Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Puggle Halfwine 02-15-07, 02:02 AM	I'd like to atone my cleric to Berna, goddess of forgiveness. What exactly do I need to do here? Can a priest of this deity be found easily enough to simply assume I can find an atonement and pay the cost at the beginning of a module (especially given her portfolio)? Does the priest have to be specifically listed in a module? Anyone know?
cycloptic_squirrel 02-15-07, 02:10 AM	Few ways to go, from my understanding. 1) The most reliable way is to request a special mission for it. 2) You could just hope there's an opportunity written into a module. 3) I'm not sure if just running into a high level NPC cleric would be enough. Without more guidance, if I were a DM, I might allow it depending on module constraints, NPC motivations, and most importantly how you portray your character. 4)A PC cast attonement should work, but they'd have to be of the same diety, be high enough level to cast attonement, and be willing to pay the XP costs. I'm certain that the first two methods work. I'm not as sure on the last two, but I think they would. And Berna? What about Lendor? C'mon any god that has the portfolio of parience, knowledge, and bagels deserves a second look. That, and Eric the Scholar would really like to meet another Lendorite.
gomeztoo 02-15-07, 02:54 AM	The answer is: Ask Your Triad. At ;least, that's what I did.
clannagh 02-25-07, 05:46 PM	I'd like to atone my cleric to Berna, goddess of forgiveness. What exactly do I need to do here? Can a priest of this deity be found easily enough to simply assume I can find an atonement and pay the cost at the beginning of a module (especially given her portfolio)? Does the priest have to be specifically listed in a module? Anyone know? My local triad required a substantial gc payment to cover the XP loss of the NPC cleric and the expenditure of a number of Time units in religious contemplation. In addition being a non-regional deity the PC was not allowed to atone to regain his abilities until he played a mod in an appropriate region/large city.
Lupo 02-25-07, 06:56 PM	ok, i have a similar question or at least somehow related question ;) i have a cleric of obad-hai (level 4 now, one adventure short of level 5); he was build around "divine metamagic [quicken]" and choose of two elemental domains and is now more or less totally nerfed. all my tries to come up with a build that feels right for him haven't yet yielded a sustainable character. even with the free retraining of DMM and the soon to get level retrain, i am just not satisfied with the obvious suspect "divine ward" etc. :mad: alternative is atoning to a deity with "radiant servant of mighty cheese", as this seem to be the obvious path for clerics with a surplus "extra turning" feat :rolleyes: what about atoning toward a druid of obad-hai?????? if my cleric atones to druid his feat "extra turning" will at once become "un-choosable" so can i do another immediate retraining then?? ciao martin m. ps: innspa/adri/ahlissa sports lots of druids, the character background will easily allow a switch to druid. pps: i admit that my new build would be summoner druid: spell focus [conjuration], augmented summoning, rapid spell and then metamagic school focus [conjuration]
copper_wyrmling 02-25-07, 07:02 PM	what about atoning toward a druid of obad-hai?????? if my cleric atones to druid his feat "extra turning" will at once become "un-choosable" so can i do another immediate retraining then?? I'm pretty sure there's no provision in the Core rules for "atoning" from cleric to druid, apart from just multiclassing cleric / druid (if you switched deities as part of that, of course you would require an Atonement to avoid losing cleric powers). The change-of-deity rules just let you change deity: your class levels all remain the same. Sorry :(
pedr 02-25-07, 07:21 PM	Remember that you are allowed to petition your triad for permission for a more substantial change. You're not guaranteed to get it, but you can ask!
Lupo 02-25-07, 07:31 PM	I'm pretty sure there's no provision in the Core rules for "atoning" from cleric to druid, apart from just multiclassing cleric / druid (if you switched deities as part of that, of course you would require an Atonement to avoid losing cleric powers). The change-of-deity rules just let you change deity: your class levels all remain the same. Sorry :( so far i haven't found anything that promotes a multiclass combination of cleric/druid :( there are just near to no synergies only partly overlappings. and the multiclassing towards druid levels also don't solve the "feat problem" of the character. :weep: my druid suffered less from the new LGCS than this poor soul. it is simply disappointing, i have some other two characters around level four, so it wouldn't be a "game opportunity" breach if i just retire the character, but it is sad to loose a character this way. may such a "special" switch be gained through a "special mission"??? then i only have to fast-talk some triad members into it ;), and i even know a regional plot item to hook the special mission to :). can someone write his own character's "special mission"??? in the sense of the plot outline that has to be fleshed out by someone else with encounters and sufficient challenges?? ciao martin m.
clannagh 02-25-07, 07:51 PM	so far i haven't found anything that promotes a multiclass combination of cleric/druid :( there are just near to no synergies only partly overlappings. ummh .. mystic theurge ??? arcane heirophant ?????
magebeast 02-25-07, 08:43 PM	ummh .. mystic theurge ??? arcane heirophant ????? Both of these require an arcane spellcasting class.
Madfox11 02-26-07, 04:50 AM	I am not entirely sure how the elemental domains correlate with Divine Metamagic feats, since you could only use the undead turning attempts for Divine Metamagic anyway. In any event, if you feel that something has become useless due to changes in the LGCS, you should contact your triad to ask whether or not you can exchange stuff for free. In case of feats, you should remember that you can retrain when leveling, meaning that you can remove feats such as Extra Turning (which you are not allow to exchange for free). You are not allowed to exchange class levels, and to be honest, I am always surprised when people complain about their character being ruined by the removal of one feat or even a spell. It also shows that you should be really carefull when designing a PC around a single trick, since you are making the character really vulnerable to changes (especially since if that single trick is really worth the investment it is likely to be overpowered). Than again, I belong to the group of players who completely seperate concept from abilities, so I admit my view on the problem is likely to be different. As for the atonement question, Gomez is completely right, your best method to deal with this is to ask your local triad. They do not have to comply though, especially if there are no clerics of 9th level or higher of the new deity within your region. As for PCs casting the atonement spell when it costs xp for the caster, that is actually an intrigueing question, and something worth discussing with my fellow circle members... Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
Maesto 02-26-07, 07:13 AM	Personally, I don't see why an atonement to a new deity should cost the caster XP. Seriously. If I am a cleric of X and I go against X's ethos, then I need an XP costing atonement to get back to X. If I am a cleric of X and find that my life's outlook is so much more in line with the outlook of Y, then why shouldn't a cleric of Y welcome me into the fold? I certainly haven't done anything wrong against Y, have I?
Lupo 02-26-07, 07:13 AM	I am not entirely sure how the elemental domains correlate with Divine Metamagic feats, since you could only use the undead turning attempts for Divine Metamagic anyway. lots of useful spells that would have been casted as a swift action, i am not in the camp of cheese weasels who want to fuel divine feats that state or hint to negative or positive energy with elemental or floral energy ;). (although i would love to have some more useful elemental turning powered feats. but this is a problem of WotC R&D, and they seem busy hammering out half-baked rules: a cursed item falls of a wildshaping druid . . . .;) ). In any event, if you feel that something has become useless due to changes in the LGCS, you should contact your triad to ask whether or not you can exchange stuff for free. In case of feats, you should remember that you can retrain when leveling, meaning that you can remove feats such as Extra Turning (which you are not allow to exchange for free). You are not allowed to exchange class levels, and to be honest, I am always surprised when people complain about their character being ruined by the removal of one feat or even a spell. It also shows that you should be really carefull when designing a PC around a single trick, since you are making the character really vulnerable to changes (especially since if that single trick is really worth the investment it is likely to be overpowered). Than again, I belong to the group of players who completely seperate concept from abilities, so I admit my view on the problem is likely to be different. with the latest LGCS i have noted a slight drought of "power-tricks" toward certain classes. i will start a discussion over at infinite monkeys and the rules section of this board on it. As for the atonement question, Gomez is completely right, your best method to deal with this is to ask your local triad. They do not have to comply though, especially if there are no clerics of 9th level or higher of the new deity within your region. As for PCs casting the atonement spell when it costs xp for the caster, that is actually an intrigueing question, and something worth discussing with my fellow circle members... Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns i just came up with the cleric-druid-switch to keep the change in line with the character's background story, he would then concentrate on elemental summonings ;) and it seems a likely move for a cleric of a deity that actually promotes both, druids and clerics. the 9th level druid is simple, she is there, somewhere in the vast adrie or not, you know, she had this terrible accident lately. and going on a quest to find her or her remains or her soul would be a nice "special mission", wouldn't it??? ;) ciao martin m.
gomeztoo 02-26-07, 08:28 AM	Yes, except Special Missions may not affect regional plotlines, and this sounds like it does (if it's an important NPC). Btw: note that atonement is actually available as a scroll ;) Go figure. Gomez
Lupo 02-26-07, 08:36 AM	Yes, except Special Missions may not affect regional plotlines, and this sounds like it does (if it's an important NPC). Btw: note that atonement is actually available as a scroll ;) Go figure. Gomez no, she isn't important any longer, she lost her job to this cute halfling druid ;) :eek: can a cleric buy the scroll and cast "atonement" on himself??? ciao martin m.
Mortepierre 02-26-07, 08:59 AM	can a cleric buy the scroll and cast "atonement" on himself??? An intriguing question. After all, if you are a priest of the deity concerned, I don't see why you couldn't petition your god for forgiveness yourself. On the other hand, if your deity is angry at you, I would understand why it wouldn't feel like listening to your plea so it's generally a good idea to ask a cleric still in favor to do it for you. That said, remember that - unless you've got access - you can't buy an Atonement scroll since it costs more than the 750 gp limit.
Britt 02-26-07, 11:06 AM	Yes, except Special Missions may not affect regional plotlines, and this sounds like it does (if it's an important NPC). Btw: note that atonement is actually available as a scroll ;) Go figure. Gomez That's the sans XP cost version, which doesn't help with changing gods.
gomeztoo 02-26-07, 12:15 PM	That's the sans XP cost version, which doesn't help with changing gods. Well, the description of atonement doesn't actually mention changing gods. I can imagine a deity may charge xp for drawing into the fold someone who can't make up his/her mind on who to worship ;) And I guess it does qualify as an 'act of a knowing and willful nature'. I assume you can't cast the spell from scroll and THEN pay the xp? (heh. Imagine Nesalia trotting around with such a scroll - plus a scroll of Owl's Wisdom so she can actually cast it ofocurse!)
Britt 02-26-07, 12:19 PM	Nope. Scrolls have to either have the XP cost included or don't work for uses that require the XP cost. Changing gods is willful in 99% of cases, which means it would require an XP cost.
gomeztoo 02-26-07, 01:50 PM	Drat. There goes my nifty and unnecessarily convoluted plan to convert every PC in LG to the faith of Aasterinian...
Gallaway 03-02-07, 01:17 AM	So if you were unwillingly converted to a new faith by a Evangelist and chose in character to keep the new faith a normal atonement would do ?
King Kashue 03-03-07, 09:09 PM	Drat. There goes my nifty and unnecessarily convoluted plan to convert every PC in LG to the faith of Aasterinian... Well, there is also the small issue of 95% of PCs not actually being able to legally worship Aasterinian in LG :D
LGMoses 03-03-07, 11:32 PM	What is the most worshipped deity in LG?
King Kashue 03-04-07, 01:11 AM	What is the most worshipped deity in LG? Pelor. Both canonically and according to the sample of 3500+ characters on Nyrond.org. If polytheistic worship is handled properly however (which it only sometimes is), the average person doesn't worship just one diety, they offer worship situationally. When sewing or harvesting time comes, they would offer prayers and offerings to an agricultural deity like Wenta, when beginning a journey, they offer a libation to Fharlanghn, when conscripted into the army, they'd pray to Heironeous or Kord, etc. Pelor, as a Sun god and a god of healing and protection, would get prayed to a ton, since his portfolio covers many day-to-day concerns. The other thing that grinds me about the way Players deal with gods, is how casually they say their names. Divine epithets aren't just poetic, they're pragmatic. You don't say "I'm a servant of Pelor", you say "I'm a servant of the Sun Father". To use a god's name (instead of a divine epithet) is to call on them and draw their attention. Even with benevolent deities, that should only be for blessings, spells, etc., not for casual conversation. Wicked deities are even more dangerous...You don't want to draw the attention of the dark powers at all by tossing their name about freely, since their attentions rarely bring good things.
Puggle Halfwine 03-04-07, 06:36 AM	Just a conclusion to this thread; the atonement cost me ~3,000 gold pieces and 10TUs.
Samwise 03-04-07, 10:09 AM	Pelor. Both canonically and according to the sample of 3500+ characters on Nyrond.org. Canonically? Where? The last I recall, all the greater deities are distant from the Flanaess and have few actual worshipers. An intermediate deity should be the one with the most direct followers. The other thing that grinds me about the way Players deal with gods, is how casually they say their names. Divine epithets aren't just poetic, they're pragmatic. You don't say "I'm a servant of Pelor", you say "I'm a servant of the Sun Father". To use a god's name (instead of a divine epithet) is to call on them and draw their attention. Even with benevolent deities, that should only be for blessings, spells, etc., not for casual conversation. Why? Perhaps I like having my deities attention. Perhaps I want him constantly seeing what I'm up to, checking out the deeds I am performing in his name, seeing how I make others aware of the driving force behind my actions.
gomeztoo 03-04-07, 11:32 AM	Quite a few people are not very aware of the titles. I only know a few myself. When you that you serve the Sun father, quite some players' reactions will be: - "Who?" Using the titles is a good rp, but using the names can speed up play ;) My main btw always uses the names (ans purposefully disregards titles), but she is believes you should name things for what they are, and she has no trouble drawing the attention of Vecna or Iuz, particularly since she basically faced both in person already (not that those were victorious encounters, but she lived).
Britt 03-04-07, 01:06 PM	Quite a few people are not very aware of the titles. I only know a few myself. When you that you serve the Sun father, quite some players' reactions will be: - "Who?" Using the titles is a good rp, but using the names can speed up play ;) My main btw always uses the names (ans purposefully disregards titles), but she is believes you should name things for what they are, and she has no trouble drawing the attention of Vecna or Iuz, particularly since she basically faced both in person already (not that those were victorious encounters, but she lived). I know where Vecna appeared, but I only know of one time that Iuz ever appeared and it was tangential and the PCs never faced him. What time are you talking about?
gomeztoo 03-04-07, 02:10 PM	I know where Vecna appeared, but I only know of one time that Iuz ever appeared and it was tangential and the PCs never faced him. What time are you talking about? Well, Iuz is probably questionable, in that he didn't actually physically appear. Nesalia 'faced' him when she took a book that belonged to him (well, we were there to collect documents - nobody saifd books that bleed didn't qualify). He appeared in her mind and declared his wrath. Since she saw him, he saw her, and the message was particularly personal, I concider that a face-off. Btw, I have yet to meet anyone else who did that. All parties I heared off were too spooked of the book to even touch it. Do people know how many incurred the Wrath of Iuz? I can hardly be the only one.
King Kashue 03-04-07, 02:51 PM	Canonically? Where? The last I recall, all the greater deities are distant from the Flanaess and have few actual worshipers. An intermediate deity should be the one with the most direct followers. No, there should be few that hold greater Gods as sole patrons, the greater gods receive a great deal of worship (That's from the 1983 World of Greyhawk Setting)...They're greater gods because of their portfolios. Beory is a greater goddess, do you think no one is giving offerings to the Oerth Mother? And the reference to Pelor is in the Dieties and Demigods. Why? Perhaps I like having my deities attention. Perhaps I want him constantly seeing what I'm up to, checking out the deeds I am performing in his name, seeing how I make others aware of the driving force behind my actions. It's not about you "liking his attention", it's about not wasting your deity's time on trivial matters like when you introduce yourself at the bar. Saying the deity's name is not just "saying" it, you're "invoking" it...Now, if your casting a spell, or blessing someone, or rebuking an evildoer, then you're all set...If you're trying to get a barmaid to boff you, it's something less than reverential to the god you supposedly serve...
gomeztoo 03-04-07, 03:17 PM	Except that someone mentioned that using a deity's title also draws attention. And I hardly think that by speaking a name you are distracting the deity. I see it more as a matter of respect. Priests would be inclined to use titles because it is respectful to do so. It would (imo) be 'very proper'. But again, we cannot actually expect ever player to agree with that sentiment (or be aware), and if they do (like me) for every PC to think like that. My PC may refer to her goddess as the Messenger of Io (when she does mention her, which is almost never), but Aasterinian simply works better.
King Kashue 03-04-07, 03:28 PM	Except that someone mentioned that using a deity's title also draws attention. Not in this thread they haven't. :D And I hardly think that by speaking a name you are distracting the deity. I see it more as a matter of respect. Priests would be inclined to use titles because it is respectful to do so. It would (imo) be 'very proper'. I didn't say you were distracting the deity, I said you were drawing his/her attention, which you are. When you draw the attention for a proper matter, it's a good thing, when it's for a trivial matter, it's not. But again, we cannot actually expect ever player to agree with that sentiment (or be aware), and if they do (like me) for every PC to think like that. My PC may refer to her goddess as the Messenger of Io (when she does mention her, which is almost never), but Aasterinian simply works better. Nor can we expect every player to use proper English, or not cheeseball powergame, or not make tactical errors that get people killed... But I can still be annoyed by it :D
Samwise 03-04-07, 07:07 PM	No, there should be few that hold greater Gods as sole patrons, the greater gods receive a great deal of worship (That's from the 1983 World of Greyhawk Setting)...They're greater gods because of their portfolios. Beory is a greater goddess, do you think no one is giving offerings to the Oerth Mother? The specific line is: "In general, the greater <deities> are too far removed from the world to have much to do with humanity, and while they are worshiped, few people hold them as patrons." That says nothing about are a "great deal," and definitely nothing about pre-eminence. And the reference to Pelor is in the Dieties and Demigods. Which is not a Greyhawk sourcebook. So it applies to the generic Pelor of Core D&D, which is what the pantheon is listed as, and not the Pelor of Greyhawk. It's not about you "liking his attention", it's about not wasting your deity's time on trivial matters like when you introduce yourself at the bar. Saying the deity's name is not just "saying" it, you're "invoking" it...Now, if your casting a spell, or blessing someone, or rebuking an evildoer, then you're all set...If you're trying to get a barmaid to boff you, it's something less than reverential to the god you supposedly serve... I think Olidamarra would be very interested in me picking up the barmaid. Likewise Kord, Myrhiss, and several other deities. Many would be interested in what leader or patron I am talking to. Others would want to know what general people I am associating with. It is all a matter of your deity and his interests.
King Kashue 03-04-07, 08:56 PM	The specific line is: "In general, the greater <deities> are too far removed from the world to have much to do with humanity, and while they are worshiped, few people hold them as patrons." That says nothing about are a "great deal," and definitely nothing about pre-eminence. How does that even make sense? Greater gods aren't worshiped a lot?...You've got something to back that up, right? They're greater gods because of their portfolios, Earth Mother, Sky Father, God of Death, day-to-day stuff...Especially in the original conception of D&D, worship = strength, the greater gods are the greater gods because they are worshiped. And note, I said "if polytheism is done correctly", as in, "if it's treated like the historical precedents after which it's explicitly modeled"... I think Olidamarra would be very interested in me picking up the barmaid. Likewise Kord, Myrhiss, and several other deities. Many would be interested in what leader or patron I am talking to. Others would want to know what general people I am associating with. It is all a matter of your deity and his interests. If you're actually invoking your god while you do those things, you're absolutely correct, and with Myrhiss or Olidammara, you could be... Of course, Olidammara might get offended you can't spell his name properly... ;)
Samwise 03-04-07, 09:05 PM	How does that even make sense? Greater gods aren't worshiped a lot?...You've got something to back that up, right? What more do I need to back it up? I quoted the relevant passage. They're greater gods because of their portfolios, Earth Mother, Sky Father, God of Death, day-to-day stuff...Especially in the original conception of D&D, worship = strength, the greater gods are the greater gods because they are worshiped. Ah. No. That theory has long been supplanted. Perhaps for intermediate and lesser deities power is directly dependant on number of worshipers, but greater deities draw power directly from their portfolios, and are not dependant on worshipers. There are statements to back that up all through D&D material. And note, I said "if polytheism is done correctly", as in, "if it's treated like the historical precedents after which it's explicitly modeled"... Perhaps Greyhawk, and indeed most D&D setting, don't have a truly polytheistic set up? In which case polytheism isn't doing D&D correctly, and should not be used at the model at all. If you're actually invoking your god while you do those things, you're absolutely correct, and with Myrhiss or Olidammara, you could be... Of course, Olidammara might get offended you can't spell his name properly... ;) He's a sphaeroidally enrolling critter with a penchant for music and tipple. I doubt he pays much attention if anyone spells his name right!
King Kashue 03-04-07, 09:21 PM	What more do I need to back it up? I quoted the relevant passage. That passage says nothing about how much they are worshiped, merely that few people hold them as patrons. Worship != sole devotion, it's the difference between "Worshipers" and "Followers" Ah. No. That theory has long been supplanted. Perhaps for intermediate and lesser deities power is directly dependant on number of worshipers, but greater deities draw power directly from their portfolios, and are not dependant on worshipers. There are statements to back that up all through D&D material. Ah, but we're talking about original intent, so what has or hasn't been supplanted isn't as relevant (and there are gods who have declined from Greater status, so it's not so certain as you say)... As for drawing power from their portfolios, do you not see how that contradicts what you're saying? Their portfolios are powerful because they include the things people are concerned with on a day-to-day basis. If that's the case, how is it that people are not making offerings to the gods who deal with their day-to-day concerns? It's illogical to say "The Greater Gods are Greater gods because they control the stuff everyone is concerned about" and then say "people don't worship the greater gods"...If they're concerned about the elements of the portfolios, they're going to supplicate to the gods who control those elements... Perhaps Greyhawk, and indeed most D&D setting, don't have a truly polytheistic set up? In which case polytheism isn't doing D&D correctly, and should not be used at the model at all. It's sort of the explicit model...All the D&D material (at least the early stuff) distinguishes between "Worshipers" and "Followers"...
Samwise 03-04-07, 09:41 PM	That passage says nothing about how much they are worshiped, merely that few people hold them as patrons. Worship != sole devotion, it's the difference between "Worshipers" and "Followers" And? There is also a difference between random prayers and true dedication. Otherwise you must count everyone who tries to appease Incabulos as a "worshiper" of Incabulos. Ah, but we're talking about original intent, so what has or hasn't been supplanted isn't as relevant (and there are gods who have declined from Greater status, so it's not so certain as you say)... No, we are talking about the sum total of Greyhawk canon and the current state of affairs, so what has been supplanted in the rules about power levels of deities is quite relevant. As for the dropping in rank from the 83 set to FtA, that had nothing to do with a lack of worshipers. In fact the new intermediate level was filled with deities most commonly worshiped, with both promoted lesser deities and "demonted" greater deities, leaving the great deities rather exclusively those regarded as primal creator types no longer directly involved with Oerth. As for drawing power from their portfolios, do you not see how that contradicts what you're saying? Their portfolios are powerful because they include the things people are concerned with on a day-to-day basis. If that's the case, how is it that people are not making offerings to the gods who deal with their day-to-day concerns? It doesn't contradict it at all. Interaction, even concern, with some element of a portfolio does not equal devotion, or even recognition, of the deity responsible for it. The sun shines on everyone. That doesn't mean everyone thinks of Pelor when it does. Indeed, many think of Pholtus, and some think of Lydia! It's illogical to say "The Greater Gods are Greater gods because they control the stuff everyone is concerned about" and then say "people don't worship the greater gods"...If they're concerned about the elements of the portfolios, they're going to supplicate to the gods who control those elements... Of course I didn't say that, so the only failure of logic is on your part. Therefore I will have to leave it to you to justify that concept, as I never even suggested it. It's sort of the explicit model...All the D&D material (at least the early stuff) distinguishes between "Worshipers" and "Followers"... It did? Looking in the 83 set I see only an entry for worshipers alignment. FtA has cleric alignment and worshipers alignment. The PGtG has alignment and worshipers. What early stuff are you looking at?
King Kashue 03-04-07, 10:22 PM	And? There is also a difference between random prayers and true dedication. Otherwise you must count everyone who tries to appease Incabulos as a "worshiper" of Incabulos. Of course there's a difference, that's something I mentioned in my very first post. But there's also a difference between making an offering to Pelor to make the sun shine on your crops, and hoping that Incabulos doesn't spread disease among your cattle...In fact, you'd likely be praying to another diety to work against Incabulos, not making any sacrifice to him directly... It doesn't contradict it at all. Interaction, even concern, with some element of a portfolio does not equal devotion, or even recognition, of the deity responsible for it. The sun shines on everyone. That doesn't mean everyone thinks of Pelor when it does. Indeed, many think of Pholtus, and some think of Lydia! That multiple deities are thought of isn't the point. It's a matter of "who do you make an offering to when you want sun to shine on your crops, or rain to fall"? For Sun, it's Pelor, more than any other... I'm not claiming devotion, that's a matter of patronage and service. Worship is prayers and offerings, quite different than sole devotion. Of course I didn't say that, so the only failure of logic is on your part. Therefore I will have to leave it to you to justify that concept, as I never even suggested it. You're the one saying few people worship the greater gods, if you're not, let me know...I'm not the one who needs to explain why few people are worshiping the Oerth Mother... It did? Looking in the 83 set I see only an entry for worshipers alignment. FtA has cleric alignment and worshipers alignment. The PGtG has alignment and worshipers. What early stuff are you looking at? Look in the 83 set, the individual entries mention both worshipers and followers... I'm not going to continue with this...Right now we're debating what two dozen different authors did or didn't mean when they created (and then changed, and changed again) a belief system in an imaginary world...It's too trivial even for me to care about... I see a difference between worship and devotion, between a god directly intervening and a god influencing. You don't see the same difference. I see a world modeled after historical polytheism, where people make situational offerings, you don't...I'm cool with that...As I said, I really don't care...
Samwise 03-04-07, 10:48 PM	Of course there's a difference, that's something I mentioned in my very first post. Excpet you want to get rid of that difference by saying any recognition whatsoever constitutes worship. It seems you have the inconsistency. But there's also a difference between making an offering to Pelor to make the sun shine on your crops, and hoping that Incabulos doesn't spread disease among your cattle...In fact, you'd likely be praying to another diety to work against Incabulos, not making any sacrifice to him directly... Except there are references that say the exact opposite, that people make the offerings directly to Incabulos, for example, not to opposing deities. That multiple deities are thought of isn't the point. It's a matter of "who do you make an offering to when you want sun to shine on your crops, or rain to fall"? For Sun, it's Pelor, more than any other... According to what source? I'm not claiming devotion, that's a matter of patronage and service. Worship is prayers and offerings, quite different than sole devotion. Fpr a deity to derive power it has to be a bit more than a random prayer or offering with no true feeling. You're the one saying few people worship the greater gods, if you're not, let me know...I'm not the one who needs to explain why few people are worshiping the Oerth Mother... I already did explain it. Just because you don't like the explanation doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and isn't supported by references. Look in the 83 set, the individual entries mention both worshipers and followers... I am. (As in "as I type this.") It doesn't. The Guide just has details about the deities, with some notes about where the deity is worshiped, and some very general comments about who worships them. The Glossography has an entry for worshiper's alignment, sometimes with a restriction on cleric alignment noted, but no entry for followers. It has no separate, distinct, direct entres making a distinction between worshipers and followers. And to note, Pelor is not detailed in the 83 set. Odd omission that. I'm not going to continue with this...Right now we're debating what two dozen different authors did or didn't mean when they created (and then changed, and changed again) a belief system in an imaginary world...It's even too trivial for me to care about... Actually there have been less only eight authors of Greyhawk setting books, assuming we include both Anne Brown and Roger Moore GH 98, and all four authors of the LGG. So the real difference seems to be over what the content is, and it is not what you recall it being. I see a difference between worship and devotion, between a god directly intervening and a god influencing. You don't see the same difference. I see a world modeled after historical polytheism, where people make situational offerings, you don't...I'm cool with that...As I said, I really don't care... Then why dispute me when I present a different view?
King Kashue 03-04-07, 11:44 PM	Excpet you want to get rid of that difference by saying any recognition whatsoever constitutes worship. It seems you have the inconsistency. You're treating the words like they're technical terms, like "attack roll" and "will save". I'm treating them as words (the sort of technical precision with which we treat language in 3.5 just doesn't work for earlier sources)... Someone is solely devoted to a single deity: I call that "having the deity as a patron" (a phrase from the 83 set, if we want to view these as technical terms). You call that worship. People make an offering to Pelor to heal someone, or light a candle to keep Incabulos from infecting their cattle: I call that worship. You call it nothing. Not agreeing with your definition of worship is not tantamount to having an inconsistency in my own usage... Then why dispute me when I present a different view? Because I think you're being overly rigid in the way you're interpreting the language, and I think you're wrong...I just don't wish to spend any more energy on it than I already have... Don't confuse my unwillingness to spend extra time debating every point of the issue with thinking that your viewpoint is correct...
Samwise 03-05-07, 12:10 AM	You're treating the words like they're technical terms, like "attack roll" and "will save". I'm treating them as words (the sort of technical precision with which we treat language in 3.5 just doesn't work for earlier sources)... And yet you are the one who is providing technical definitions for all the words you are using. It seems you are the one who needs them to have specific, definable, values, not me. All I need is the text of the 83 set, FtA, PGTG, and the LGG. None have any distinction about worshipers and followers that you are creating. Not agreeing with your definition of worship is not tantamount to having an inconsistency in my own usage... No, but creating artificial distinctions, assigning them to me, then insisting it proves an inconsistency in my usage is providing a bunch of strawmen and expecting me to accept that as evidence of any flaw in my reading those entries. Because I think you're being overly rigid in the way you're interpreting the language, and I think you're wrong...I just don't wish to spend any more energy on it than I already have... Then address my comments, don't address your comments and assert they are mine. So far all you have done is proven that you can create a structure for the deities is wrong and present an alternative to it that is equally suspect. Don't confuse an unwillingness to spend time debating every point of the issue with thinking that your viewpoint is correct... I'm not. But don't confuse your debating yourself and claiming victory with thinking that it proves your viewpoint is correct or mine is flawed in any way.
King Kashue 03-05-07, 12:31 AM	And yet you are the one who is providing technical definitions for all the words you are using. It seems you are the one who needs them to have specific, definable, values, not me. All I need is the text of the 83 set, FtA, PGTG, and the LGG. None have any distinction about worshipers and followers that you are creating. Most of the individual deity entries in the 83 set mention both worshipers and followers. I may be reading too much into it, but they don't seem like synonyms (especially since the contrast between worship and holding a diety as a patron is in the first paragraph). You're content with offerings and prayers not being "worship". I'm not. That's the central difference. I write "worship" and you read "devotion". You write worship, and I read "offerings and prayers". We're describing the same systems, but we're using different words, so we each think the other is wrong... Greater Gods: Distant from the world, patron to few. (You see little worship, I see little patronage) Offerings made, little devotion (I call that worship, you call it nothing) It's not even a matter of right or wrong (which is why we were both having issues before, and why you still are now). We aren't even using the same vocabulary.
Samwise 03-05-07, 01:15 AM	Most of the individual deity entries in the 83 set mention both worshipers and followers. I may be reading too much into it, but they don't seem like synonyms (especially since the contrast between worship and holding a diety as a patron is in the first paragraph). You are. Way too much. First, it uses the terms "worship" and "serve," but the context is quite clear that means only the difference between laypersons and actual clerics, not between casual appeasers and invokers and committed members of the faith. Nor does the introductory paragraph establish what constitutes the distinction between worshipers and patronage. Since you want to ignore the context, what you read into it will of course begin to run into problems. You're content with offerings and prayers not being "worship". I'm not. That's the central difference. No, it is not. The central difference also includes whether or not a deities ranking is dependent on the amount of "worship" it gets, of whatever sort. I write "worship" and you read "devotion". You write worship, and I read "offerings and prayers". We're describing the same systems, but we're using different words, so we each think the other is wrong... Only because you are deliberately conflating the terms in order to support your own set up. I can't stop you from doing so deliberately, but I do not have to accept the distinctions you seek to create to cause confusion. Greater Gods: Distant from the world, patron to few. (You see little worship, I see little patronage) And yet the statements about most of the deities indicate that worshipers does not extend to people just seeking to appease them. And now you have another category to define. Who are these people who hold them as patrons? Or is that supposed to be a synonym for follower? Offerings made, little devotion (I call that worship, you call it nothing) I don't call it nothing, I just don't call it worship. You however call appeasement "worship," making thousands of people in the Flanaess into worshipers of Incabulos. That such people are not referred to in the 83 set at all would seem to rather directly refute your position. It's not even a matter of right or wrong (which is why we were both having issues before, and why you still are now). We aren't even using the same vocabulary. That is only because you insist on creating these distinctions, then assigning my positions a place within your cosmology that I do not acknowledge as reflecting my positions. Stop debating yourself and insisting you are replying to me. There is a distinction made between actual worship, devoted following, and placating made in several places beyond the 83 set. Whether or not you wish to acknowledge their existence they do in fact exist and are in fact valid source material for the setting. There is a distinction made between a greater deity being distant from the affairs of the world and not requiring direct worship to retain its power and an intermediate or lower ranking deity having more involvement and being more dependant on number of actual worshipers. Again, whether or not you wish to acknowledge this does not mean the distinctions do not exist, or was a factor in how certain things were written. Which, to get back to the single statement I challenged, there is no real support for Pelor being the most worshiped deity in the Flanaess.
King Kashue 03-05-07, 01:29 AM	I'm done...For the purposes of this thread, I'm declaring you the winner of whatever argument you believe you're having...Congratulations...
LGMoses 03-06-07, 02:46 PM	:rofl: