Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Katowice 02-16-07, 11:28 AM	F&P lists Baphomet, Orcus and Pazrael/Pazuzu as Lesser Deities. Is this still legit (or even necessary) under the v3.5 rules? I guess that would make them more than just Demon Princes, since they'd have Divine Rank of 6-10. I thought that having the appropriate "Thrall of--" feat would allow a worshipper to gain spells from the demon prince.
Todesherr 02-16-07, 11:44 AM	F&P lists Baphomet, Orcus and Pazrael/Pazuzu as Lesser Deities. Is this still legit (or even necessary) under the v3.5 rules? I guess that would make them more than just Demon Princes, since they'd have Divine Rank of 6-10. I thought that having the appropriate "Thrall of--" feat would allow a worshipper to gain spells from the demon prince. Too legit to quit...
MerrikCale 02-16-07, 11:48 AM	I thought that having the appropriate "Thrall of--" feat would allow a worshipper to gain spells from the demon prince. I believe that is accurate
Katowice 02-16-07, 12:04 PM	So, I guess, for those three they are Lesser Deities, while all other Demon Princes are not?
Shemeska the Marauder 02-16-07, 03:20 PM	So, I guess, for those three they are Lesser Deities, while all other Demon Princes are not? Some Abyssal Lords have fostered mortal cults and actively attempted to gain deific status on top of and aside from their status as archfiends. One doesn't trump the other. So while for instance Demogorgon might gain the worship of Ixic... vampire fishies and other beings on various prime material worlds, and gain true deific status alongside his power as an archfiend, he's still at a standstill in the Abyss versus a being such as Graz'zt who has no interest in acheiving deific status (he views it as a liability). Just about every other book in 3.x has presented a different status for what archfiends are divine or not, or if not what system to use for them granting spells to cults, etc. FR's cosmological retardedness almost pales to the muddled job 3.x has done with archfiend gods in this regard (not that 1e or 2e were bastions of consistancy on this issue mind you). With respect to giving attention to Toril, Orcus and Baphomet have been the most active in gaining mortal cults and operating with established deific roles per Ao's dictates, but various 3e FR books address this differently. Orcus was listed as having a divine presence in F&P, but PGtF claims no gods live in the wacky FR version of the Abyss. But go with the most flavor, and the version that remains true to earlier FR lore: Orcus has at least in the past had an established deific presence on Toril.
Valgard 02-16-07, 03:42 PM	I think that Champions of Ruin stated, so, overruled, that you had to get the Thrall to Demon feat to gain spells from a Demon Prince (and so for Archdevils and the Disciple of Darkness feat, and Yugoloth Lords and the Sorrow of Scion feat, I think these feats are called this manner). I'm not very sure but I think it says this.
Gray Richardson 02-16-07, 03:53 PM	Champions of Ruin maintains that a player has to take the Thrall to Demon feat if he wants to take a demon prince as a patron. Demon Princes are not gods, but they seem to have some sort of pseudo-divine rank that they may channel from their Abyssal layer or as proxy to some other evil god. This is really a DM call. A DM could just make them outright gods and could decide that the feat was not necessary. In my own game, however, I would rule that a demon prince's divine rank is qualitatively different from a god's divine rank. I perceive it as granted by the layer the prince rules in some symbiotic fashion. I would make the player take the Thrall to Demon feat in order to get spells and domains from demon princes. I would further treat those demon princes as having an "effective" divine rank of around 6 (give or take) for purposes related to the maintenance of their Abyssal layers and and in various other respects. In effect, a demon prince would be like unto a god, but not the same as one.
Terraneaux 02-16-07, 06:17 PM	In my games part of being a demon prince is having divine rank. They rank in at around demigod status, with Orcus, as the demon prince who devotes the most attention to his cult, topping out the pack at DvR 5. The rest span the gamut. I did this mainly after reading FC I. While that book had a lot of good flavor, it bothered me that a balor could wipe the floor with some of those demon princes.
HVulpes 02-17-07, 01:20 PM	I think that Champions of Ruin stated, so, overruled, that you had to get the Thrall to Demon feat to gain spells from a Demon Prince (and so for Archdevils and the Disciple of Darkness feat, and Yugoloth Lords and the Sorrow of Scion feat, I think these feats are called this manner). I'm not very sure but I think it says this. So if my evil cleric took the Sorrow of Scion feat and decided to worship Shemeska the Marauder, she would be able to grant me divine magic. Would that mean that she would have to leave Sigil for being divine or psuedo-divine? Would it increase her power levels with divine bonuses (Domain spells as bonus spells, Domain abilities, etc)? What would her portfolios be and what would he divine block be like? (Things like alignment, domains, cleric alignments, worshipper types)? Opinions?
Gray Richardson 02-17-07, 05:55 PM	Probably not Shemmy. Although she is very "arch", she is not an arch-fiend. If I am not mistaken, the feat presumes a pact with a suitable fiend lord. I would think that would mean an ultraloth or an altraloth, or someone that is listed as granting domains.
Andyr 02-19-07, 01:04 PM	and Yugoloth Lords and the Sorrow of Scion feat, I think these feats are called this manner). Scion of Sorrow, IIRC, but yeah. :)
Valgard 02-20-07, 09:46 AM	Scion of Sorrow, IIRC, but yeah. :) Now I'm looking at it and I'm feeling like an extremely fool idiot. :chicken:
Andyr 02-21-07, 08:43 AM	We all make mistakes! Back on topic, I'm not sure what the RAW are concerning worshipping the Abyssal/(Gehennan/Hadean?)/Infernal Lords in Faerun with regard to granting spells, but IMC I'd allow it with the appropriate feat. I don't think it would matter too much whether it the fiends are granting the spells themselves, or they're being contracted out to some Evil deity to grant, so long as the Archfiends are the ones being worshipped.
ericlboyd 02-21-07, 11:28 AM	As 3e and 3.5e has evolved, I've come up with what I call the "potted plant" rule. As long as you burn a feat, you can worship whatever the heck you you want and gain clerical power, including a potted plant. Examples: Disciple of Darkness (CR/BV), Scion of Sorrow (CR), Thrall to Demon (FC1/BV/CR/Dragon), Heretic of the Faithful (PoF), and Servant of the Fallen (LEoF). These are all basically the same feat. They give you a minor bonus (less than a normal feat, but something) and let you draw divine power from a "non-god". I think this allows far more complexity to role-playing religious worship, while retaining simplicity and balance in the game. --Eric
MerrikCale 02-21-07, 01:04 PM	As 3e and 3.5e has evolved, I've come up with what I call the "potted plant" rule. As long as you burn a feat, you can worship whatever the heck you you want and gain clerical power, including a potted plant. Examples: Disciple of Darkness (CR/BV), Scion of Sorrow (CR), Thrall to Demon (FC1/BV/CR/Dragon), Heretic of the Faithful (PoF), and Servant of the Fallen (LEoF). These are all basically the same feat. They give you a minor bonus (less than a normal feat, but something) and let you draw divine power from a "non-god". I think this allows far more complexity to role-playing religious worship, while retaining simplicity and balance in the game. --Eric Well then I will roll up a Cleric who worships ferns. Now what would be the deity's weapon?
Gray Richardson 02-22-07, 01:33 AM	As 3e and 3.5e has evolved, I've come up with what I call the "potted plant" rule. As long as you burn a feat, you can worship whatever the heck you you want and gain clerical power, including a potted plant. Examples: Disciple of Darkness (CR/BV), Scion of Sorrow (CR), Thrall to Demon (FC1/BV/CR/Dragon), Heretic of the Faithful (PoF), and Servant of the Fallen (LEoF). These are all basically the same feat. They give you a minor bonus (less than a normal feat, but something) and let you draw divine power from a "non-god".I think this is an awesome idea! I have always thought there should be a similar feat for taking a slaad lord as a patron (unless there is something about the notion of making and honoring pacts or having a bound servant that is anathema to their sense of freedom or anarchistic sensibilities). I have also thought there should be a feat for drawing power from cult leaders, whether mortal or lich or dragon, the kinds of megalomaniacal personalities that hold themselves out as gods. Some people on the boards have been asking if there is a way to be a cleric of an ideal without a patron god. There might ought to be a feat for venerating an ideal, such as Love, or Chaos, or Law, or Honor, or some other philosophy along those lines. I wonder if the Karanoks have something like that going on with Entropy. I suppose you could describe that relationship using the feat mechanic you describe. Although it is equally possible that they are just worshipping Shar in the regular fashion just under an alias. Do you suppose it takes a feat to worship a god under their alias? Or that if you worship that god using one of their "official" aliases, that it is a freebie and does not require a feat? Which brings up several other interesting questions such as what if you are worshipping Ibrandul who is both a dead god, but also a god whose name has been taken as an alias by an extant god (Shar). Would you have to take the servant of the fallen feat? Or would that be a freebie if you are really a cleric of Shar under the alias of Ibrandul? Which leads me to further wonder what the rules are for when a deity can take another name as an alias, is there a limit to the number of aliases a god can have? Can more than one god claim the same name as an alias? And if not, how are such conflicts resolved (for instance, what if Lathander and Horus-Re both tried to lay claim to the Amaunator alias)? What if a god whose name has been taken as an alias comes back to life (say Ibrandul or Orcus) or interlopes into the Realms (such as Jubilex)? Do they get their name back automatically or have to fight for it?
MarkusTay63 02-22-07, 02:26 AM	-Just about every other book in 3.x has presented a different status for what archfiends are divine or not, or if not what system to use for them granting spells to cults, etc. FR's cosmological retardedness almost pales to the muddled job 3.x has done with archfiend gods in this regard (not that 1e or 2e were bastions of consistancy on this issue mind you).That is one of the things I thought was actually 'better developed' in ODD. There was one single progression for all beings, from mortal on through demi-god (fiend?) on through god (called immortals back then). Why do we need all different systems? I hope they clean all of this stuff up if and when there is a 4.0. I have developed my own 'cosmic leveling' scheme (for lack of a better term) where at lev 20 you are a 'hero' and at 25 you become a 'super-hero' (DvR 0). Not the comic book version of super-hero, I use the term from old-school miniatures rules to represent a 'figure of renown', i.e., someone who when they walk into a room everyone stares; a person who commands attantion and probably armies. Think Hercules or Conan. So basically levels 26-30 represent DvR 1-5, but only IF the mortal starts to build up worshippers. Normally this happens anyway to someone so awe-inspiring, like Tchazzar in Chessenta. If the character doesn't bother with worshippers, then he will continue gaining 'mortal' levels (although he could always get back to it later). The Demon princes would all fit into this level 20-30 system, and be able to grant spells IF they developed worshippers (just as mortals do). And finally, I have exactly 25 levels of each level of 'power', so I've added DvR 21-25 for 'High Gods' like Fate (Zakhara), Celestial Emperor (Kara-Tur), Maztica, and even pantheonic leaders like Zeus and Odin. At level 25 they are at SpR 0, and then can work their way up the ladder of Overgods, which would also have 25 levels. Mortals = 0-24, Powers = 25-49, Titans (Overgods) = 50-74, and 'true' (Elder) Gods = 75-99. Only one being gets to be Level 100. ;) Anyhow, thats just the way I see it, it doesn't really come into play in my games because they rarely progress beyond lev 15. I can see a cult of Elminster growing around him, although he'd probably put stop to it. Now that Khelben's gone, I'm toying with the notion of a religion worshipping 'the Blackstaff', since my campaign is set 20 years in the future. We'll see. As 3e and 3.5e has evolved, I've come up with what I call the "potted plant" rule. As long as you burn a feat, you can worship whatever the heck you you want and gain clerical power, including a potted plant. Examples: Disciple of Darkness (CR/BV), Scion of Sorrow (CR), Thrall to Demon (FC1/BV/CR/Dragon), Heretic of the Faithful (PoF), and Servant of the Fallen (LEoF). These are all basically the same feat. They give you a minor bonus (less than a normal feat, but something) and let you draw divine power from a "non-god". I think this allows far more complexity to role-playing religious worship, while retaining simplicity and balance in the game. --EricI have to agree with Gray for once, THAT is an awesome and MUCH simplified way of working things. :D I have always felt, even in the RW, that it is your belief (Faith) in something that empowers spells/magic/miracles; the power really comes from within. You have just taken this concept and perfectly applied it to D&D... kudos. :clap: Now if you could just combine the three circle magic feats, and the three different types of 'epic magic', I think we'd be set. Simpler is better, so YOU da man, Erik. :thumbsup: Ferns... :rofl:
ripvanwormer 02-22-07, 02:58 AM	Or that if you worship that god using one of their "official" aliases, that it is a freebie and does not require a feat? That's a freebie. Gods who assume aliases do so because they want people to worship them that way (for example, Lolth took on the name of Moander in order to get more worshipers among the light elves). They're happy to grant spells to those worshipers. The feats are only necessary when there's no god willing to grant the spells - because the god is dead, because you're worshiping the god in a grossly incorrect way (a LE worshiper of Tyr, for example), or because the thing you're worshiping is not a god and thus does not have the power to grant spells (at least, not on Toril under Ao's watchful eye). Which brings up several other interesting questions such as what if you are worshipping Ibrandul who is both a dead god, but also a god whose name has been taken as an alias by an extant god (Shar). That's free. Shar is willing to grant spells to priests of Ibrandul. Is there a limit to the number of aliases a god can have? I don't see why there would be. Can more than one god claim the same name as an alias? No, the worship goes to just one god at a time. I think it's a matter of "first come, first served" or "finder's keepers, loser's weepers" - that is, the first god to claim an alias gets to keep it until the god dies or willingly gives it up. What if a god whose name has been taken as an alias comes back to life (say Ibrandul or Orcus) or interlopes into the Realms (such as Juiblex)? Do they get their name back automatically or have to fight for it? I think they'd have to come up with a new name, actually. But that's a good question.
Gray Richardson 02-22-07, 03:26 AM	Your thoughts parallel my own, Rip. Although, I think there are some ramifications from deciding those questions different ways. For instance, you could let a god have unlimited aliases, or you could limit it to some formula in the same way they acquire salient divine abilities. It could also be limited to the number of avatars or proxies a god can spawn. I am not saying there is or should be a limit, but there are certain natural limits that suggest themselves. As to why you might want to limit the aliases, I can think of some reasons. Aliases might cause psychological problems for deities. Multiple personalty disorders might spring up as worshipper bases venerate the deity under alternate conceptions. Having aliases might run the risk of the deity being pulled apart and spinning off a fragment as a separate individual. This could potentially cause dilution or diminution of one's divine power and a proportional reduction in divine rank. Not to mention creating an instant competitor for worshippers, geographic regions and portfolios. Also, whether more than one god can claim the same alias is a big question I would think. For instance, what if Selune had wanted to prevent Shar from gaining worship by assuming Ibrandul's name. Could Selune have also adopted the alias and siphoned off some of Shar's worshipper base? What is to prevent 2 or more gods from claiming the same name or alias? Is there some sort of Faerunian divine trademark treaty? Does Ao register divine names? Or does he let the gods sort that kind of thing out among themselves?
ripvanwormer 02-22-07, 01:13 PM	Aliases might cause psychological problems for deities. Multiple personalty disorders might spring up as worshipper bases venerate the deity under alternate conceptions. That's true. Perhaps they could be limited to the same number of aliases as they have avatars (both represent the deity existing in several places at once, in a manner of speaking). Does Ao register divine names? Most likely. That sort of thing is what he was created for. He enforces all sorts of crazy rules - that most gods can't enter the Material Plane in their true forms, that their power is correlated with mortal worship, that only one god can oversee a given portfolio in each pantheon. This seems to go along with those. What's the point in having an overdeity if gods have to rely on pacts and treaties they make among themselves?
ericlboyd 02-22-07, 01:58 PM	As to why you might want to limit the aliases, I can think of some reasons. Aliases might cause psychological problems for deities. Multiple personalty disorders might spring up as worshipper bases venerate the deity under alternate conceptions. Having aliases might run the risk of the deity being pulled apart and spinning off a fragment as a separate individual. This could potentially cause dilution or diminution of one's divine power and a proportional reduction in divine rank. Not to mention creating an instant competitor for worshippers, geographic regions and portfolios. All good ideas Gray. I think multiple aliases would begin to cause problems by spawning heresies/schisms in the church. Over time this might lead to fragmentation of the deity. Or the cause and effect might be the reverse. --Eric PS Hopefully I've worked a new heresy into an upcoming Dragon article (assuming it doesn't get cut).
ripvanwormer 02-22-07, 06:15 PM	If you wanted to be really strict, you could force a deity to use one of its actual avatars to maintain an alias. Lolth would have to send an avatar into Moander's former realm to maintain the link to Moander's worshipers. Another god could usurp this simply by driving Lolth's avatar out (presumedly with an avatar of their own).
MerrikCale 02-22-07, 06:58 PM	I think multiple aliases would begin to cause problems by spawning heresies/schisms in the church. Over time this might lead to fragmentation of the deity. Or the cause and effect might be the reverse. --Eric PS Hopefully I've worked a new heresy into an upcoming Dragon article (assuming it doesn't get cut). Looking forward to the article. The ideas that spawn has a lot of good roleplay potential. A god becoming nuts spawning numerous heresies. The PCs could be on a quest for some lost artifact they help may help prevent the fragmentation.
Gray Richardson 02-22-07, 08:12 PM	PS Hopefully I've worked a new heresy into an upcoming Dragon article (assuming it doesn't get cut).Sweet! I look forward to it! :plotting:
Tyrant of the Moonsea 02-22-07, 10:30 PM	[QUOTE=Gray Richardson;11554082] I wonder if the Karanoks have something like that going on with Entropy. I suppose you could describe that relationship using the feat mechanic you describe. Although it is equally possible that they are just worshipping Shar in the regular fashion just under an alias.[/QUOTE Actually, Tiamat is granting spells in Entropy's name :P
Tyrant of the Moonsea 02-22-07, 10:31 PM	I wonder if the Karanoks have something like that going on with Entropy. I suppose you could describe that relationship using the feat mechanic you describe. Although it is equally possible that they are just worshipping Shar in the regular fashion just under an alias. Actually, Tiamat is granting spells in Entropy's name :P
msatran 02-25-07, 01:26 PM	First of all, I don't think it should require a feat at all to be a cleric of this or that demon prince. They've granted clerical spells to people in the days before feats even existed. There are clerics of Orcus all over the place. He's very popular among evil people. Heck, there are probably still clerics of Anthraxus all over the place, even though it's really GROSS. Any evil demon prince can have clerics and other worshippers. Remember, just because Lore says X doesn't mean that it requires a feat, especially if this wonderful book called FC 1 says "Clerics of this demon prince can get spells from the X, Y, and Z domains.' Why gimp the players enemies? They're probably already overpowered with treasure vis a vis their level as is.
Gray Richardson 02-25-07, 03:04 PM	The feat does not gimp an NPC or a player. The feat expands that character's options. A character could not normally get spells from non-gods. A demon lord is not a god any more than Banjo the clown puppet is a god. The feat is allowing him to get spells from a non-divine source. In addition to allowing the character to take a non-divine patron, the feats also give you a sacred or profane bonus to certain rolls, so the feat is not really a total loss. It gives you a minor benefit over and above access to cleric spells and domains.
ericlboyd 04-09-07, 06:43 PM	Dragon #355 has some thoughts on demon cults of the Realms. The Harlot's Coin Heresy made the cut. --Eric
Krash 04-09-07, 11:46 PM	F&P lists Baphomet, Orcus and Pazrael/Pazuzu as Lesser Deities. Is this still legit (or even necessary) under the v3.5 rules? I guess that would make them more than just Demon Princes, since they'd have Divine Rank of 6-10. I thought that having the appropriate "Thrall of--" feat would allow a worshipper to gain spells from the demon prince. Champions of Ruin makes it clear that they are not deities as such. However they can act as deities if you burn the appropriate "Thrall to ..." feat. Eric Boyd has taken the lead on this one and his rationale is that if you are prepared to burn a feat to get spells from Asmodeus, then more power to you - quite literally. Hence they don't have a divine rank although Planescape-y types will likely dispute that.:) -- George Krashos
Burningspear 04-10-07, 12:19 AM	I think they'd have to come up with a new name, actually. But that's a good question. I think this is just a silly and simply "idiotic" idea, (not to insult you personally though, Rip). The god who's name it was originally has returned and by that notion alone he should have his own basic core portfolio and power back...AND NAME. he would still have to "fight" to get the additional ones back that he does not posses upon return, though it does make it difficult to define what his core portfolio was..
GothicDan 04-10-07, 12:36 AM	Hence they don't have a divine rank although Planescape-y types will likely dispute that. Not entirely, but there IS precedent in previous editions for Clerics being able to draw power from Fiendish Lords without having to 'spend anything extra' or have any particular drawbacks, in both Planescape lore and otherwise. And it's been suggested in a few more modern sources that the Lords be given DvR 0 if that suits your campaign. I think the idea of DvR is pretty silly, myself, or at least the way it's been classically handled (DvR to Proxies? Riiiight).
Old Sage 04-10-07, 01:44 AM	Champions of Ruin makes it clear that they are not deities as such. However they can act as deities if you burn the appropriate "Thrall to ..." feat. Eric Boyd has taken the lead on this one and his rationale is that if you are prepared to burn a feat to get spells from Asmodeus, then more power to you - quite literally. Hence they don't have a divine rank although Planescape-y types will likely dispute that.:) -- George KrashosI'll offer the examples of Davoren, 'Gestal', and Daltyrex 'Slip' Blacksoul in Erik Scott de Bie's Depths of Madness as useful "Thrall to ..." characters in this regard.
Yanagita Kunio 04-10-07, 02:01 AM	"Thrall to Potted Plant" has a nice ring to it, although it sounds a touch more like fetishry than piety. A potted plant is my co-pilot is even better. Gray - the MPD comparison is a very succinct articulation of something I've been battling with relative to the World Serpent concept. Well put and thanks. Also...hooray for heresies.
ripvanwormer 04-10-07, 02:25 AM	The god who's name it was originally has returned and by that notion alone he should have his own basic core portfolio and power back...AND NAME. Whatever are you basing that on? That's certainly a possibility, I'm not denying it - I don't even necessarily endorse anything I said all those weeks ago, when I was a different person - but I don't see how it necessarily "should" be true. If the name and portfolio has been claimed by a new god, why should it be any easier for the previous holder to take it than any other random would-be usurper? If the god formally known as Ibrandul can easily wrest his Ibrandul-ness back from Shar, why can't Talos do the same? If Talos can't take the name Ibrandul from Shar just because he wants it, why should formally-Ibrandul be able to do so? It seems to me that either: 1. A god gets to keep an alias and portfolio as long as it lives. 2. A god can have its alias and portfolio taken from it while it still lives. 3. The original holder of a name and portfolio has priority over all later gods. 4. Anybody can assume any name, any time they want. 5. Something else I haven't thought of. The problem with the third option, which you endorse, is figuring out who the "original" holder was - particularly in the case of a portfolio. Ibrandul almost certainly wasn't the first god of the Underdark, Lathander almost certainly wasn't the original god of the dawn, and of course Mystra wasn't the original goddess of magic (or the original Mystra). If Ibrandul wasn't the original god of the Underdark, then he doesn't have any more inherent right to that portfolio than Shar does. On what grounds, then, does he automatically get it back upon his resurrection? Or, for example, say Mystra died and the portfolio of magic (and the name Mystra) was claimed by Shar. If Mystra was subsequently resurrected, on what grounds does she insist on her name and portfolio back? Mystra wasn't originally her name. Her real name isn't Midnight either, for that matter, so if Shar claimed that as well she might have to go back to calling herself Ariel Manx. Then there's Finder Wyvernspur, who as a mortal went for a time with no name at all, so there's that precedent for creatures being entirely nameless. Ibrandul probably is the original holder of his name, of course - but at the same time, Ibrandul probably wasn't what the Calishites originally called him when he first came into existence as a deity. Languages change and drift, and Ibrandul isn't his truename - it's just what the majority of people know him by today. Is his connection to the name, then, that special?
Ramar Aulinvox 04-10-07, 10:36 AM	I'd like to throw my hat into the ring on this one. Concerning the discrepencies from the older sources to the new ones, I'm with Eric on this one. However, in keeping with the old Bloodstone adventures, I would suggest that if the demon prince or other arch-fiend has a physical manifestation of itself with x miles or a permanent portal to its plane/layer, then the requirement of the feat would be nullified. This might help explain more why certain areas of Toril have been infected with demon worshipers more than others. And how destroying such manifestations and portals put a significant stop to such cults. [A possible radius could be 1 mile per month of the existence of such portal/manifestation].
Zanan 04-10-07, 11:56 AM	Well, I for one go with the PGtF and CoR in so far that Abyssal Lords and Archdevils are no deities in Faerūn, but are able to provide spells for those who "pay" with a feat. That is much like the way it is described in FC I and FC II - well, at least how I understood it. As for clerics of deities slain and substituted by others (Ibrandul / Shar; Moander / Lolth) ... I would argue in my campaigns that clerics (etc.) who use the appropriate feat and were divine casters before the Times of Troubles have still access to the divine essence of the original deity. All those who joined the faiths after the ToT will be answered by the now dominant deity (e.g. Shar, Lolth), who will simply cut out any direct links to the old deity. They are both powerful enough to block out any transfer too, if total dominance is what they are after (remember that in Lolth's case, Finder did take up a few bits and pieces of Moander's portfolios etc.). Furthermore, people are not always aware that their deity is actually dead and someone else is maskerading. In that respect, once the old clergy has gone, the maskerading deities may even cut the link to the dead deity's essence entirely (or prevent it from being accessed), making it truly die. You see, there are many options about that could be used and this Servant of the Fallen feat offers many a good cliffhanger for all those who want to reintroduce some of the nasty folk of old, like Bhaal.
Burningspear 04-10-07, 08:16 PM	. I would argue in my campaigns that clerics (etc.) who use the appropriate feat and were divine casters before the Times of Troubles have still access to the divine essence of the original deity. All those who joined the faiths after the ToT will be answered by the now dominant deity (e.g. Shar, Lolth), who will simply cut out any direct links to the old deity. They are both powerful enough to block out any transfer too, if total dominance is what they are after (remember that in Lolth's case, Finder did take up a few bits and pieces of Moander's portfolios etc.). Furthermore, people are not always aware that their deity is actually dead and someone else is maskerading. In that respect, once the old clergy has gone, the maskerading deities may even cut the link to the dead deity's essence entirely (or prevent it from being accessed), making it truly die. You see, there are many options about that could be used and this Servant of the Fallen feat offers many a good cliffhanger for all those who want to reintroduce some of the nasty folk of old, like Bhaal. It is actually stated in the original "Faiths and Avatars" or whatsnot it's name, that a true follower can only be fooled so long into believing a god who is pretending to be another. Said god can keep it up only so long until the TRUE follower finds out. If said follower after that still decides to support the fake deity, thats his choice, but no god can indefinately fool a true follower of a certain god.
Burningspear 04-10-07, 08:36 PM	It is actually stated in the original "Faiths and Avatars" or whatsnot it's name, that a true follower can only be fooled so long into believing a god who is pretending to be another. Said god can keep it up only so long until the TRUE follower finds out. If said follower after that still decides to support the fake deity, thats his choice, but no god can indefinitely fool a true follower of a certain god. With this in mind, i am still holding the opinion that the original god gets back his original portfolio and all the followers with it that he originally had (from AO) upon his return within the pantheon. Werther or not he was the original deity who held said portfolio or not is important up till a certain degree. It is difficult i have to agree to debate who held what portfolio originally in some cases, but in a lot of cases, its very clear. Per example: Shar holds now many of the Portfolio's Ilbrandul held previously, Caverns, Dungeons, The Underdark at least, and i think he held more, but i cant check that, as my old books are still abroad :( So if he was to return to life (doubtfull unfortunately, as she is mistress of forgetfulness, and she will keep such knowledge deeply hidden, but cant keep it from a true follower of Ilbrandul!!!), he would at least have to get 1 of those portfolio's back, as that was his core reason for existing as a god in the first place.
Ramar Aulinvox 04-10-07, 09:50 PM	It is actually stated in the original "Faiths and Avatars" or whatsnot it's name, that a true follower can only be fooled so long into believing a god who is pretending to be another. Said god can keep it up only so long until the TRUE follower finds out. If said follower after that still decides to support the fake deity, thats his choice, but no god can indefinately fool a true follower of a certain god. I don't know about that. If the follower is one who is devoted to the god and not the ideals of the god, then the follower would probably just do as his/her god commands him/her to do. If the follower is one who is devoted to the ideals of the god and not the god per se, then sooner or later s/he would probably figure it out and stop worshiping the new god. Reminds me of the old Plato argument about what good is; is something good because the gods say it is so or do the gods say something is good becuase it is good independent of them [it's been a while so the quote may be a little off]. For those that believe the sooner, then whatever their "god" said would be what they would believe is good and right to do. For the later, the ideals along with the god is what matters and once the god began changing the ideals a huge cloud of cognitive dissonance comes over them and they have to deal with it.
Gray Richardson 04-11-07, 02:23 AM	i am still holding the opinion that the original god gets back his original portfolio and all the followers with it that he originally had (from AO) upon his return within the pantheon.Not sure if that is true. If we take into account the recent resurrection of Bane, he did not get back all his portfolios. Cyric still has Strife. He did not automatically get back all his followers. Many of them had switched to Cyric and were not necessarily interested in switching back. Granted that Cyric did not take Bane's name (as far as I know, although I suppose it is possible that Cyric tried to usurp Bane's name as an alias). But when Bane came back he did not get all his former worshipers or portfolios back. I can see your argument that if the worshipers are giving their allegiance to the name and not the god, that perhaps the power should revert to the god that can claim the name, but even if a god comes back from the dead and tries to claim his name, I am not so sure he would be entitled to it. When people die (or more specifically are declared legally dead) title to their houses and cars and other property passes. Even if they are found alive on a deserted island 12 years later, they don't automatically get their stuff back. But these questions of deific identity are more complex than you suggest and I don't think the answer is obvious. Surely there must be a definitive answer, but since there doesn't seem to be a precedent so far (that I am aware of) I don't think we can say for sure what would happen one way or the other until it really happens in lore or a sourcebook spells out the rule. Until the mystery is solved for us, though, it is certainly fun to speculate.
Zanan 04-11-07, 04:05 AM	It is actually stated in the original "Faiths and Avatars" or whatsnot it's name, that a true follower can only be fooled so long into believing a god who is pretending to be another. Said god can keep it up only so long until the TRUE follower finds out. If said follower after that still decides to support the fake deity, thats his choice, but no god can indefinately fool a true follower of a certain god. Nope. If a god / power was dead in AD&D, it was usually dead - no responses whatsoever. It gets edgy with folk like Orcus, who returned twice and people are still in the wars about his status as Demon Lord or deity; or with Bhaal due to his Bhaalspawn. The latter apparently did set the thing rolling again and if people find the means of calling on "dead" deities, they may resurrect them (in one way/status or another). Do note that deities as such are not entirely "dead", their essence is floating in the astral plane (methinks) and is guarded by Anubis (methinks II, Fabius Maximus?). The novel Finder's Bane has some sample of this. So they are not entirely gone. Having said that, powerful deities like Shar and Lolth - posing as other deities after having taken over their portfolios - should IMHO be able to block any access routes to the old ones. That is not to say that any contact shall be impossible (what's impossible in a fantasy setting ;) ), of course. A decent ritual, a special lore book, take your pick. And it might not even be obvious to the performer / reader that he wakens a slumbering deity. (Though, as I have said, it could well be that neither clergy nor followers are actually aware of their deity's demise as long as they receive spells et al to their prayers etc..)