Heresies? [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Heresies? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
MarkusTay63
04-28-07, 03:52 PM This may be a stupid question to some of you, but where are the rules concerning heresies? :confused:

The first time I heard of them was here, and I don't see them mentioned in anything I have. :(
Dielzen
04-28-07, 04:26 PM Power of Faerun

There's a feat called Heretic of the Faith, and there's other information as well, to include a detailed heresy being engaged by a Sunmaster.
MarkusTay63
04-28-07, 05:53 PM Okay, I thought I actually missed something worthwhile in Faiths and Pantheons.
jwanderer5
04-29-07, 10:07 PM The most detailed one they have is about Lathander, but it does discuss a few others.
Stigger
04-29-07, 10:30 PM Basic rule seems to be to allow clerics of a heretical branch of a given faith who don't follow the 1 step rule by giving them a significantly different view of the given faith that follows their own alignment.

Kinda like a LE cleric of Beshaba who views the idea that maybe the rule of three applies to bad lack or something... and that Beshaba is actually a lawful faith going by that logic. Maybe a take on Tyr that treats his as a neutral deity since justice should be blind to morality, really stressing the law part of his alignment and ignoring the good, opening up a way for a LE cleric to worship him and receive spells...

Some of its reaching pretty hard actually, but it makes for an interesting read, and definitely makes Power of Faerun one of my favorite books for all the gray it introduces into the world. :)
MarkusTay63
04-30-07, 01:51 PM -Some of its reaching pretty hard actually, but it makes for an interesting read, and definitely makes Power of Faerun one of my favorite books for all the gray it introduces into the world. :)But Stiggy-poo,

I thought you and I were both recently taught that there are no gray areas in FR, it's all B&W. ;)

I have that tome, but I only read the stuff on the Border Kingdoms. I figured only the history section was important to me, but obviously I missed a lot. Just another book on the long list of my re-reads.
Stigger
04-30-07, 04:09 PM Oh yeah, I forgot about that lesson... guess it didn't leave that big of an impact on me. :D

Funnily though, I found the Border Kingdoms section less useful than the rest of the book...
GothicDan
05-02-07, 02:16 PM Now, I wonder where you guys got the idea that FR has no shades of gray! Personally, I've always espoused FR's realistic ethical outlook (or 'edgey', if we're putting it in terms of Eberron) despite the ambiguous D&D alignment system fitted over it! ;)
MarkusTay63
05-02-07, 11:42 PM I never really liked alignments, way too artificial.

A person's alignment should not be chosen, it's something that should be discreetly tracked by the DM depending how the player is playing his character. In that way, a player would have to think about his every action more, because he wouldn't know if it's going to 'screw him' or not (as in the case of a paladin).

A person doesn't 'pick' his outlook on life... he LIVES it.
Stigger
05-03-07, 01:56 AM Scarily, I have met a few people who do 'pick' their outlooks on life... usually religious extremists mind you but there are people out there who live like that. I like the alignment system, its easy and convenient, and works fairly well as an abstract system and set of guidelines in a lot of respects. If used as nothing more than a simple framework to help certain aspects of the game function and otherwise largely ignored, it works just fine. I've yet to run into a problem with it amongst my players.
GothicDan
05-03-07, 02:37 AM A person doesn't 'pick' his outlook on life... he LIVES it.

I do the first, and then the latter. Or rather, did the latter first, then did the first second, and integrated the two more recently...

Scarily, I have met a few people who do 'pick' their outlooks on life... usually religious extremists mind you but there are people out there who live like that.

Why is it scary to be more conscious of who you are, and able to affect it?

I have a great dislike for people who write off any negatives on their action, and any lack of ambition as 'being who you are.' That's a cowardly cop out, letting one be ignorant free of blame, and wholly contributing to the advancement of nothing.

In other words, I don't like life kicking me around. ;)
Stigger
05-03-07, 02:45 AM Er, most of those I've met who 'picked' it usually ended up surrendering their own faculties to live by someone elses ideals, rather than their own. I recall recently hearing a definition of faith as the surrendering of your own faculties and reason in favor of letting someone else decide those things for you... while one could argue that surrendering your will is a choice in and of itself, its a choice of laziness and ignorance that is just completely invalid. Can't get kicked around much harder than that as far as I'm concerned, and even worse, you asked for it. ;)
GothicDan
05-03-07, 02:53 AM Er, most of those I've met who 'picked' it usually ended up surrendering their own faculties to live by someone elses ideals, rather than their own.

That pretty much describes anyone with a religion or other structured system of ethical guidelines.
Stigger
05-03-07, 02:55 AM Depends on the extreme its taken to, like most other things.
GothicDan
05-03-07, 03:07 AM Sometimes I get into moods where I really only 'respect' the extremists of religions. I mean, if you're going to have faith in something, it seems hypocritical to not have absolute faith in it, because to me, faith almost by definition has to be unswerving.

So, I guess, by 'respect' I mean, 'think them less hypocritical.' :)

That being said, if you follow any religion at all, I don't think it's fair to say you're not following your own ideals any more. Your ideals may have coincided with those ideals of the religion, though, but that doesn't make you a follower. If you followed your own ideals before your religion, that just means you put faith in yourself over your religion, if anything.
Stigger
05-03-07, 03:16 AM Well, I was speaking of extremists in religion, who tend to be far more hypocritical than the moderates, at least in my experience. But then I don't think that unquestioning faith means the same thing as unswerving faith... the difference being a faith in dogma, versus a faith in the existance of the divine.
GothicDan
05-03-07, 03:26 AM It depends on the religion, in large part. Some relies, explicitely or not, say that this is the one true path, there is no other one, etc. So questioning that means you're swerving from that belief.
Stigger
05-03-07, 08:26 AM Most western religions make that particular claim, some more feverently than others. Rather than go into some rant however, and probably violating some rule about religious discussions, let me just say that there is a distinct difference between questioning dogma, and questioning the existance of God. Its the answers that matter more than the questions, at least as far as a good deal of Catholocism is concerned, though I understand that's not often the case with Evangelicalism, though I can't say that with too much confidence since I've never made a study of them beyond a few dozen conversations, which is hardly empirical.

Though to bring this back around a bit more on topic, all those other denominations of Christianity are all heresies of the Catholic Church... :D
MarkusTay63
05-04-07, 11:17 PM Which is itself a heresy of Judaism. ;)

I don't know, I don't pick anything, I just sort of go with the flow. I get very obstinant when forced into a mold, even one of my own making.

I guess I gave up on direction a couple years back....
Stigger
05-05-07, 08:49 AM Heh, point there Markus... though Islam would probably be as well considering its origins.
MarkusTay63
05-05-07, 10:42 AM We could keep going with this. :D

Judaism is actually a heresy of ancient Sumerian religion. :D

Most of the Old Testament (the Torah) can be traced back to writing on cuneform tablets 3000 years earlier. It seems there is actually a very scientific (from and anthropological point of veiw) reason why so many religions have similar myths, like the great flood. Somewhere waaaaaay back, all religions started from one single primordial source.

So, until we find some lost tribe in Africa following the TRUE religion, everything's a heresy. ;)
GothicDan
05-05-07, 03:47 PM I think 'empirical' is probably a better word then 'scientific' there.
Lord_Steve
05-07-07, 07:10 PM I was thinking about a rather "random heresy".....A heresey that believes that Gond and Ogma(sp?) are actually one and the same, simply different aspects of the 1 diety......Ogma being the knowledge and inspiration, Gond being the actual inventor and creator....Cant rightly think of a name or any other info for this heresy sooooooooo....I throw the challenge out to anyone interested.
Cato_the_Elder
05-07-07, 07:35 PM I was thinking about a rather "random heresy".....A heresey that believes that Gond and Ogma(sp?) are actually one and the same, simply different aspects of the 1 diety......Ogma being the knowledge and inspiration, Gond being the actual inventor and creator....Cant rightly think of a name or any other info for this heresy sooooooooo....I throw the challenge out to anyone interested.

Hammerites. Incredible fun for any D&D campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerite#The_Order_of_the_Hammer

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MarkusTay63 04-28-07, 03:52 PM	This may be a stupid question to some of you, but where are the rules concerning heresies? :confused: The first time I heard of them was here, and I don't see them mentioned in anything I have. :(
Dielzen 04-28-07, 04:26 PM	Power of Faerun There's a feat called Heretic of the Faith, and there's other information as well, to include a detailed heresy being engaged by a Sunmaster.
MarkusTay63 04-28-07, 05:53 PM	Okay, I thought I actually missed something worthwhile in Faiths and Pantheons.
jwanderer5 04-29-07, 10:07 PM	The most detailed one they have is about Lathander, but it does discuss a few others.
Stigger 04-29-07, 10:30 PM	Basic rule seems to be to allow clerics of a heretical branch of a given faith who don't follow the 1 step rule by giving them a significantly different view of the given faith that follows their own alignment. Kinda like a LE cleric of Beshaba who views the idea that maybe the rule of three applies to bad lack or something... and that Beshaba is actually a lawful faith going by that logic. Maybe a take on Tyr that treats his as a neutral deity since justice should be blind to morality, really stressing the law part of his alignment and ignoring the good, opening up a way for a LE cleric to worship him and receive spells... Some of its reaching pretty hard actually, but it makes for an interesting read, and definitely makes Power of Faerun one of my favorite books for all the gray it introduces into the world. :)
MarkusTay63 04-30-07, 01:51 PM	-Some of its reaching pretty hard actually, but it makes for an interesting read, and definitely makes Power of Faerun one of my favorite books for all the gray it introduces into the world. :)But Stiggy-poo, I thought you and I were both recently taught that there are no gray areas in FR, it's all B&W. ;) I have that tome, but I only read the stuff on the Border Kingdoms. I figured only the history section was important to me, but obviously I missed a lot. Just another book on the long list of my re-reads.
Stigger 04-30-07, 04:09 PM	Oh yeah, I forgot about that lesson... guess it didn't leave that big of an impact on me. :D Funnily though, I found the Border Kingdoms section less useful than the rest of the book...
GothicDan 05-02-07, 02:16 PM	Now, I wonder where you guys got the idea that FR has no shades of gray! Personally, I've always espoused FR's realistic ethical outlook (or 'edgey', if we're putting it in terms of Eberron) despite the ambiguous D&D alignment system fitted over it! ;)
MarkusTay63 05-02-07, 11:42 PM	I never really liked alignments, way too artificial. A person's alignment should not be chosen, it's something that should be discreetly tracked by the DM depending how the player is playing his character. In that way, a player would have to think about his every action more, because he wouldn't know if it's going to 'screw him' or not (as in the case of a paladin). A person doesn't 'pick' his outlook on life... he LIVES it.
Stigger 05-03-07, 01:56 AM	Scarily, I have met a few people who do 'pick' their outlooks on life... usually religious extremists mind you but there are people out there who live like that. I like the alignment system, its easy and convenient, and works fairly well as an abstract system and set of guidelines in a lot of respects. If used as nothing more than a simple framework to help certain aspects of the game function and otherwise largely ignored, it works just fine. I've yet to run into a problem with it amongst my players.
GothicDan 05-03-07, 02:37 AM	A person doesn't 'pick' his outlook on life... he LIVES it. I do the first, and then the latter. Or rather, did the latter first, then did the first second, and integrated the two more recently... Scarily, I have met a few people who do 'pick' their outlooks on life... usually religious extremists mind you but there are people out there who live like that. Why is it scary to be more conscious of who you are, and able to affect it? I have a great dislike for people who write off any negatives on their action, and any lack of ambition as 'being who you are.' That's a cowardly cop out, letting one be ignorant free of blame, and wholly contributing to the advancement of nothing. In other words, I don't like life kicking me around. ;)
Stigger 05-03-07, 02:45 AM	Er, most of those I've met who 'picked' it usually ended up surrendering their own faculties to live by someone elses ideals, rather than their own. I recall recently hearing a definition of faith as the surrendering of your own faculties and reason in favor of letting someone else decide those things for you... while one could argue that surrendering your will is a choice in and of itself, its a choice of laziness and ignorance that is just completely invalid. Can't get kicked around much harder than that as far as I'm concerned, and even worse, you asked for it. ;)
GothicDan 05-03-07, 02:53 AM	Er, most of those I've met who 'picked' it usually ended up surrendering their own faculties to live by someone elses ideals, rather than their own. That pretty much describes anyone with a religion or other structured system of ethical guidelines.
Stigger 05-03-07, 02:55 AM	Depends on the extreme its taken to, like most other things.
GothicDan 05-03-07, 03:07 AM	Sometimes I get into moods where I really only 'respect' the extremists of religions. I mean, if you're going to have faith in something, it seems hypocritical to not have absolute faith in it, because to me, faith almost by definition has to be unswerving. So, I guess, by 'respect' I mean, 'think them less hypocritical.' :) That being said, if you follow any religion at all, I don't think it's fair to say you're not following your own ideals any more. Your ideals may have coincided with those ideals of the religion, though, but that doesn't make you a follower. If you followed your own ideals before your religion, that just means you put faith in yourself over your religion, if anything.
Stigger 05-03-07, 03:16 AM	Well, I was speaking of extremists in religion, who tend to be far more hypocritical than the moderates, at least in my experience. But then I don't think that unquestioning faith means the same thing as unswerving faith... the difference being a faith in dogma, versus a faith in the existance of the divine.
GothicDan 05-03-07, 03:26 AM	It depends on the religion, in large part. Some relies, explicitely or not, say that this is the one true path, there is no other one, etc. So questioning that means you're swerving from that belief.
Stigger 05-03-07, 08:26 AM	Most western religions make that particular claim, some more feverently than others. Rather than go into some rant however, and probably violating some rule about religious discussions, let me just say that there is a distinct difference between questioning dogma, and questioning the existance of God. Its the answers that matter more than the questions, at least as far as a good deal of Catholocism is concerned, though I understand that's not often the case with Evangelicalism, though I can't say that with too much confidence since I've never made a study of them beyond a few dozen conversations, which is hardly empirical. Though to bring this back around a bit more on topic, all those other denominations of Christianity are all heresies of the Catholic Church... :D
MarkusTay63 05-04-07, 11:17 PM	Which is itself a heresy of Judaism. ;) I don't know, I don't pick anything, I just sort of go with the flow. I get very obstinant when forced into a mold, even one of my own making. I guess I gave up on direction a couple years back....
Stigger 05-05-07, 08:49 AM	Heh, point there Markus... though Islam would probably be as well considering its origins.
MarkusTay63 05-05-07, 10:42 AM	We could keep going with this. :D Judaism is actually a heresy of ancient Sumerian religion. :D Most of the Old Testament (the Torah) can be traced back to writing on cuneform tablets 3000 years earlier. It seems there is actually a very scientific (from and anthropological point of veiw) reason why so many religions have similar myths, like the great flood. Somewhere waaaaaay back, all religions started from one single primordial source. So, until we find some lost tribe in Africa following the TRUE religion, everything's a heresy. ;)
GothicDan 05-05-07, 03:47 PM	I think 'empirical' is probably a better word then 'scientific' there.
Lord_Steve 05-07-07, 07:10 PM	I was thinking about a rather "random heresy".....A heresey that believes that Gond and Ogma(sp?) are actually one and the same, simply different aspects of the 1 diety......Ogma being the knowledge and inspiration, Gond being the actual inventor and creator....Cant rightly think of a name or any other info for this heresy sooooooooo....I throw the challenge out to anyone interested.
Cato_the_Elder 05-07-07, 07:35 PM	I was thinking about a rather "random heresy".....A heresey that believes that Gond and Ogma(sp?) are actually one and the same, simply different aspects of the 1 diety......Ogma being the knowledge and inspiration, Gond being the actual inventor and creator....Cant rightly think of a name or any other info for this heresy sooooooooo....I throw the challenge out to anyone interested. Hammerites. Incredible fun for any D&D campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerite#The_Order_of_the_Hammer