Aeridin - the truth behind the Dogma?

[Weeblie]

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.

[Hellblazer]

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.

[Hellblazer]

*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

[Weeblie]

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.

[Kindo]

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?

[Witch Hunter]

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
 
EDIT: adding the following...
 

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:

[Kindo]

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.

[Witch Hunter]

Well put out *claps*

[aragwen]

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.
 

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.

[Dorganath]

An array of responses...

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.

*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.

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

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.

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").

[Witch Hunter]

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.

[Dorganath]

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.

[Weeblie]

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.

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.*

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!

[Weeblie]

(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).

(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).
 

(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.

[Kindo]

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.

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.

[Dorganath]

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.

[Witch Hunter]

Point by point.
 

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
 
That's how my characeter sees it.
 

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.
 
 

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:
 

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
 
 

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.
 

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.
 
 

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.

[Dorganath]

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.

[Witch Hunter]

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.

[Dorganath]

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.