Post/Author/DateTime	Post
meto30 10-22-07, 01:41 AM	Hello. I'm a newbie DM. My party and I are looking forward to our eighth session. I had an idea about alignment rules, and I want to hear what others think about this. Since most of us disagree on what each alignment means (and I believe many of you are divided on this issue as well), I've decided to take a new approach to alignment, an approach that involves the deities. The approach can be summarized as "What alignment a character is depends on the deity looking at her". Most of the time, alignment is taken out of consideration. But when alignment rules comes into play, deities step in and pass their judgement. Thus, two people who believe in different deities might have different standards for alignment. Let's look at how this works in my campaign. Two paladins are fighting together. One serves Lathander while the other serves Tyr. They encounter a rebel lord who is trying to destroy the kingdom. The king abandoned some outlying cities in a recent war in order to buy time to organize his army for a structured defense, and the rebel lord believes this to be a sign that the king does not care for his subjects. Both paladins attempt Smite Evil, but only the one serving Tyr suceeds, because Lathander does not view the rebel lord as evil. Of course, many people would disagree with the above example (especially the part about Tyr and Lathander's decisions), but I hope that people see what I'm aiming for. Whenever a judgement of alignment has to be made, that decision is made by a god. A faithless character cannot make any alignment-related actions because there is no god to decide for her. And those serving a decapitated god will face wierd results when they make such actions (I consider Cyric incapable of coherent thought becuase of his madness, and thus blackguards of Cyric will get mixed results when attempting Smite Good). With this twist to rules I think I'll be able to assign more central roles to the deities without concerning them too much (and I, the DM, get to roleplay the gods!), and I also see a lot of potential for plot hooks. What do you think?
Reneshat 10-22-07, 02:17 AM	I actually really like it. It certainly turns traditional alignments on their head, but I think it has a lot of cool possibilities. Heck, I think I will use it in the game that I'm running. I like it because I hate trying to define characters based on an alignment they are supposed to have on their sheet, rather than how they act, and I also really like anything that adds a level of connection and relationship between a worshiper and their deity. I can see this adding a need to act in accordance to your deities wishes, and causing additional repercussions and side effects to acting in a manner that might not be how your deity would prefer.
johnkretzer 10-22-07, 02:36 AM	I like it even it you just ignored the alignment issues involved. Though you as DM always had the power to withhold deity granted class abilities... Though just a minor point on alignment it is not a thing to be agreed upon. It is open to intepertation. Though 4th edition is going to 'fix' this somehow.
Reneshat 10-22-07, 03:12 AM	Though just a minor point on alignment it is not a thing to be agreed upon. It is open to intepertation. Though 4th edition is going to 'fix' this somehow. By ditching it most likely.
johnkretzer 10-22-07, 03:43 AM	By ditching it most likely. They have hinted that they won't. Though personaly I never had issues with alignment as is, but if they are doing something about it I just hope they do just get rid of it instead of putting something else in it's place.
Reneshat 10-22-07, 03:57 AM	They have hinted that they won't. Though personaly I never had issues with alignment as is, but if they are doing something about it I just hope they do just get rid of it instead of putting something else in it's place. It's kind of like the Realms. They can completely change it so that it no longer has anywhere close to the original use or power, and still call it the same alignment system, but that doesn't mean it actually is.
johnkretzer 10-22-07, 04:24 AM	It's kind of like the Realms. They can completely change it so that it no longer has anywhere close to the original use or power, and still call it the same alignment system, but that doesn't mean it actually is. I am actualy afraid with the trend of simplefing something something worse then the old one...more black and white. But we'll see. And I think we have gone off topic here. So in light to bring it back to topic...just a question handleing this with evil NPCs might be tricky. For instance what would a situration in which Bane would not grant a smite good to his blackguard. Also what happens if it is a situration that isn't of interest to the deity in question. Like in the OP's orginal example lets add a paladin of Sune into the mix...and suppose that the King and Rebel leader are equal in attractivness...what would you say would happen?
meto30 10-22-07, 06:33 AM	Also what happens if it is a situration that isn't of interest to the deity in question. Like in the OP's orginal example lets add a paladin of Sune into the mix...and suppose that the King and Rebel leader are equal in attractivness...what would you say would happen? If the deity witholds judgement, then nothing happens. I know this probably isn't a good idea, but I'm doing this to add flavor to my campaign, anyway. For those of you who'd like to implement this idea, you can decide what happens. In my campaign, the gods are responsible for dividing the world along alignment issues. They are supposed to impose that order (a plot device, actually). Their portfolio defines their place and duty, and thus they are slaves to their own titles. So, if a god doesn't pass judgement, not only is he unable to empower his followers but he also faces adverse consequences if such cases become commonplace. The clerics are similarily tied down; in areas where their deities are not involved much, they face the possibility of becoming powerless. The particular example with Sune, however, is a situation I haven't thought of. Does anyone have ideas on this? I'd be glad to hear it. I can see this adding a need to act in accordance to your deities wishes, and causing additional repercussions and side effects to acting in a manner that might not be how your deity would prefer. Yes, exactly. Let's say that the rebel lord was a cleric of Helm once. When he tries to save the towns contrary to the king's order to withdraw forces, Helm would frown upon that act. While it is entirely within his portfolio, protecting the citizens, it directly violates his dogma of obedience, and Helm will also understand the king's reason for withdrawing, trading space for time. Thus, when the rebel lord refused to withdraw, Helm withdrew his commitment to the lord, rendering him without spells. This might have serious results. This way, atonement works differently, too. When using this system, atonement is required when the worshipper wrongs his deity, not his alignment. The required act for atonement also changes, because it is tied to the diety. Multiple gods who have same alignments but different philosophies will also have different standards for what is wrong. Also note that the wishes of the Deity and the Church does not neccesarily coincide. While it is the duty of the church to represent the deity it serves, the judgement passed by the church is NOT judgement passed by the deity. Thus, when a misinformed church orders a crusade against some faction that the deity has no intention of punishing, the deity might withold powers from the crusaders, which would also be a very effective method of telling his worshippers that they are being misled.
meto30 10-22-07, 07:07 AM	Another note. This aspect of the system is actually just another plot device, but I'll write it down. A quasi-deity capable of granting spells need not atone for wronging his alignment, because in this case Ao is making judgements, and he is quiet liberal about alignment. Without a portfolio to adher to, quasi-deities are more liberated in their actions compared to true deities, although of course the scope of their power is very small. However, Ao will punish a quasi-deity if he stops caring for his followers. This decision was made PURELY so that Tchazzar may betray his alignment (and his mistress Tiamat for that matter) to serve his own needs. In my campaign Tchazzar is very ambitious, and is plotting to take over the world and become a true deity.
Charles Phipps 10-22-07, 09:40 AM	The particular example with Sune, however, is a situation I haven't thought of. Does anyone have ideas on this? I'd be glad to hear it. Paladins are given some limited judgement. But depending on how whimsical you want to make Sune, I'd give a 50-50 shot on it working at any given time on a controversial decision like this. "The widows and orphans of the city cry for revenge!" "He is kinda pretty isn't he?" Yes, exactly. Let's say that the rebel lord was a cleric of Helm once. When he tries to save the towns contrary to the king's order to withdraw forces, Helm would frown upon that act. While it is entirely within his portfolio, protecting the citizens, it directly violates his dogma of obedience, and Helm will also understand the king's reason for withdrawing, trading space for time. Thus, when the rebel lord refused to withdraw, Helm withdrew his commitment to the lord, rendering him without spells. This might have serious results. True, though it may reduce conflicts a bit too much. One of my most famous campaign notes was two ghostly Paladins of Tyr fighting an eternal battle on the fields of Amn and Tethyr. The player characters found out that a major engagement was to be decided by single combat and they volunteered (killing each other) Both were convinced Tyr favored the other side. In truth, he cared for neither nation at that time and merely kept supporting the faith of his paladins.
meto30 10-22-07, 11:22 AM	True, though it may reduce conflicts a bit too much. One of my most famous campaign notes was two ghostly Paladins of Tyr fighting an eternal battle on the fields of Amn and Tethyr. The player characters found out that a major engagement was to be decided by single combat and they volunteered (killing each other) Both were convinced Tyr favored the other side. In truth, he cared for neither nation at that time and merely kept supporting the faith of his paladins. Interesting. So, the paladins, believing the other was favored, wanted a rematch to decide who was truly favored? I think I can work this into my system. Most gods would be unconcerned with nations and politics and would be more concerned about their individual portfolios... So Tyr, believing the two were equally faithful supported them equally, although the paladins wanted 'judgement'. I guess one could argue that not passing judgement violates Tyr's portfolio, but Tyr does have a personality and a faith to care for.
meto30 10-22-07, 12:11 PM	One of my players suggested this. I think this is better than what I came up with. "The Deities have authority to judge people's alignments. However, they have an obligation to make sure their judgement makes sense. A Smite Evil attempt on a LN soldier under the command of a CE warlord should not work, but it might, because the deity involved might want to undermine the CE warlord's position. This is promotion of cause rather than actual alignment. While this does happen, Ao does not look kindly to such digressions." An example of this new system is as follows. Say a cleric of Tiamat is raiding a village. A priest of Kelemvor appears and demands the dead bodies be given to him, so he can make a proper funeral for them. But the cleric was planning on selling the bodies to a necromancer. He attempts a Smite Good on the priest of Kelemvor, who most people would see as neutral. Tiamat grants her cleric Smite Good, not only because she promotes greed, which is her portfolio, but because the extra profit will mean further power for her church. But Ao will be angry because there was no reason for Tiamat to judge the priest to be good other than reasons unrelated to the priest himself. He will not punish Tiamat, because she was true to her portfolio, but he won't be thrilled.
Charles Phipps 10-22-07, 12:16 PM	Yes, it was an interesting example of conflict. In the end, both Paladins put aside their differences to battle a bunch of monsters that the Pcs informed them of. Which, ironically, gave them Tyr's judgement.
meto30 10-22-07, 01:08 PM	An example of conflict-of-views. An orc tribe attacks a human village. Two children waiting for their father to return from the weekly market in the nearest town gets killed. The father returns from the market, finds his children dead, and cries for revenge. He prays to Hoar, the god of poetic justice, and with strenght granted him by Hoar he succesfully raids the orc tribe and kills all orc children. The gods are passing their judgement upon the father. Tyr: Neutral. He had cause for vengeance. However, he did not have any right to harm the children, because it is the adults who attacked the village, not the young ones. His murder of children should not be forgiven. Lathander: Evil. Those young children had many possibilites ahead of them, and the man has snuffed all the lights out. But I can understand his loss, and I believe his suffering and agony over realizing his atrocity is punishment enough. Ilmater: Evil. How can a non-evil soul even think of such atrocity! To attack helpless children, who didn't even understand why they were being killed. His acts cannot be condoned! Torm: Good. His action was a vengeance. But that does not change the fact that killing children is an atrocity that should not be forgiven. Hoar: Good. This is an Eye-for-an-eye revenge, and his hands fell upon the orc children as the hammer of justice itself. Bane: Evil. His aptitude for destruction is outstanding. Look at the carnage he brought about. Chaos, terror, bloodspilling. Marvelous work, I must say. Kelemvor: Neutral. It is true that he did a wrong by applying his hatred to the wrong persons. However, he is neither evil nor good, for his action was that of vengeance. Cyric: Good. How can a person who acts from love be evil? Sune: No decision. Don't you think you're asking the wrong deity? Loviatar: Evil. I agree with Bane. Tiamat: Good. Pathetic weakling. If he had been powerful enough he'd have protected his younglings and would've wiped out the entire orc clan as well. Oghma: No decision. I refuse to be involved. Gruumsh: Good. He attacked my faithful. I grant you my warriors the power to destroy that man! Of course, the above example is based on my own impression of the gods. Feel free to express your opinion. ;)
Charles Phipps 10-22-07, 02:53 PM	Actually, I'd suggest Kelemvor would be amongst the most outraged along with Lathander and Chaunteau. I think Kelemvor is a god whose the most offended by cutting life short before they can fully live their entire lives out. Sune is a goddess whom definitely supports revenge if the father loves his children, though she's just as likely to strike down the Dad if the Orc father loved his kid. Actually, I'd handle the gods slightly differently in this case. To not detract from your Thunder, I'll use something a bit more politically charged. A Purple Knight (LG worshipper of Triad) allies with a member of the Zhentariam (LE worshipper of Bane) to help root out a group of Cyricists. The two of them combine their resources and proceed to destroy the High Priest (CE worshipper of Cyric). Afterwards, there are prisoners of the Cyricists and plenty of treasure to divide plus the High Priests' keep. The Banite wants to see the prisoners carted off to slavery while the Tormite wants to see them tried for any crimes (some will no doubt get off free because they just worked for the High Priest). Tyr: The God of Law would insist things be handled by the book. The treasure is to be returned to its rightful owners, the prisoners dealt with fairly via trial, and the keep restored to truth. The Banite, if he's broken any laws, should also be brought in. If he resists, then he should be fought in a lawful duel. Tyr would approve of slavery as an alternative to execution. Torm: Torm would be disapproving of his faithful allying with evil to begin with. However, the personal pact they made should be honored. That means an equal division of the treasure shares and if the surrender was accepted, that the prisoners should be treated in trial. The treasure is a spoil of war and can be dealt with accordingly. Torm would loathe slavery and yet support death. Ilmater: Would probably insist that the Cyricists be treated fairly and offered a chance for redemption along with the Banite ally. Under no circumstances would the Banite be allowed to take any as slaves, including the two dueling to the death over it. The treasure might be divided evenly but the Ilmaterite would probably ask it to be donated to the victims of the Cyricists. Ilmater would support imprisonment but not slavery, and death as only a last resort. Bane: Bane would insist on a strict interpretation of their agreement before the alliance, so long as it benefited him. The Banite would be allowed to "settle" for a guarantee that whatever Cyricists aren't sold into slavery or converted to Banism are executed. Furthermore, he'd probably want his worshiper to challenge the Tormite to a duel if he thought he could kill him. Cyric: For killing his faithful and defiling them, he'd encourage any priests that surrendered to fake conversion or at the very least interest in repentance. Furthermore, egging on both of them by appealing to their naked baser qualities. Murdering both in their sleep or otherwise taking advantage of them through deception is appreciated. The faithful should encourage the Banite to just nakedly break his word and slaughter them while the Tormite to do the same. Either should be killed as well unless a long term corruption can be set up. If a worshiper can get away by betraying the other faithful, he won't mind. Other Gods: Will not be interested because it doesn't involve their faithful. The possible exception being Kelemvor whom will watch over any breaking their oaths and religious service to their gods.
meto30 10-22-07, 10:17 PM	Hm, you're right. Kelemvor sounds more like that sort of god...
Charles Phipps 10-22-07, 10:22 PM	Also, Torm would try and see the man killed the same as anyone else. I can't imagine him approving of murdering children for someone elses deeds. Of course, weirdly, I run Torm as more Good than Lawul. And Tyr as more Lawful than Good.
meto30 10-22-07, 11:13 PM	I can't help but feel my inadequecy at roleplaying various deities. But since I did create this system, looks like I'll have to learn, and fast.
Charles Phipps 10-22-07, 11:55 PM	your system definitely does give a good system for making them roleplaying interactive without direct appearances.
johnkretzer 10-23-07, 02:24 AM	I can't help but feel my inadequecy at roleplaying various deities. But since I did create this system, looks like I'll have to learn, and fast. The deities are open to inpertation...in other words you are doing fine. It is your and your players game after all. Though I might suggest when you are designing the adventure you should figure ahead of time what will happen if divine ability x is used to do y task. That way you can be better prepared.