleplay back it up.

[DMOE]

Seconded!

Ironically, even though Muir wanted to mess with Dezza's Rofi paladin she actually has an element of respect for his more recent Rofi fighter which has come about from some very interesting RP.

They often have interesting and in depth conversations regarding their deity's without insulting etc each other and while I'm not sure I remember this 100% correctly I'm pretty sure Muir has healed her with bandages before.  Maybe one day Muir might use her blessings as granted by Mist on Sasha.....maybe she won't...RP will dictate and consequences will be faced if necessary.

[Kirbiana]

I would also like to second Honora's hope that this reminder to RP deity relationships does not result in a spate of "OMG I hate you!" interactions. If role play is our sine qua non, then there is one question every player should be asking themselves above all others: "Is it in character for my PC to do this?" My goody-two-shoes cleric might ignore someone whose god was unfriendly or (more likely) squeak and go running away in panic when she saw them, but she would never walk up and say something mean to them. And that's not because her player dislikes saying mean things (although she does) but because it would be an out of character action, one that just wouldn't seem right if my cleric were a fictional character in a real fantasy story.
 
 I've wondered often why so many (especially new) players, seem to default to making unprovoked snarky comments to unfriendly PC's and I think I might know the answer. The problem, I think, is that non-traditional ways of being unfriendly often involve a LACK of dialog, which can then be interpreted by others as a LACK of role play rather than as non-traditional role play. And it might not occur to players new to a heavy role play server to make use of their emotes instead. For example:
 
 A Toranite paladin walks into a Fort Vehl bar, wearing his divine symbol openly on his armor. A neutral good follower of Beryl, relaxing with an ale after a hard day of polishing topaz, is sitting at a table. Instead of saying, "Well, look what kind of garbage just walked in." our Berylite *sighs and pointedly shields his eyes from the harsh glare of the armor*
 
 That second reaction, to me, opens up a much wider field for creativity in response from the paladin, ranging all the way from wry acceptance of his 'state cop' reputation and humorous banter with one of 'the usual suspects' to the standard unfriendly shouting match and on to any kinds of surprising reactions (self-pity, bitterness at the world's ingratitude of his sacrifices, etc, etc). I try to remember that in Layonara, creativity in role play is what we're all about, and that means opening a space for others to be creative as well as being creative yourself.
 
 That's just my goody-two-cents worth of opinion, of course!
 
 

[Xirion]

I read this thread from the beginning and have to say I understand the need of diety relations to be RPd the only question I have is wouldnt a Toranite cleric even expected to raise the Kith druid?

I dont know much about the dogmas, oath and vows of other Gods, but isnt it so that noone in need should ever be turned away? From my point of view is the fallen druid  really in need...
I thought aswell that a Toranite would even somehow -have- to help (e.g.) a follower of Mist if he is asked to. Ofcourse just if the deeds and aims are nothing what would be "bad" or aggainst Toran or his beliefes or the law.

This is how I understood Toran atleast, feel  free to correct me if that is wrong.

>Xirion>

[DMOE]

Firstly...No cleric is held by an oath like a paladin so can refuse any aid they wish as long as they follow the tenets of their god/goddess.

In  Toran's case his main tenets as listed on Lore are...

Protect the realms and rout injustice wherever you find it. Raise up the weak and empower them, so that they might see the strength of Toran. Seek out the servants of evil, most notably those who follow Corath and Pyrtechon, and bring them to justice.Be a shining example of goodness and righteousness by bringing order and safety to the lands. Your word is your bond.


I've not found anywhere it says that those in need can't be turned away...at least relating to Toran...If I've simply missed it, please, please point it out to me

As for the having to help a follower of Mist if they asked...Is this what you are referring to from the Paladin code?

Aid those that you can, and neither ask nor expect reward. Your valor and honor will bring glory to Toran's name.

If it is...I think the 'Aid those you can' is the important bit....Your god knows who his enemies are and is not going to put one of his paladins in a position of having to aid them to keep their code.  Saying to aid those you can is not the same as saying you can not refuse another aid....Not by a long shot.

[Hellblazer]

Hum I might be flamed a bit here but what the heck. RPing the dogma is as much important as rping the alignment. IF LG character is asked by someone to help even his enemy (obviously can't go against one moral which is not always tied into someone religion) Then in my sence he is bound by it.

Lawful Good Characters:

• Always keeps his word.
• Never lies.
• Never attack, harm or kill an innocent foe.
• Never harm an innocent.
• Never torture for any reason. Will not allow torture.
• Always helps others. <--
• Always work within the law.
• Respects honor, self-discipline, authority and law.
• Works well within a group.
• Never take 'dirty money' or items.
• Never betray a friend. Ever. For ANY reason.

These are the basic instincts of a character. Somthing that even if his faith would prohibit him to do, he would have a hard time to follow that tenant if he does it at all. There for, If a misty were to ask a toranite for help and it didn't went against the other basic instincts he has,

• Never lies.
• Never attack, harm or kill an innocent foe.
• Never harm an innocent.

He would be bound to do it.

Now what does this has to do with RP dogmas and deity relation. It's how a character would basically relate himself to his religion. It might cause iner conflict, of his personal beliefs vs his dogma, It might even bring him to stray a little from time to time of his dogma. IF the dogma is one of LG and you have a character that is NG or CG, he might not always go with his dogma. On the other hand, if both are LG and his dogma would clearly state to refuse to help someone.. that would clearly go against the most basic instinct of the character who is LG.

you could almost apply the Asimov rules here.

btw DMoe I love that signature link

[Xirion]

DMOE
"Firstly...No cleric is held by an oath like a paladin so can refuse any aid they wish as long as they follow the tenets of their god/goddess"
Ofcourse not. But a cleric is addicted to the god aswell and follows his dogma and shares its views.


DMOE
"I've not found anywhere it says that those in need can't be turned away"

from Lore: Toran
The temples of Toran are known the lands over as houses of safety and refuge. None in need shall ever be turned away.

Okay it is about the temples, not the clerics or the paladins. But I think it shows it anyway.

Ofcourse a Toranite would not have to help follower of Corath to burn down some houses

No serioulsy, if he is asked by a follower of Mist or Kith to help him to return the bards necklace (regiran from hlint I think) wich is a "good deed". Can he refuse, or should he refuse?

[Varka]

You have deity enemies. True
But as I see it (grey zone) it depends on the event, the intensions and the task.

Example:
*Plen, Rhiz, Kobal, Kat, Aca, Angela, Daeron, Storold and 20 others sit around the table.*
Hey tonight we gonna kill Bloodstone! *one shouts*
Cheers, hurray *everyone shouts*
Aye, lads and lass. Ter da dragon da foight *Kobal says and then the shouts stops*
To Roferien? You gotta be kidding me *Angela says* what about the Sea Queen?
*The cheers, laugther and joys have suddenly turned into a debate about the Gods. In the end everyone leaves and 2 years later Bloodstone rules the world. Hurray Hurray*

Now what can we learn of this? Everything is not black and white because then you could write a book about when every rules counts and not.

Everything is general guidelines. I am sure everyone could make an example where you had to break a certain rule.
Every player and DM will have his or her ideas about this but still it is good to talk about. I simply hope that players being confronted with DM will solve this in a good way together. That does actually count both ways.

[lonnarin]

Of course, nobody's saying here that one is prohibitted from casting upon or raising an enemy faither.  I think if I were a cleric of a vile deity, I might raise a paladin just to confuse the heck out of his beliefs about my religion, and to drive in the point that he "owes me one".  When he thanked me, I would say "don't thank me, thank Corath!" to him, and goad him into shamefulness.  If he was like "thank Corath?  sorry, I cannot travel with a follower of him..."  I would heckle him for it... "oh, I see. The goodly paladin cannot heal somebody of his own faith where we Corathites can... shows who the REAL good and selfless religion is!  Come see the just and kind Toranite turn his back on the wicked cultist who saved his very life!"  It's not THAT you raise or cast upon an enemy faithfu that is of issuel, but HOW you do it.  A sizeable donation to the church of Corath might make a priest of said religion look past the toranitness of a client... especially if if could potentially cost the paladin when Toran noticed him tithing to Corath.  I think Corath on the other hand would get a big kick out of this, so long as you don't start making a habit of raising the paladin or did it for pure charity's sake.  When you remove the knife from an enemy's back, twist it a little first.  It's your right as a healer.

I can also see persons of unfriendly religions pairing together and even becomming good friends despite what their gods think.  On the subject of common enemies and common goals, I remember my friends Father Logan and Quantum Windword getting along very well despite Lucinda and Toran being at odds, namely due to both of them having an obsession with undead hunting.  You would never see them in church together, but they had a firm respect for what each of them were about on a personal level.  Surely Quantum would chide Logan on the whole "I wish your goddess would quit granting all this wicked necromancy" and arguing faith dynamics, but they would raise eachother in a pinch if given the opportunity.  The same went for Praylor and Earl, Toranite and Prunillite respectively.  Sure their gods disliked eachother, but they shared such a common hatred of undead and duty to keep their forces in line, that the who "my god doesn't like your god" factor paled in comparison.  It also helped that in this case, Earl wasn't a very devout follower and had some leeway in the matter, he was mostly a Prunillite because he was a farmer and raised that way.  Sometimes allegience to a god has more to do with cultural or familial factors than that of direct faith for non-divine characters.  As Honora said, "Dogma has it's place, but I feel that exceptions do as well when the history and roleplay back it up."

So if a GM "catches" you and suggests that you probably shouldn't be grouping together, calmly explain to them why your characters are friends despite the faith.  Point out that there are many such alliances, especially at the top of the adventurer food-chain were such holy people as Kobal and Plenarius, two very devout and goodly people opposed to unnatural evil, manage to have an amiable and courteous relationship with some sickly, morally reprehensable guy like Ozy.  When we were holding monthly meetings on what to do about Bloodstone, I never saw the legion of goodly heroes stoning Rufus Coldfinger when he sat down at the heroes table, nor the high priestess of Islare Reventage refuse to join the fight against Bloodstone because there were Voraxians in the party.  Just because Storold is nice and courteous to people in town who aren't in his religion, doesn't make him any less devout of a practitioner.  Indeed, some clerics like Aeridenites would go out of their way to turn the other cheek to a wounded pyrtechite, in hopes that they might soften his heart and ease his suffering.  

Just because characters theoretically *shouldn't* get along doesn't mean that they can and do so on a consistant basis.  The world history was built upon exceptions like those of the World Leaders, follow their example. A black-wizard Corathite, dwarven Rofirienite, elven Priestess of Love, Two Katians and a Wheezing heretical demon-elf?  Best Friends Forever!

When you Adventure for a living, oddball combinations like these are bound to come up now and again.  The thing is to have fun with and to roleplay the differences of faith.  These are rough guidelines, not hard shackles and a cage.

[DMOE]

DMOE
"I've not found anywhere it says that those in need can't be turned away"

from Lore: Toran
The temples of Toran are known the lands over as houses of safety and refuge. None in need shall ever be turned away.

Okay it is about the temples, not the clerics or the paladins. But I think it shows it anyway.

Ofcourse a Toranite would not have to help follower of Corath to burn down some houses

No serioulsy, if he is asked by a follower of Mist or Kith to help him to return the bards necklace (regiran from hlint I think) wich is a "good deed". Can he refuse, or should he refuse?

It shows that the Temple won't turn someone away....That is very different from raising an enemy of your god after a fight.

He can refuse if he knows they are followers of Mist or Corath and feels it would be aiding an enemy.

Should he depends on the paladin....I'd certainly not be expecting him to use his divine powers on random followers of enemy gods he ran into on the road if he knows they worship an enemy god/goddess.

[Xirion]

@Lonn: yes, followrs of Corath have the luxury. They can think "let this weak Toranite Paladin bleed in the dirt why should I care?" or the way you pointed out *envy*

@DMOE: Yes ofcourse it is about the temple but isnt a cleric also a part of it?
And I didnt want to take it word by word, just think the sentence shows as some others how Toran and the religion works. I just dont think it fits to Toran to let some one behind lying in his own blood... For sure he would also say "thank toran" and even try to take this chance to convince him that Toran a god of goodness and help is a far better choice

I also understand that there are rules but that they cant suit to every situation. Just want to know if I am completely wrong

EDIT: I caught myself in a theological discussion about a fictional religion in an MMORPG fantasyworld...I am starting to get worrie about myself! oO

[Gulnyr]

Always helps others.

I think it is a mistake to assume that the list provided is an absolute measure of the Lawful Good alignment, and that each point must be included and maintained at all times.  But, for the sake of the argument, let's say that all Lawful Good characters do indeed "always help others."  Notice the S at the end for future reference.

Because of the nature and requirements of alignment and faith, neither can be taken separately as both are important parts of highly devout characters.  Just as alignment affects actions and perceptions, so too does faith.  

Remember that S?  Always helps otherS.  Imagine that Terrence Toranite and Mollie Misty are traveling together.  Terrence is LG and a Cleric.  Mollie embraces the chaotic nature of her faith and isn't beyond causing a little havoc wherever she goes.  Mollie falls in battle.  Terrence, since we are saying that all LG characters always help others, must make a decision that will help others.  Not just an other, but otherS.  So, since Mollie causes trouble for all sorts of people, it would be wrong of him to go against Toran's wishes for order and safety by resurrecting this enemy of order, and he will help many others by not resurrecting her.  Not raising a fallen follower of an enemy god would satisfy both the alignment and the faith in this example.

Maybe "always helps others" is a key feature of being Lawful Good, but sometimes the best way to help is not always the most direct and obvious option.

Just to cover a side-track:  Let's say Mollie Misty isn't really all that devout and doesn't cause havoc everywhere she goes.  That changes the scenario IC, but Mollie still has Mist in her deity field, which means she's devout enough to count.  If Patricia Player didn't want to have to worry about all the deity relation stuff and didn't mean for Mollie to be so devout, she shouldn't have put anything in the deity field.  Characters who aren't all that religious should probably have blank deity fields.

[Weeblie]

I would say that Bloodstone was a quite different exception than from most other things, and not 100% suitable as an example.

The reason is simply that Blood himself threatened ALL the deities. To group together was not just a benefit "for your enemy" but rather a benefit for your own deity also! All the deities would of course have prefered to handle the matter by themselves (well... even in the case of friendly deities... it's best to handle it oneself, right?)... but that was obviously not a working option!

I found most of the posts rather confusing, as no where does it state that a cleric/paladin/champion cannot act outside the wish of his/her deity. There are no magical bonds holding him to his oath and the dogma, nor is there any geas spell cast on them.

One doesn't have to put the deity first... in fact, if contradicting things are comming up, especially if your character is of another alignment than his/her god or goddess, one has to prioritize either!

An exagerrated example could be that an innocent child is on an altar in front of you. And you, in the position of a Toranite paladin has to save the world (typical Toranite thing to do!). The only (and I really mean the only) way is to slay the child. What does he do?

Reading that funny table, one see the line "Never harm an innocent." and draws the conclusion... woah... the world was just annihilated!

What is the most reasonable thing to believe that the paladin did? Yes, I think you are drawing the same conclusion as me, he would have killed the child. Very reluctantely to say at least, but still the outcome.

So... what does this mean?

It means that one has to decide what's most important to one's character.

The same thing goes for choices to "act good" or "act in the wishes of one's deity". What's more important for your character? Answer the first and accept the guilty feeling not to trust one's deity completely, and perhaps the deity will react to that. The later path, on the other hand, is a clear proof on: "My god is right, right and absolutely right. I shall not have any doubts about him. He is always with me, and with just my beliefs, I can walk through fire without harm being brought on me..."

It's an active choice all divine characters have to make. It's an active choice they -should- make. It's the true cost of being favored: To put your trust completely in the care of someone you cannot even (or rather, unlikely) ever see or meet.

Besides... has anyone actually considered the option of having one's character fall from grace? And not just temporary, but permanently. That is, after all, a viable option... for... say... if a Aeridinite priest suddenly finds himself deep in love with a Corathite priestess, deciding that relation is more important than his link with his god, hence by his own decision throws his holy amulet away. A good and nice path for RP, I would say, and not "DOOM!!! WHAT AM I GOING TO DO WITHOUT SPELLS?!?!? I CAN AS WELL GO AND PERM MYSELF NOW!!!".

Edit: I also have to add the perhaps part about one's god reacting. It is just a "perhaps". If your Aeridinite is having a nice cup of tea with the neat Corathite farmer/cleric next doors, I would not likely see that being punished. Civil? Fine! Maybe even good friends? Why not! Lending a hand when he needs some help with pulling out the weed in his garden? Okay! Aiding him on his quest to find the (un)holy relic of Corath? Well... I'm sure you can guess what will happen then!

[Dorganath]

Well yep, you could in fact apply some rather Asimovian rules to this issue as one way of perceiving it. It's a fairly good example because Asimov wrote about different weights or "potentials" given to each of his Three Laws.  

In case some of you are not familiar, in Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot", he established the Three Laws of Robotics. To quote:
[LIST=1]

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human  being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such  orders would conflict with the First Law.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not  conflict with the First or Second Law.

In the book, there were a variety of odd and extreme scenarios where these laws came into conflict with each other.  Basically, the robots found themselves in situations of crisis, where the driving force of one law came up against a conflict caused by another.  One of my favorites from a humor standpoint was one where a robot was found running back and forth between two points, as the First Law and the Third law battled for dominance.  In this case, rescuing a human who would die eventually would cause irreparable harm to the robot itself.

Overall, the gist was that the robot's application of the Three Laws in these scenarios could bring about conflict.  If the situations were not too extreme and the robot was properly balanced, then all was well. Otherwise, it could produce conflicts that could not be resolved easily.  People could work out a solution that might have negative consequences, but robots could not.

Anyway, steering this back around to Layonara and deities, while the idea behind the Three Laws might find some purchase here, in execution, people are still more complex than robots.

Now, onto the question of alignment.  It's a good question but let's look at things a bit more.

First off, alignments are a guide, but surely not immutable laws carved in stone.

Second, clerics are required to be within one step of their deity in terms of alignment.  This right there pretty much implies that there is a great deal of  overlap between the morals and personal philosophy of a deity and his/her clerics.  Champions are required to be the exact alignment of their deity....again, this implies a nearly complete overlap.

Alignment is not something of which our characters are aware, nor are the deities.  We as players are but they are not.  Additionally, there can still be a grand variance between two characters of the exact same alignment.  Our characters are not robots, afterall.

Now, the key point in all of this thread is that those who receive the divine power of a deity are expected to observe and respect that. Clerics are not some divinely-powered spellcasters who also give a nod of respect to one particular deity.  Quite the opposite.  They have made a choice (or some would say they answered a "call") to serve a deity as his/her representative in the mortal realm.  They serve the deity above all other considerations. The reward for this is a set of powers granted by the deity.

So if we factor in alignment and borrow again from Asimov, divinely-empowered characters need to:
[LIST=1]

• Follow the dogma, word and preferences of your deity to the extent expected by your place within the clergy
• Follow your alignment, except when it comes in conflict with #1
• Follow your personal beliefs, except when it comes in conflict with #1 and/or #2

Note that I'm not calling these things "laws"....they're a guide.  Unlike Asimov's robots, our characters are living, sentient beings capable of dealing with these conflicts and coming to a solution, even if one of them is broken temporarily.  As people, they can also foresee the possible consequences and factor those into their actions before making a decision.

To take your narrow question above regarding Lawful Good and "Always helps others", here's a couple ways a LG Toranite Cleric to handle a situation where, for example, a priest of an enemy deity was laying dying (or perhaps already dead).
[LIST=1]

• The cleric could feel pity for the person, and perhaps have an urge to help, but will realize that by helping that priest might mean that priest will continue to cause harm to Toran in the future.  The cleric allows the priest to die.  Or in the case of the priest being dead already, the cleric would not raise the priest.
• The cleric may bind the wounds of the dying priest just enough to prevent him from dying and have that priest taken in for "crimes" or whatever.  This aid could come in the form of bandages and not involve divine assistance in the form of spells. In such a case there would be no conflict nor any consequences, as the deity's gifts were not used to help an enemy.
• The cleric may decide that the priest is worth more alive than dead, better healthy than wounded, and return the priest to full health (and life, if applicable). There may be many reasons for this, such as success in a task that is of benefit to Toran.  However, the cleric would take this action knowing full well that it may draw the attention and ire of his deity, and if so, there may be consequences arising from it.

I'm sure there are other ways, but these are just a few options that spring to mind most immediately.

Now, for non-divine characters, the guidelines above blur greatly.  In fact, we could put all three on about the same level and take out the "except when in conflict" clauses.  In such cases I personally might put alignment above deity for all but the most devout cases in terms of importance.  Again, these will cause internal conflicts and there may be consequences in  the form of alignment hits or other IC and IG sorts of things.

I hope that answers the question(s) you had, Hellblazer.  

The point is, actions beget consequences.

[DMOE]

@DMOE: Yes ofcourse it is about the temple but isnt a cleric also a part of it?
And I didnt want to take it word by word, just think the sentence shows as some others how Toran and the religion works. I just dont think it fits to Toran to let some one behind lying in his own blood... For sure he would also say "thank toran" and even try to take this chance to convince him that Toran a god of goodness and help is a far better choice

I also understand that there are rules but that they cant suit to every situation. Just want to know if I am completely wrong

Well...why would Toran keep granting one of his clerics his divine powers if they continually use them on his enemies and no, IMHO Toran isn't that nice and I have alot of IC experience with him.

The whole point is why would Toran give a rat's behind about a fallen enemy?  He isn't Aerdin or Az'atta after all

[Gulnyr]

@Lonn: yes, followrs of Corath have the luxury. They can think "let this weak Toranite Paladin bleed in the dirt why should I care?" or the way you pointed out *envy*

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

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

[Skywatcher]

Another aspect that has been hinted at but not directly discussed is that of evangelism.  Clerics should be attempting to convert others away from enemy deities.  So it not only depends on the situation but the particular relations of the other follower and their diety.  A cleric might use their gifts to draw someone from another diety.  In Nye's case for instance, he has seen that Rose is willing to sacrifce to help others and has seen a Kitharien priest who didn't care much about the great cycle.  These interactions might lead Nye to question his following of Kitharien if it causes tension with those he considers friends.  I always thought Aeridin was a better fit for Nye anyway

[Rowana]

You have deity enemies. True
But as I see it (grey zone) it depends on the event, the intensions and the task.

Example:
*Plen, Rhiz, Kobal, Kat, Aca, Angela, Daeron, Storold and 20 others sit around the table.*
Hey tonight we gonna kill Bloodstone! *one shouts*
Cheers, hurray *everyone shouts*
Aye, lads and lass. Ter da dragon da foight *Kobal says and then the shouts stops*
To Roferien? You gotta be kidding me *Angela says* what about the Sea Queen?
*The cheers, laugther and joys have suddenly turned into a debate about the Gods. In the end everyone leaves and 2 years later Bloodstone rules the world. Hurray Hurray*

Now what can we learn of this? Everything is not black and white because then you could write a book about when every rules counts and not.

Everything is general guidelines. I am sure everyone could make an example where you had to break a certain rule.
Every player and DM will have his or her ideas about this but still it is good to talk about. I simply hope that players being confronted with DM will solve this in a good way together. That does actually count both ways.

That's not a fair assessment Varka, I am afraid. Because you can dissolve into descent over dogma and deity and still achieve a common goal. Because obviously Bloodstone is gone (or so we hope anyway!) and if you don't think there was deity related debate and dispute your missing at least half the story already.