Diety change problem [Archive] - Wizards Community

Diety change problem [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
zifflebrinkle
06-05-06, 04:20 PM I was hoping for a little bit of insight from fellow players and DM's on what might be a possible win/win for a situation that came up this weekend.

A little background on things:

My character was a wizard, then a cleric, then became a mystic theurge. I worshipped Weejas because it allowed me to make a character idea that worked, revolving around worshipping and practicing magic, as well as the fact that we are playing Shackled City, so it worked even better with the story line. I also am playing the side of the cleric a bit stronger than I am the wizard since I am needed for the curative powers.

Well, as it turns out, clerics of weejas cannot channel positive energy, even if they are lawful neutral. This was something that neither me, nor my DM had even thought about since my character is lawful neutral, we both assumed it was simply a choice, as most neutral aligned clerics get a choice at character creation. The fact that I would not have been able to spontaneously cure spells, makes this fact a major game changing relevation, not only to the story line, but to what could have/might have happened differently.

What the DM did was end up penalizing me 20% exp up front for my next level , so that he would not have to calculate exp penalties in the future for my "epiphany" and change of diety to Boccob. I personally was not entirely pleased, because I felt as though it was a no fault type issue, and that perhaps some rules could be bent in order to make things flow a little easier.

So, here is my question. Would it make sense that a Diety could allow one to channel positive energy even though it says specifically in the Players Handbook that they cannot, simply for the flow of the game?

Does anyone else have any other suggestions on a way to penalize my character that does not seem so dire, or at least plays on the change in dieties so that there is something more than a number, but more of a roleplay interaction?

Any and all help would be appreciated!!
a_psh
06-06-06, 02:03 AM You can only channel negative energy by RAW; the reason why the devs did it this way is pretty clear (to emphasize her role as a death goddess and give her a bit of evil-but-not-quite flavor), but it's a flavor choice rather than a mechanical one. The stuff in the Player's Handbook, particularly the setting-dependent bits, is a set of suggestions that your group should feel free to modify if your game demands it.

So... Things to consider...

- Did you and the DM think it was reasonable that a cleric of Wee Jas could use positive energy when you started?
Yes. This at least indicates that no one really saw anything wrong with this until you read the PHB. This means there is no deep-seated reason why Wee Jas' clerics can only use negative energy, as far as you're concerned.

- Is it easier to retcon a bunch of things and force your character through a meatgrinder or just ignore one line of flavor-ish text?
The latter, I would argue.

- Would allowing clerics of Wee Jas to channel positive energy break something in your campaign world?
Given that your DM's world was designed around this idea all along and your group is just now noticing the special restriction in the PHB, I would argue it really makes more sense to throw out the special restriction than to retool the campaign setting.
Power-wise, it's likewise a non-issue.

I think the least damaging thing to do is to let the character in question keep his spontaneous healing powers. When the rules don't work for your game, you just have to ignore them a little.
Valthonis
06-06-06, 02:33 AM I'd talk to your DM, see if he's willing to bend the rules on this. neither of you realised that you were going agains't the "rules" for wee jas in the player's guide and if you hadn't noticed there would be no problem. Find out if you can just stick with wee jas and spont. cast your cures. there's no real harm in it.
Sikyanakotik
06-06-06, 03:01 AM By the rules, you can spontaneously cast cure spells, if you become a Lawful Good cleric of Wee Jas. You could also take the Spontaneous Healer feat in Complete Divine.
Rolof
06-06-06, 03:26 AM @ Sikyanakotik: Is it even possible to be a LG cleric of that
god? Too lazy to look and figure it out at the moment.

As to the original poster, I'm not sure why your DM wants
to impose an exp point penalty...seems to me that both of
you share the blame for the oversight. In my opinion, it'd
be better to use it as a roleplaying hook, possibly having a
moral dilemna resulting in you changing alignments and/or
deities. In the meantime, simply not allowing you to do the
spontaneous healing thing anymore, of course. Or possibly
even allowing you to continue to do so; but the character is
ostracized from the temples of Wee Jas as the hierarchy of
the religion realize that the character is a heretic, and has
really been drawing power from another deity while paying
only lip service to Wee Jas. That of course would require an
alignment change, but as far as I know, there are no longer
any rules for losing experience when switching alignments.

It's one thing to voluntarily accept an experience penalty,
something I did once when an evil character of mine began
to reform himself back when the rules said that you had to
take the penalty for switching. Quite another to have it just
arbitrarily imposed on you to save some thought and effort.
Wuggadad
06-06-06, 08:32 PM I got specific permission from my GM to have a Rebuke Undead, Spontaneous Healer PC.

The price is that the GM gets to have someone/thing particularly unsavory in my PC's ancestry. Also, my PC managed to serious spook her church hierarchy, so she is on a spiritual journey to meet various religious experts to find out how much of a problem it is.

The thing is, spontaneous healing is also a big part of her character. She has Augmented Healing, and feels that part of the obligation of a healer is to try to heal all who need it. That means applying medical attention to the KOed orcs, (after knocking their weapons away, and making sure no party members need it). I do hope my PC survives her encounter with the PC ranger, (favored enemy orcs), over whether or not said ranger will kill my patients. :)

I figure that one of the things that could come out is that the _only_ reason my character has been able to retain Spontaneous Healing after commanding undead is her devotion to healing. It would be fair, in my opinion, for my character to lose spontaneous healing if she ever refuses to help someone, or if she uses her healing powers in support of torture, or a whole bunch of other ways.

She has a special dispensation from the GM to draw from both positive and negative energy for different purposes, and she has to walk a careful path to keep both.
Voldar_Mecorthio
06-06-06, 10:28 PM What you are talking about is fluff vs crunch. THOSE TWO SHOULD NEVER CONFLICT!! Your DM should allow you to covert free of charge, as it is a purely fluff change and should not penalize crunch. Your RPing would probibly change, but your casting should not.

If your DM disagrees he should be forced to eat a hammer. Let him have salt with it though, hammers taste terrable without it. :P

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
zifflebrinkle 06-05-06, 04:20 PM	I was hoping for a little bit of insight from fellow players and DM's on what might be a possible win/win for a situation that came up this weekend. A little background on things: My character was a wizard, then a cleric, then became a mystic theurge. I worshipped Weejas because it allowed me to make a character idea that worked, revolving around worshipping and practicing magic, as well as the fact that we are playing Shackled City, so it worked even better with the story line. I also am playing the side of the cleric a bit stronger than I am the wizard since I am needed for the curative powers. Well, as it turns out, clerics of weejas cannot channel positive energy, even if they are lawful neutral. This was something that neither me, nor my DM had even thought about since my character is lawful neutral, we both assumed it was simply a choice, as most neutral aligned clerics get a choice at character creation. The fact that I would not have been able to spontaneously cure spells, makes this fact a major game changing relevation, not only to the story line, but to what could have/might have happened differently. What the DM did was end up penalizing me 20% exp up front for my next level , so that he would not have to calculate exp penalties in the future for my "epiphany" and change of diety to Boccob. I personally was not entirely pleased, because I felt as though it was a no fault type issue, and that perhaps some rules could be bent in order to make things flow a little easier. So, here is my question. Would it make sense that a Diety could allow one to channel positive energy even though it says specifically in the Players Handbook that they cannot, simply for the flow of the game? Does anyone else have any other suggestions on a way to penalize my character that does not seem so dire, or at least plays on the change in dieties so that there is something more than a number, but more of a roleplay interaction? Any and all help would be appreciated!!
a_psh 06-06-06, 02:03 AM	You can only channel negative energy by RAW; the reason why the devs did it this way is pretty clear (to emphasize her role as a death goddess and give her a bit of evil-but-not-quite flavor), but it's a flavor choice rather than a mechanical one. The stuff in the Player's Handbook, particularly the setting-dependent bits, is a set of suggestions that your group should feel free to modify if your game demands it. So... Things to consider... - Did you and the DM think it was reasonable that a cleric of Wee Jas could use positive energy when you started? Yes. This at least indicates that no one really saw anything wrong with this until you read the PHB. This means there is no deep-seated reason why Wee Jas' clerics can only use negative energy, as far as you're concerned. - Is it easier to retcon a bunch of things and force your character through a meatgrinder or just ignore one line of flavor-ish text? The latter, I would argue. - Would allowing clerics of Wee Jas to channel positive energy break something in your campaign world? Given that your DM's world was designed around this idea all along and your group is just now noticing the special restriction in the PHB, I would argue it really makes more sense to throw out the special restriction than to retool the campaign setting. Power-wise, it's likewise a non-issue. I think the least damaging thing to do is to let the character in question keep his spontaneous healing powers. When the rules don't work for your game, you just have to ignore them a little.
Valthonis 06-06-06, 02:33 AM	I'd talk to your DM, see if he's willing to bend the rules on this. neither of you realised that you were going agains't the "rules" for wee jas in the player's guide and if you hadn't noticed there would be no problem. Find out if you can just stick with wee jas and spont. cast your cures. there's no real harm in it.
Sikyanakotik 06-06-06, 03:01 AM	By the rules, you can spontaneously cast cure spells, if you become a Lawful Good cleric of Wee Jas. You could also take the Spontaneous Healer feat in Complete Divine.
Rolof 06-06-06, 03:26 AM	@ Sikyanakotik: Is it even possible to be a LG cleric of that god? Too lazy to look and figure it out at the moment. As to the original poster, I'm not sure why your DM wants to impose an exp point penalty...seems to me that both of you share the blame for the oversight. In my opinion, it'd be better to use it as a roleplaying hook, possibly having a moral dilemna resulting in you changing alignments and/or deities. In the meantime, simply not allowing you to do the spontaneous healing thing anymore, of course. Or possibly even allowing you to continue to do so; but the character is ostracized from the temples of Wee Jas as the hierarchy of the religion realize that the character is a heretic, and has really been drawing power from another deity while paying only lip service to Wee Jas. That of course would require an alignment change, but as far as I know, there are no longer any rules for losing experience when switching alignments. It's one thing to voluntarily accept an experience penalty, something I did once when an evil character of mine began to reform himself back when the rules said that you had to take the penalty for switching. Quite another to have it just arbitrarily imposed on you to save some thought and effort.
Wuggadad 06-06-06, 08:32 PM	I got specific permission from my GM to have a Rebuke Undead, Spontaneous Healer PC. The price is that the GM gets to have someone/thing particularly unsavory in my PC's ancestry. Also, my PC managed to serious spook her church hierarchy, so she is on a spiritual journey to meet various religious experts to find out how much of a problem it is. The thing is, spontaneous healing is also a big part of her character. She has Augmented Healing, and feels that part of the obligation of a healer is to try to heal all who need it. That means applying medical attention to the KOed orcs, (after knocking their weapons away, and making sure no party members need it). I do hope my PC survives her encounter with the PC ranger, (favored enemy orcs), over whether or not said ranger will kill my patients. :) I figure that one of the things that could come out is that the _only_ reason my character has been able to retain Spontaneous Healing after commanding undead is her devotion to healing. It would be fair, in my opinion, for my character to lose spontaneous healing if she ever refuses to help someone, or if she uses her healing powers in support of torture, or a whole bunch of other ways. She has a special dispensation from the GM to draw from both positive and negative energy for different purposes, and she has to walk a careful path to keep both.
Voldar_Mecorthio 06-06-06, 10:28 PM	What you are talking about is fluff vs crunch. THOSE TWO SHOULD NEVER CONFLICT!! Your DM should allow you to covert free of charge, as it is a purely fluff change and should not penalize crunch. Your RPing would probibly change, but your casting should not. If your DM disagrees he should be forced to eat a hammer. Let him have salt with it though, hammers taste terrable without it. :P