Amanautor was Lawful Neutral (iirc) in Lost Empires of Faerun. That implies that he will be Unaligned in the new system.
Correct. It's always possible he'll be given a new alignment, though.
It is possiable though that he becomes one of the mostly good alighnments as he was reincarnated from Lathander who was NG.
But if it's true that Lathander and Amaunator are the same being, then thay may not be the case--Lathander came from Amaunator, who was LN, and had a different alignment.
You don't really need a feat to worship a dead or forgotten god in 4e. Since your divine power is not directly from that god, but is bestowed on you in a ritual ordainment by a church, all you need is an active church (or at least a surviving member or two). Since it is likely that some fragment of Lathander's and Mystra's churches survived, there is justification for taking them as your patron. Also now it is possible to be an Apostate without losing your powers, though attacks from angels and other divine servants might get annoying after a while.
Yea, i'm not allowing that in my 4e games. One thing I've always loved about FR is that if you cast or use divine magic then you MUST have a patron deity. None of that stupid "ideals" stuff that grants you powers in my games. And while the whole ordainment thing is flavorful, direct power from a God is more to my taste. But I see no reason you can't take a feat (it's not like you don't get more anyway) to be granted powers from a dead deity like in 3e.
What's the over-under on good? :D
-Not lookin' too good...
You don't really need a feat to worship a dead or forgotten god in 4e.
-You never needed a feat or anything to worship a dead deity. You needed a little extra to actually yield some "return" on that worship, however. I never liked the Servant of the Fallen feat, though. Bad idea.
And while the whole ordainment thing is flavorful, direct power from a God is more to my taste.
I have mixed feelings about the "ordainment" thing mainly because it seems like once you become a priest, the god you serve doesn't seem to care how you use your power.
-Hold on...Explain to me, this, please.
The PHB doesn't say too much about this (that is, there isn't a lot of detail), but if a priest isn't being true to their god's tenets, it's not the god who does anything--the priest risks the wrath of that god's followers. The "corrupt" priest can keep on using their powers.
Granted, that does sound "realistic", but the premise of 4E D&D is that the gods actually do exist (no question about it). And, from what I recall, the priest is actually ordained with their god's power, so it's not like the deity has zero to do with a cleric's power.
The PHB doesn't say too much about this (that is, there isn't a lot of detail), but if a priest isn't being true to their god's tenets, it's not the god who does anything--the priest risks the wrath of that god's followers. The "corrupt" priest can keep on using their powers.
Granted, that does sound "realistic", but the premise of 4E D&D is that the gods actually do exist (no question about it). And, from what I recall, the priest is actually ordained with their god's power, so it's not like the deity has zero to do with a cleric's power.
-Hmm...That sounds unFaerûnistic, and truthfully, unD&Dalistic.
It actually plays a big role in drow society. If no one can lose favor then the number of rare house wars will become even slimmer.
I always liked the thought that the gods ended up having the ultimate say into who gets what, whenever. They can just pull some power out of a cleric if they don't like what they are doing.
-Being that they are the ones investing the power in you, and granting you the power, and all of that, you'd think that were the case.
The PHB doesn't say too much about this (that is, there isn't a lot of detail), but if a priest isn't being true to their god's tenets, it's not the god who does anything--the priest risks the wrath of that god's followers. The "corrupt" priest can keep on using their powers.
Granted, that does sound "realistic", but the premise of 4E D&D is that the gods actually do exist (no question about it). And, from what I recall, the priest is actually ordained with their god's power, so it's not like the deity has zero to do with a cleric's power.
Actually its Paladins that are ordained, Clerics get power from the gods.
The PHB doesn't say too much about this (that is, there isn't a lot of detail), but if a priest isn't being true to their god's tenets, it's not the god who does anything--the priest risks the wrath of that god's followers. The "corrupt" priest can keep on using their powers.
Granted, that does sound "realistic", but the premise of 4E D&D is that the gods actually do exist (no question about it). And, from what I recall, the priest is actually ordained with their god's power, so it's not like the deity has zero to do with a cleric's power.
The gods can still send angels and archons to stomp the apostates sorry butt.
And by PH 4e both priests and paladins are ordained by their church (page 61).
The gods can still send angels and archons to stomp the apostates sorry butt.
Yep. Being an apostate isn't a good thing when your god can sick an Angel of Vengeance on you. From the Monster Manual...
Angels of Vengeance strike down those who wrong a deity. They also punish disloyalty and failure among the devout.
DC 20: Deities send angels of vengeance to punish those who have defied or angered them. A god might also send an angel of vengeance to test one who is in danger of falling off the deity’s path, showing no mercy for failure.
-I'm sorry, but, in addition to sending an agent for "revenge", the deity should simply be able to say, "Yoink. Thank you", and stop granting the individual divine spells.
So, play it that way, nothing says a god can't just pull your powers, they just aren't the direct source of your clerical powers. I like the ideas of apostates and having to hunt down traitors to the faith, adds a new class of villain into the game. You lose that if every time someone has a crisis of faith, wham, no powers.
So, play it that way, nothing says a god can't just pull your powers, they just aren't the direct source of your clerical powers. I like the ideas of apostates and having to hunt down traitors to the faith, adds a new class of villain into the game. You lose that if every time someone has a crisis of faith, wham, no powers.
True, but what makes me wonder is how this impact on the novels and such, sources of canon which do not bend to rule 0. It might just introduce a very unrealmsy flavour to the setting. Who knows though, it may be good. I do like this kind of thing for core setting games and my homebrew world.
On the origional topic, I'm hoping (in vain, I know, but I can dream) for a lawful good Amaunator. A host of unaligned deities feels a bit bland to me, and Ive had the idea of a LG Amaunator in my head since LEoF.
So, play it that way, nothing says a god can't just pull your powers, they just aren't the direct source of your clerical powers. I like the ideas of apostates and having to hunt down traitors to the faith, adds a new class of villain into the game. You lose that if every time someone has a crisis of faith, wham, no powers.
-I'm not talking about "my game". I'm talking about canon.
-Hmm...That sounds unFaerûnistic, and truthfully, unD&Dalistic.
I think it's dodgy when one considers that the faiths have requirements to get powers in the first place (that is, you have to be of a certain alignment to choose a certain god).
So, play it that way, nothing says a god can't just pull your powers, they just aren't the direct source of your clerical powers.
From what I understand (and I could be wrong), your god is the one who invests you with power.
Saw the bit about Angels of Vengence, though. Thanks to those who posted it.
From what I understand (and I could be wrong), your god is the one who invests you with power.
Saw the bit about Angels of Vengence, though. Thanks to those who posted it.
From PH pg 61:
Clerics are usually formally ordained by by existing clerics who preform a special ritual to do so, but on rare occasions a deity moves to directly ordain a worthy worshiper with out any sort of priestly hierarchy involved.
Once imbued, what you do with those powers is up to you.
I think it's dodgy when one considers that the faiths have requirements to get powers in the first place (that is, you have to be of a certain alignment to choose a certain god).
But one could argue that you don't have to *stay* that alignment after your choice...
But one could argue that you don't have to *stay* that alignment after your choice...
And that's what I find dodgy about it.
Once imbued, what you do with those powers is up to you.
I would assume the "ritual" mentioned in the text you posted involves the deity's power in some fashion.
The "what you do with those powers is up to you" part is what doesn't sit well with me. A cleric is supposed to be serving their deity in whatever capacity that deity desires of them. If a cleric doesn't even want to bother following the deity's strictures (and they do have at least some strictures, as per the PHB), they should either have their powers "yoinked" away, or get a visit from the aforementioned Angel of Vengence. Otherwise, I just don't see a point in even having deity commandments or alignment requirements.
But one could argue that you don't have to *stay* that alignment after your choice...
-That's what's 'dodgy'. After investing his power in you, why would Torm permit you to retain those powers after you have a change of heart, and begin slaughtering innocents, using his powers to do so? Yes, sure, Torm can send agents who are loyal to him to deal with you. But, (in the Forgotten Realms) we also have canon precedence of deities not granting the spells/powers to their faithful.
-This concept engulfs the entire 'Heretic of the Faith' feat, but is even more problematic.
-That's what's 'dodgy'. After investing his power in you, why would Torm permit you to retain those powers after you have a change of heart, and begin slaughtering innocents, using his powers to do so? Yes, sure, Torm can send agents who are loyal to him to deal with you. But, (in the Forgotten Realms) we also have canon precedence of deities not granting the spells/powers to their faithful.
-This concept engulfs the entire 'Heretic of the Faith' feat, but is even more problematic.
Because the realms gods are not omniscient... Maybe they don't have the ability to watch every priest and paladin that serves them, rather they leave that to the church unless that follower is way off the reservation.
In Eberron, IIRC, no one is sure about the nature of the deities, or if they even exist. In the 4E core setting, the deities definitely exist.
Okay good point.
If I was to go with the way Clerics and Paladins work as they do in 4E how would that affect FR?
Okay good point.
If I was to go with the way Clerics and Paladins work as they do in 4E how would that affect FR?
They just won't have their deity constantly looking over there shoulder, and they can get away with a few minor indiscretions without being smacked down by said deity. Finally paladins can get some without having to marry the person first.
Because the realms gods are not omniscient... Maybe they don't have the ability to watch every priest and paladin that serves them, rather they leave that to the church unless that follower is way off the reservation.
-Deities have domain sense, and certainly have the ability to follow/understand/reason what their followers are doing with their divinely-granted abilities.
Okay good point.
If I was to go with the way Clerics and Paladins work as they do in 4E how would that affect FR?
-If this is indeed what the Forgotten Realms adapts, there will certainly be some ramifications and incongruities. I don't think, in official sources, however, there will be instances where characters blatantly do this kind of stuff, disobeying their deities and using their abilities at the same time. This sounds like the kind of thing that would probably happen more in people's own games, rather than in official sources. Because, in those official sources, they'd have to explains some of the whys and hows, related the the changes. They'd be giving themselves more work.
-Deities have domain sense, and certainly have the ability to follow/understand/reason what their followers are doing with their divinely-granted abilities.
But they are not omniscient. They can see a lot going on, but even greater gods can only manifest so many avatars (by 3e standards). Otherwise there would be no need for angels and archons to serve them.
But they are not omniscient. They can see a lot going on, but even greater gods can only manifest so many avatars (by 3e standards). Otherwise there would be no need for angels and archons to serve them.
-Which doesn't change the fact that deities have domain sense, the ability to directly communicate with any of his/her/it's worshippers, and the ability to freely withhold spells to any particular mortal (as a free action, no less).
-Which doesn't change the fact that deities have domain sense, the ability to directly communicate with any of his/her/it's worshippers, and the ability to freely withhold spells to any particular mortal (as a free action, no less).
But it makes it difficult to watch every last follower and still perform their actual duties. Better to let the church handle the day to day monitoring of the faithful, and then only step in when it is absolutely necessary. Otherwise you are going to lose a lot of followers. Imagine a paladin of Tyr (I know he's gone, but still...) who has a crisis of faith and blasphemes, Tyr strips him of his powers til he repents. Well at this point the paladin, already on the edge, justs throws his holy symbol to the ground and finds the nearest priest of Bane to sign up.
Otherwise you are going to lose a lot of followers. Imagine a paladin of Tyr (I know he's gone, but still...) who has a crisis of faith and blasphemes, Tyr strips him of his powers til he repents. Well at this point the paladin, already on the edge, justs throws his holy symbol to the ground and finds the nearest priest of Bane to sign up.
-Is this supposed to be problematic? Because, it's not. This is how things are supposed to go. You blaspheme against your deity in such a manner that he/she/it is angered at you, and strips you of your powers, you either atone, or that's all, folks.
-Is this supposed to be problematic? Because, it's not. This is how things are supposed to go. You blaspheme against your deity in such a manner that he/she/it is angered at you, and strips you of your powers, you either atone, or that's all, folks.
Yes, but it is extreme, and why punish a worshiper for a crisis of faith? Better to send a messenger (angel) or let the church elders deal with it, rather than lose a worshiper. If every god was that strict, the LG gods would have never have enough priests to be more than lesser gods, and the rest would still have some problems filling the pews. That level of divine intervention reeks of tyranny and that is Banes domain.
Yes, but it is extreme, and why punish a worshiper for a crisis of faith?
-Because those who go through the trials and tribulations that those becoming an ordained clergy member go through are supposed to be of higher 'moral fiber' than the average joe.
If every god was that strict, the LG gods would have never have enough priests to be more than lesser gods, and the rest would still have some problems filling the pews.
-Speculation based on your part, to bolster your argument. While that could in theory happen, equally likely is that those who go through crisis' return to their faith stronger than before, and serve as a testament who might feel likewise, bolstering the faith. Or that clergy members of deities other than LG deities have the same problems (Cleric of Bane hesitating to kill a baby to instill fear into others, and then has a crisis of faith). Or that deities other than Intermediate and Greater powers have the same problems. Or, or, or.
Bel
How you choose to punish those who commit infractions against their god, or their church in your game is up to you. I try to keep the gods out of every day events because they have much better things to do than to sit around waiting to punish a follower for not being the perfect disciple.
LK, I think the main reason for distancing the deities from their followers is to create a buffer between them so that at higher (Epic) levels, conflict is more impersonal. It's harder to disrupt a deities plans if he's been watching you.
Bel
-Which is fine, but as I stated, my problem with this is that it flies directly in the face of established precedence, which states that any deity with a DR over 1 (which is 99% of them) can, at will, deny any of his/her/its followers the ability to use Clerical magic.
Basically it comes down to how active you want the gods to be in the daily life of their priests.
-Mind you, this stemmed from the concept of deities no longer being able to regulate the way their clerics use the Divine spells they empower them with.
Yes gods do directly interfere in the events in the realms, but the gods who do so most often are those that are (were) still closest to humanity (Mystra and Cyric) and their actions tend to make things worse, not better.
-The deity that interacts and "interferes" most with mortals would be Ghaunadaur. Implore it, no matter who you are, where you are, what you are, why you are imploring it, and the reasons for doing so, and odds are, it'll show up. It often empowers those who do not even worship and/or follow it, just for the hell of it (of course, being as that it is an alien entity, we don't know why it does things).
-Mind you, this stemmed from the concept of deities no longer being able to regulate the way their clerics use the Divine spells they empower them with.
Nothing in the new rules says they can't, just that they do so in a less direct manner, through agents rather than doing it all themselves. If you ordained through a ritual, there has to exist a ritual that will defrock you as well. Also if (and it is stated very clearly that it is possible) a god can directly ordain a priest, then conversely a god can defrock a priest just as easily. They just wouldn't make a habit of it for minor transgressions, just like they wouldn't personally ordain just every priest that enters the faith. And as you have said, they still have domain sense, so they can tell if a priest is using their holy powers in a way that contradicts the teachings of that god, but may choose to send an agent to deal with the wayward follower rather than dignify them with their personal attention, which should be focused on more godly duties. Otherwise what is the point of having angels serving the gods? Just to fight Devils and Demons?
Perhaps a deviant cleric/paladin's powers are no longer derived from the original god, but from one who opposes the original god. For example, a cleric of Torm kills an innocent in a fit of hatred, and as such falls out of Torm's favor (a heretical enemy of the church?) and into Bane's (although not technically a worshipper); whether the cleric knows it or not. Now the cleric's powers are being derived from Bane, who still grants them, despite the prayers being directed to Torm. Why would Bane do this? To undermine Torm, because he recognizes the cleric as a follower through the cleric's own actions (despite the cleric's ignorance of who is truely granting the power), to spread strife and hatred, or any number of other reasons. This could work with any number of gods and need not be limited to two (more than one god contributing to the cleric's power?). This may also explain why the aforementioned cleric may still think that he/she is doing Torm's work.
Just my 2 cc.;)
Finally paladins can get some without having to marry the person first.
Actually, there was never any religious or social mandate against premarital sex in the Realms as far as I'm aware, not even for paladins.
Actually, there was never any religious or social mandate against premarital sex in the Realms as far as I'm aware, not even for paladins.
No, it was an old rule, that premarital sex was contrary to the LG lifestyle. Taken from RW where most devout religious folks see it as a sin.
No, it was an old rule, that premarital sex was contrary to the LG lifestyle. Taken from RW where most devout religious folks see it as a sin.
That's not the case in the Realms, according to the creator of the setting. The FR doesn't have real world sexual mores.
That was just the way I was taught to play paladins, premarital sex was considered wrong, since casual sex has ramifications, such as unplanned children, which a true LG type would have to be responsible for.
If you want to play a paladin that way, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. My point was that there is no rule in the Realms (in any FR religion) that paladins must remain chaste until marriage. There is also no social stigma against premarital sex in general--it's not seen as inherently immoral or a "sin" (there's no FR god who says it's wrong, even if RW gods often say that).
I'd also like to point out that the Realms is known to have effective contraceptives (again, according to Ed).
-And, no, Paladins/Clerics don't have to be chaste. While nothing ever came from it, my LG Cleric of Lathander was a 'ladies-man'. When I created the character, I had this idea that he used 'Create Minor Item' (or whatever it's called) to create a rose for every lovely woman he met. But, then I realized that it wasn't a spell I had access to. So, there went that.