I just read this a little while ago...
So a cleric of Torm can go around robbing and murdering people while employing clerical spells to achieve his ends?! Huh?!
Likewise a cleric of Bane could run a hospital for the poor in a city? huh?!
Or have I misread the meaning of this?
Bel
I believe the basic premise is that the cleric becomes empowered with an amount of the deity's power, which he then uses to cast spells and whatnot, as opposed to getting his spells in a more direct manner. Therefore, once the cleric has been ordained with the power of his deity, he can use it as he sees fit, and can fall prey to corruption and bad judgement in their use. Gods are generally distant in the new ed, so they just kinda empower their clerics, and expect their churches to deal with it if any of them fall of the path. So gods tend to act through their angels, clerics, and other servitors, but won't interfere directly to block off the power of a fallen cleric. I think this is part of the new philosophy of divorcing alignment from the ruleset, IMHO.
Anyways thats what I know. Mayhap there is someone who can give a more complete answer.
Edit: Oh, I see there is a short discussion of this over here. Mayhap this thread is what got you asking though. Anyhoo there you go.
Basically it works like this: You get your divine spells via a ritual performed by priests of the church. In order to lose your divine spells the church has to hunt you down and then strip you of the divine power.
I actually enjoy this much better due to the plot elements behind it. You can become a heretic of the faith and start your own splinter church without having to worry about what a deity might think about it. It could be done in 3rd Edition, but it was always somewhat shaky to do so because of the way deities so easily intervened in the world.
I like the idea of inter-religious conflict and disagreements on ways to handle things. In my 4E Realms the deities will have all but faded from the scene, no longer able to walk on Toril or form avatars, becoming distant - only able to communicate through vague dream-like visions and omens. Things that are obscure enough that they can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
In 3E divine magic flowed through the Weave. With the loss of the Weave all clerics (in my Realms at least) also lost their ability to cast spells just like arcane magic users. Deities were able to survive by "blessing" their most favored followers with divine powers - tapping directly into their own divine essence. (Think something along the lines of Favored Souls in 3E.) These favored few were then able to perform rituals on other faithful priests to grant them access to divine magic from their deity.
This divides churches between those who have been blessed with this gift and those who have not. A sizable chunk of the clergy would just be "mundane" - without divine magic.
In my 4E Realms the focus will be moving away from the gods themselves and more onto the individual churches. A single deity may have worshipers that are at odds with one another - even at war. Deities known by different names will be common and religion as a whole will be more mystical and mysterious rather than black and white or matter-of-fact.
This opens up hundreds, if not thousands of potential plots without the worry of divine retribution.
The change here is in higher level powers: low level powers haven't been directly granted by the gods since 1e as far as I recall.
We've already seen at least on priest who has no levels as a cleric but has the ritual casting feat and a limited selection of rituals (gentle repose, cure disease, and raise dead
) - the priest in H1, so that's what a "mundane" priest looks like.
That's not the route I'm going in my Realm's though. I want the gods to be more mysterious and abstract. I don't want them to be like Eberron - the gods exist and people know it - I am seeking a balance between the two extremes. It's a way to prevent crazy and silly things happening - like Tyr killing Helm and such - it won't be possible any longer. Gods will be portrayed as extremely powerful beings, far beyond mortal comprehension. I want to move away from the Greek / Roman god theme where they are basically super powerful mortals with mortal thoughts and emotions.
The major benefit I see to a player here is an open canvas. You can take a deity, become a priest, and throw your own spin on it. It also brings the battles of faith back down to earth, where the fighting is done between mortals and various factions. That's always been the strong suit of the Forgotten Realms in my mind - the multitude of different groups battling for supremacy. I believe this method allows for churches to be more active in that arena.
However, I have no idea how they are going to play it out in the Realms. They want to simplify things, which is one reason they've cut down the number of gods. We'll find out soon enough when the 4E FRCS comes out.
Just one more sacred cow sacrificed for 'the greater good'.
I like the idea of inter-religious conflict and disagreements on ways to handle things. In my 4E Realms the deities will have all but faded from the scene, no longer able to walk on Toril or form avatars, becoming distant - only able to communicate through vague dream-like visions and omens. Things that are obscure enough that they can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
*snip*
This divides churches between those who have been blessed with this gift and those who have not. A sizable chunk of the clergy would just be "mundane" - without divine magic.
In my 4E Realms the focus will be moving away from the gods themselves and more onto the individual churches. A single deity may have worshipers that are at odds with one another - even at war. Deities known by different names will be common and religion as a whole will be more mystical and mysterious rather than black and white or matter-of-fact.
This opens up hundreds, if not thousands of potential plots without the worry of divine retribution.
Consider this stolen.
The fun that can be had by pitting one priests vision of how to do things against another would be loads of fun *well maybe not fun but entertaining* for a Paladin trapped between them. No more getting on the god phone and finding out exactly what they wanted if you don't puzzle it out the first time around.
Just to introduce us to a 4e concept...
Just one more reason not to buy 4e FR books - the authors are obviously being told to insert 4e mechanics into them, rather then concentrating on a good story. The novels shouldn't have become vehicles for the game - it is detrimental to both lines.
But they will learn that soon enough...
But they will learn that soon enough...
So say we all! :D
Wasn't it that what the ToT was intended for? To bring mortals and this ominous deities together and take care for each other (so that it would also be easier for us to understand the role of religion and gods in this fictional world)? If they wanted something with gods far beyond mortal (so in this far beyond our) comprehension, why do they need more than one of them doing incomprehensible things? Its even easier for most to understand if there is only one such supermind beyond mortal life.
I actually enjoy this much better due to the plot elements behind it.
I like the idea too, but that's one of the reasons I play Eberron in addition to Forgotten Realms. No need to have this in both worlds, IMO.
The gods are a huge important part of the Realms. You can't really subtract them from the setting. That being said I do believe there is a balance between a deity having an overwhelming and immense presence and an active but subdued presence. If a deity can just tell you directly what it wants, it takes out one of the best parts of playing a religious character: the struggle to prove that you are right and the lingering fear at the back of your mind that you could be wrong.
What is more interesting and fun? A deity that comes down and tells you -exactly- in no uncertain terms what he or she wants, or a deity that sends you some abstract sign that you have to interpret? If a deity tells you clearly what it wants there is no debate and no conflict. You obey because that's your duty. However, if the sign you witnessed was also witnessed by others - particularly other clergy - it could lead to a fierce debate over what it means and what the deity wants. If things spiral out of control it could even lead to accusations of heresy and even form a schism in the church.
Suddenly, the role of cleric becomes more dynamic. Your duty is no longer -just- to your patron deity, but to your church and your own personal beliefs. The role you play becomes much more political.
That's just my opinion on the matter. I can see why others might enjoy things being clearer cut, but for me I prefer something that will provide some conflict and uncertainty.
That said, I think this is already a very possible thing in the Realms, what with the Lathander/Amaunator question and the internal strife within the ranks of Cyric's faithful (even though that one is logical with him being the god of strife and all).
Numerous neutral churches can have similar problems. What happens with the LE cleric of Helm having a different opinion from the LG one?
But wasn't it always like that? I mean yes there is this thing with the "god phone" but this was most times something in the novels and only with certain authors (its extremly often used with Eilistraeeans and the Lothies, isn't it? Seems that Ladies need more advise through their goddess *duck and run* :D ). But personally I never thought of the gods in the realms as so clearly speaking to every normal priest. So there could be cabals and schemes. If the gods talk only to the real high priests, then who of the normal church staff can tell if the high priests are talking the truth or only make them to believe that they had this special red phone to the god? Everyone wants to get this connection and so they start up scheming against each other and a bit around to get up on the ladder of church hierarchy. I do not need a god far more uncaring for the world for that, than they now are.Well, at least I understand where that bizarre ending for Road of the Patriarch came from - it was like the book was about one thing, and suddenly makes a big switch in story and location (and feel)...
Don't even get me started on that book...
Anyway, about the gods.
In homebrew games I make the gods distant and beyond mortal comprension, but for the realms my feelings are more complicated. On the one hand, I like having a deity's ability to affect things willy nilly reduced (that Mystra creature and her inconsistency got under my skin more than a little), but this is admittidly a little too Ebberon for the Realms, IMHO. I don't want deities randomly hoping around doing randomly nonsensical things according to a very mortal sense of whimsy, but if the spellplague is anything to go by, that will still be happening. We lose the closeness between a cleric and his/her deity (which I thought was one of the more appealing things about the realms) but we retain the... thing with gods doing whatever they please, because authors and designers will continue to use them as bickering school children, as evidenced by the spellplague, whenever they need some world shattering drama.
However, those things are generally downplayed due to the hands on approach by the gods. Since players are "special" they are much more likely to get divine attention than your average priest might, especially as they grow in power.
There is also always the nagging question: If the gods can communicate so freely with mortals, why in the world would they allow crazy heresies that go totally against everything faith persist? For example, there is a heresy where people believe Shar and Selune are two faces of the same deity. I love this heresy, but one has to wonder, considering how the two are in such conflict with one another, why they do they grant divine power to these people. Why do they not appear and clearly say: "No, you've got it wrong!"
Sure, it's fun for us to sit back and place all sorts of crazy motives on the deities, and even go as far as to say that it's an enemy of both the deities granting the divine power. However, it always begs the question why the god does not take a firm hand in setting things straight. They certainly have intervened in the mortal world for much less.
It is just easier to leave this more mysterious for everyone involved. In the 4E Core you do not have to worry about your deity turning against you, it is the church and fellow priests that should concern you. In the end you can actually defeat them, whereas your chances of defeating your deity are slim to none.
I guess I am just so much in favor of this because I am a great lover of heresies. :P I have no problem with having six or more churches with radically different takes on the same deity.
Anyway, I never played the FR gods as so direct. Sure, PC's have had encounters with Azuth or Mask, but generally the deity doesn't introduce himself as such and even though he promotes his portfolio in his speeches, I use the gods to show the PC's several directions they could go. It's up to them to decide to go to the left or to the right (or some other direction altogether). A PC (whether a cleric, fighter or whatever) praying heavily for aid to his deity sometimes gets aid, but never in an easilt interpretable way.
Yes, I'm pretty sure you're right. While the way divine spells are received MIGHT change (I would say the chances are 50/50) the gods and their direct interactions with the world most likely won't. I've had a love/hate relationship with that. On the one hand, I do like how having them do something is a convent plot element for big changes. On the other hand, in the end they just make things worse.
I really like the idea of the deities becoming more hands on like Lolth, testing their faithful rather directly, but having things be abstract overall with no right or wrong answers given.
Really, I know there is a balance somewhere in there. A balance between actively involved in the world and totally inactive. They key is finding it, IMO.
If I am not mistaken, an avatar of Selune was actually a manager of a Tavern in Waterdeep. That is more on the extreme end of things, but it is sadly pretty common throughout the cannon lore.
Personally, I think most of that came from the 2E Lore by TSR, but in 3E it seems as if they backed off a great deal from the deities being so active in the mortal world. Which was a good thing in my opinion.
Still, canonically, deities granted divine power through the Weave. Now that it is gone, it makes sense to me that they would have trouble interacting with the mortal world and forming avatars. It would also explain why they have fewer clerics and such, as to grant divine power to their priests they have to expend some of their divine essence.
-Given that this is not how it works in the Forgotten Realms, hopefully this will not be implemented. Of course, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
18DELTA
Perhaps in the few years since the Time of Troubles, AO realized he/she/it had made a mistake by binding the gods too closely to the mortals that served them. It caused them to start overlooking free will in the rush to gather more power for themselves. I mean, if an avatar of Bane appeared in the middle of some town, and threatened to kill anyone who did not immediately convert to his church, who's going to disobey? Also too many gods were starting to put too much of their power directly into a few "chosen". So to stop all the power grabs, and violations of the rules he tweaked them a bit. Gods can still interact with their clergy and other followers, but now must use signs, and divine agents (angels and archons). This keeps priests and paladins from becoming just puppets of their deity, and allows the gods to focus on their duties, rather than the day to day workings of their churches.
I like it!
Bel
So gods tend to act through their angels, clerics, and other servitors, but won't interfere directly to block off the power of a fallen cleric. I think this is part of the new philosophy of divorcing alignment from the ruleset, IMHO.
However, choosing a deity still involves alignment requirements, which is one reason I have mixed feelings about this new god concept (that is, it doesn't quite seem consistent).
For a world like Faerun, where deities bicker and fight as much as they do, this seems to be a wise choice. A deity's army can continue to fight even if blocked from their deity's reach. An imprisoned or slain deity can trust that any remaining clerics and paladins will not lose their power, and will be able to strike back.
An imprisoned or slain deity can trust that any remaining clerics and paladins will not lose their power, and will be able to strike back.
That's a good point. Depending on how they explain this in the 4E Realms (whether it's something that's a result of the Spellplague, or it's retconned into always having worked that way), then it may be possible for some long-lived Clerics of Mystra, Helm, Eilistraee, Tyr, etc to still be out and about.
I think the disconnecting of power is more that now a priest doesn't need to pray to their diety and rely on their diety to grant the spell EVERY time. Now they are ordained and granted access to the dietie's divine power and can manifest that through the channel divinity and other powers.
I didn't read it in a way that says a diety CAN'T choose to revoke the powers of one of their priests but they aren't likely to do it over church dogma debates. I'm sure if a priest of love and healing starts becoming a bloodthirsty dictator who uses poisons to eliminate enemies their god would cut off their powers and/or send faithful agents to deal with the betrayer.
I actually have a different interpretation of it. Instead of drawing upon the Weave as was once possible (a crutch basically), divine power is now granted directly through the deity. This is MUCH more taxing to the deity himself/herself. Each spellcasting cleric you have the more "energy" you are expending.
This gives deities a large incentive to limit the number of clerics they have - minor deities may only have a handful of divine magic wielding priests. More powerful deities may have hundreds.
In the end it makes clerics as a whole MUCH more rare, with most of the "divine intervention" through magic conducted through rituals rather than cast like spells.
In order to get this ability to access divine magic, you would have to undergo a ritual, unique to the church and deity you worship. You are then "connected" to the gods divine essence, allowing you to channel it into miracles (spells). You can likewise have this connection severed through a ritual. In very rare cases, I imagine a deity can directly connect you to their divine essence, but the deity would lack the ability to sever the connection. This would be how the first clerics post-Spellplague came into existence.
This is how I am playing it up in my Realms. Just like Naex I am saying that this is also more-or-less Ao's doing (a punishment), although I am also saying it is a direct result of the loss of the Weave.
That is something you can easily overlook. I am debating axing alignment all together. I've never liked it because it gave a framework of moral absolutes, when morality is dictated by large number of things but mostly culture. My only problem is the existence of devils and other such beings.
I disagree. While morality may differ, and all non-outsiders - and arguably some outsiders, every now and then - are not constant in their alignment, most individuals have a certain mindset that they use as a framework for their actions. This is how I interpret alignment. It doesn't dictate everything you do, but sets is a framework of how things should and should not be done normally, and imo that is something that every sane individual, and probabloy many insane ones, have. Culture plays a big part of it, sure, as do many other things.
Anyway, I'm not very happy about the 4E method; it presumes that the deity can, or must (under certain situations) invest some power in the cleric (at least the deity could do it directly, in very rare situations), but can't take it back without help - if it can take it back at all. First, that devaluates deities somewhat and makes them dependent on mortals - and that does not tie very well with my classic interpretation of divinity. Such mechanics smell of binding an outsider; it may work well for an angel or a demon, but a deity should be beneath such, let's be honest, servitude. "Yes, archbishop, I will make these five one of MY chosen. Would you like fries with that?"
Second, because of that hierarchical superiors in the church become more important than the deity itself. Heresies in 3E could at least be explained to a degree that deities appreciate the raw faith they were given, regardless of some of the finer points. As deities allowed clerics of different alignments of their own, apparently some interpretation was allowed. However, now it seems to be that the deity is all but denied even to choose who is pious and who is not, and is simply a shadow behind the patriarch's throne. While this can make for good campaigns, I don't think I'd like it in my FR. Eventually, of course, it boils down to that - what WE allow in our games.
Sure, there are outsiders that break ranks now and then. However, by far, devils and demons are supposed to represent various forms of evil made flesh.
My problem with alignment is the black and white nature of it. Certain actions are always evil or good. The alignment scale was (in my opinion) supposed to be an out of character type concept - a character doesn't know that they're "Lawful Good" for example - they simply are acting according to their beliefs which are highly influenced by culture, religion and personal experiences.
However, playing a "Lawful Good" character can often cause you to fall into a trap by thinking in a "Lawful Good" mindset rather than like your character. It has a tendency to create cookie cutter characters. I really don't want people to worry about their characters alignment, but rather worry about acting in a way that is true to their character.
-------------------
Let me give an example of an NPC that would not work in 3E FR due to the alignment rules.
Ronus Graiden
Cleric of Ilmater
Backstory: Ronus is an unusually tall, dark-eyed man possessing a remarkable calm and grace, he is a renowned healer of the body, capable of healing any injury, even to bring people back from the brink of death when all else had failed. He is often summoned throughout the Bloodstone Lands, and even as far off as Cormyr by the Church of Crying Lord to deal with the most difficult cases.
In addition to being a healer of great renown, he is also a sadist.
His pleasure is often extracted with the healing. A little extra physical and mental pain is a small price to pay when compared with survival. Most are so grateful to be alive they make no comment about the suffering they endure at his hand. Ronus works diligently to hide his perversion from the Church, often engaging in self-mutilation in repentance for his actions praying that Ilmater will deliver him from his sin.
-------------------
Now, this NPC would be marked as evil due to his actions, despite being a 'good' guy in every other way. It is much better, in my opinion, just to ignore alignment all together and let the NPC act as he should and not have to worry about him losing his divine spells due to an alignment shift.
The alignment scale is just too simplified to properly map out the complexities of an individuals moral character. I personally will likely be adapting the d20 Modern Rules for Allegiances to replace alignment.
-------------------
As to your other comments, the deities - at least since the Time of Troubles - have been highly dependant on their worshipers. In fact I have always viewed the deity and worshiper relationship as symbiotic where in some cases the mortals are the slaves to the gods and at other times the gods the slaves to the mortals.
For example, gods are supposed to be heavily dependant on their worshipers for their power. A god is supposed to oversee their portfolios and administer them accordingly - they are a slave to their portfolios, which can be changed through actions in the mortal world. For example, if Auril begins to receive worship as a goddess of dusk and twilight then there is a high likelihood she could eventually claim those portfolios, and if it becomes widespread enough, a shift may be forced upon her even if she is unwilling.
What may happen in 4E, if things work as they do in the core, would simply be an extension of this type of relationship.
it's not wholy incompactible with the Realms. And I'D advice reading Eberron's Keith Baker notes on this subject before dismissing this; he made good points, even if me or others may not agree on everything.
Let me give an example of an NPC that would not work in 3E FR due to the alignment rules.
-Such NPCs already exist. The Brotherhood of Ilmatari featured in Sojourn are certainly sadists. They believe that the more pain they themselves receive, the less pain there exists in the world for others to suffer from.
-Such NPCs already exist. The Brotherhood of Ilmatari featured in Sojourn are certainly sadists. They believe that the more pain they themselves receive, the less pain there exists in the world for others to suffer from.
That's masochism, sadism is about doing harm to others.
That's masochism, sadism is about doing harm to others.
-Gotcha. Well, really, the same idea applies, only it's self-inflicted, then.
The alignment scale is a poor way to measure personal morality because it attempts to paint the world in absolute shades of black and white. Overall, in 4E, I feel alignment means a lot less than it did in previous editions, so I don't think it would be very hard to remove it from the system without serious repercussions.
After all, why can't Bane have Lawful Good priests? Tyranny is by definition a lawful act. There could certainly be Lawful Good Tyrants who use fear of damnation and punishment to prevent people from committing acts they perceive as evil.
It might not make sense in Bane as we currently know him, unless you look at him as the personification of tyranny, fear and hatred - things that could easily be twisted toward good ends. In fact fear is necessary in life - without it you'd constantly endanger yourself. Fear is what keeps society in check, without fear of consequences people would feel free to do what they want whenever they want - rebelling against authority. This is something any lawful person would find disconcerting. Hatred can also be used toward good ends - hatred of evil, hatred of those who harm the innocent, these things provide motivation for those who seek to bring justice to the world. Tyranny is the rule of law that protects those who cannot protect themselves. It is the law that helps ensure that people live just and righteous lives, saving them from eternal damnation.
So yes, you could certainly twist the things Bane represents toward 'good'.
However, as things work in 3E not only with alignment, but with the gods, this is very unlikely.
-One of the tenet's of Hanali Celanil's dogma is "Nurture what is beautiful in life, and let beauty's rapturous glow enliven and brighten the lives of those around you". The problem with a Cleric of Hanali Celanil going out into the world and using his/her Clerical magic to hideously scar all those who are beautiful, thus diminishing that which is beautiful in life (the physical aspect of individuals) is not that he/she is performing actions that are in violation of his/her alignment, and the alignment that the deity caters to, but that the individual is knowingly and grossly violating the tenets that the deity stands for.
Yes, that can happen. However, I don't really see that as a negative. Having such a priestess acting in such a way is going to demand action from the Church, which is going to hunt her down and strip her of her divine powers.
Additionally, I do not see it as a problem with different churches having different dogmas. One branch of the faith may interpret things one way, and another branch may interpret things completely different. The same deity may even have additional aspects attributed to it by two different groups, with other aspects of the deity ignored or rejected.
I really don't see a problem with that, and would even encourage it. You could have a single deity, and have ten different interpretations of how to properly worship and act.
Perhaps, I have one group who worships Bane as a deity of conquest, strength, tyranny and fear - neglecting the hatred aspect.
I like the idea of deities being more fluid and customizable by DM's and players. This is how I intend to do it, regardless of what the FRCS states, because of the freedom it allows me and everyone else.
Yes, that can happen. However, I don't really see that as a negative. Having such a priestess acting in such a way is going to demand action from the Church, which is going to hunt her down and strip her of her divine powers.
-And, when the Cleric in question is using the divine power vested in him/her by his deity, the deity should be the one revoking the powers. Remember, deities of DR 1 or higher can, as a free action, deny any of their priests or priestess' the ability to cast spells.
Additionally, I do not see it as a problem with different churches having different dogmas. One branch of the faith may interpret things one way, and another branch may interpret things completely different. The same deity may even have additional aspects attributed to it by two different groups, with other aspects of the deity ignored or rejected.
I really don't see a problem with that, and would even encourage it. You could have a single deity, and have ten different interpretations of how to properly worship and act.
Perhaps, I have one group who worships Bane as a deity of conquest, strength, tyranny and fear - neglecting the hatred aspect.
I like the idea of deities being more fluid and customizable by DM's and players. This is how I intend to do it, regardless of what the FRCS states, because of the freedom it allows me and everyone else.
-In a world where deities are tangible things, and are active in the affairs of their worshipers, I can't foresee such situations arising. If one particular church of Shevarash is interpreting his dogma as, "Drow are evil because they are followers of Lolth. If we take Drow, and turn them into 'true' Elves, they are okay", they are violating Shevarash's dogma. Why would Shevarash not somehow intervene, being as that this particular group of worshippers are distorting the true message of Shevarash?
-But, as referenced earlier, the entire Heretic of the Faith feat/concept partially throws that notion out of the window, hence why I would have preferred that it not exist.
They could do this in 3E, yes. However, we do not know what impact the Weave had on their ability to do this. As I pointed out, several times, divine magic flowed through the Weave, and like Arcane Magic this made things "easier" for the deities to distribute their divine power. As a result of the destruction of the Weave, deities could have lost this ability.
The reverse is also true when it comes to "granting" divine magic to mortals. Without the Weave it would take a great deal of energy to do this, which is why the ritual would exist to help limit this expenditure on the deities part.
Either granting or cutting off access to their divine essence would require them to manifest their divine power in the mortal world directly. However, using their mortal followers - which could act as "conduits" for this power, would require much less energy on the part of the deity, similarly to how things worked through the Weave.
The above is how I am going to assume things will work in 4E Forgotten Realms and how it will work in mine.
To use your Shevarash example, that was already (as you pointed out) completely possible in 3E through using the Heretic of the Faith feat. The main difference is that you had to come out with some whacky motivation to explain why a deity thinks that way.
Since, I am going out of my way to make the gods more mysterious and mystical, rather than omnipresent in the world I do not have to worry about that. How the gods work is a complete mystery to mortals, and there are as many theories as there are deities. The only thing that can be known for certain is that the gods are real, they exist, and a select few chosen followers can directly manifest their divine power in the way of divine miracles.
My key intention is to take the focus off the gods themselves and onto the churches. These are things that you can combat, aid and interact with on a more personal basis day-to-day basis.
BTW, in the second book of the Haunted Lands series (the transformation of Thay et al), it did not look like clerics having any great difficulty in accessing their divine-given magic. That said, (once more in a FR novel - not a priority and the author might simply thus have skipped it) the main protagonists weren't divine casters.
Up until the Orc King, I have read every one of RAS's FR novels, but that rather blatant cow-towing to WotC's demands has made me lose respect for him, and has lost me as a reader. Not only have they torpedoed their own readership with the 4e absurdities, but they've made him jeopardize his own career with this foolishness.
All of the authors have been getting handed their plots and endings lately, and the only one I can say I still respect is Elaine, who stuck to her convictions and didn't allow a bunch of uncreative hacks to dictate what she was going to write.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but now I wish I could return that novel, as unsatisfying as it was.
However, choosing a deity still involves alignment requirements, which is one reason I have mixed feelings about this new god concept (that is, it doesn't quite seem consistent).
Out of all the excellent discussion in this thread, your comment probably got me thinking hardest of all.
I have to admit I liked the way religion (not the deities themselves) was handled in Eberron. In fact, in that setting you know next to nothing about the divine (imagine that!), but you know lots about the VERY human religions catering to the divine.
And thats really the way it should be. I like Eberron's appraoch, and if I thought all this deific upheaval was going to give us something knew to that effect, I wouldn't mind at all.
However, I think they are just laying the foundation for that, and then not going anywhere with it. Thats like scraping the commercial district in a small town, and then not building anything to take its place. I really think WotC had lots of good ideas, and then tried to take them all on at once, and wound up with a pile of good ideas and very little else.
As for your post, Rinon - on the surface it does seem VERY inconsistent, but then I apply RW religion (as I see it) to the equation.
How many young, hopeful aspirants are duplitious? Most of them really believe in their church and its tenets, Ergo, everyone starts out with an alignment close to their god, but over time, church politics, human corruption, and just plain-old burn-out takes their toll, and the priest no longer has the same allignment (and convictions) as he did starting out.
Even in that RAS story, the younger priest was still 'faithful', but walking a very fine line (thanks to the corrupt influence of the senior priest). In the end, Artemis (of all people!) steers him back toward the correct path. Thats a very RW concept - that as we get older, we have to shed some of our youthful convictions in order to survive in a dog-eat-dog world, and after awhile many of us become very different people then the young dreamers that thought they could change things.
So perhaps this isn't very 'FR', but it is very real.
Out of all the excellent discussion in this thread, your comment probably got me thinking hardest of all.
Well, I'm glad.
As for your post, Rinon - on the surface it does seem VERY inconsistent, but then I apply RW religion (as I see it) to the equation.
...
So perhaps this isn't very 'FR', but it is very real.
I agree that it is "realistic". However, the FR is a setting where the gods not only exist for a fact (unlike Eberron), they also have a history of being aware of their followers actions--they have shown in the past that they are willing and able to strip clerics of their powers if they stop following their god's rules. In the 4E "core setting", the gods exist for a fact just like in the FR.
What this all means is that it seems a bit silly that the most strigent part of being a priest is being ordained as one--after that you can "do with your powers as you will". I just don't see why the gods of D&D (who are known to have a definite, vested interest in the lives and actions of mortals) would not care what their priests are doing with their powers.
They could do this in 3E, yes. However, we do not know what impact the Weave had on their ability to do this. As I pointed out, several times, divine magic flowed through the Weave, and like Arcane Magic this made things "easier" for the deities to distribute their divine power. As a result of the destruction of the Weave, deities could have lost this ability.
The reverse is also true when it comes to "granting" divine magic to mortals. Without the Weave it would take a great deal of energy to do this, which is why the ritual would exist to help limit this expenditure on the deities part.
-And, sticking to what we already know of the setting, deities would not be able to grant their followers spells, now, because of the lack of the Weave, just like magicians should not be able to cast magic, period, as interaction with Raw Magic is harmful to mortals. The rules just get thrown out the window. Very problematic.
As this thread moves forward, it got me thinking more and more about RotP, and the ending does seem to have been clearly written with this 4e concept in mind. I can pretty much pick the exact page where RAS found out about the 4e changes - the entire book does an about face (and the current three-book storyline abruptly ends without any sense of closure) and goes off on a sidequest about evil priests of a good god.
-I, too, felt that it was very out of place for when it happened. But, with Jarlaxle toying with his emotions and his memories, I expected some sort of revelation.
I have to admit I liked the way religion (not the deities themselves) was handled in Eberron. In fact, in that setting you know next to nothing about the divine (imagine that!), but you know lots about the VERY human religions catering to the divine.
And thats really the way it should be. I like Eberron's appraoch, and if I thought all this deific upheaval was going to give us something knew to that effect, I wouldn't mind at all.
-While this works for Eberron, and for real life, this isn't how it works in the Forgotten Realms. Never has been.
How many young, hopeful aspirants are duplitious? Most of them really believe in their church and its tenets, Ergo, everyone starts out with an alignment close to their god, but over time, church politics, human corruption, and just plain-old burn-out takes their toll, and the priest no longer has the same allignment (and convictions) as he did starting out.
-Firstly, this doesn't happen to everyone. Those surely convinced in their convictions, it wouldn't happen to. And, remember, Clerics are able to differ in the alignment of the deity they serve. Deities "cater" to a large variety of alignments, there's the "One Step" rule...
If some of my postulating is correct, in regards to how to retcon the old system so the new way makes some sense, then we can continue down that same path and say the Weave wasn't exactly what the church of Mystra like to tell everyone it was.
I mentioned before how it may have started out a deific barrier, erected by Ao, inorder to keep an overwhelming numbers of powers from enetering realmspace all at once (basically, it wuld have acted as a cosmic 'weigh station' for the Overgod). Mystryl would have just been put in charge of it back then, and that would have been the extent of her portfolio (overseer of the Weave).
As time went on she would have tinkered with the Weave, allowing mortals easier access to Raw Magic, ,and thus engendring a following of her own (and an increase in her own power).
As part of this Weave - that was originally erected to keep gods in check - she could have allowed the godsthemselves an easier way to grant followers spells. Maybe before (in prehistoriuc times) gods would have to pay personal attention to a single worshipper and grant them spells, which requiered more effort on the gods part. The Weave could have been 'advertised' by Mystra as an easy, efficient means of automatically granting followers spells. The gods, looking for a short-cut (and seeing how quickly these mortals bred and spread out) decided to use Mystra's Weave as well. It was NEVERrequired - just convenient.
Turn the clock ahead - most of the newer (once mortal) gods don't know this (like Cyric), and think that they have to go through Mystra's Weave. Of course, older beings such as Shar and Jergal would know better, but they tend to keep the secret for their own reasons.
Now the Weave is down, the powerful forces of Raw magic have been unleashed an swept over Toril, and casters find new ways to cast spells (perhaps from truly ancient tomes describing other traditions, such as The Nether Scrolls. In the meantime, Clergy are also having a hard time of, and with the world's population being what it is, the gods can't be everywhere at once.
It could have started out as something simple, like one God (Gond?) showing his priests another path, and then the rest 'stealing the idea', or it could have come about by multiple priests of various faiths all trying different methods of accessing their gods power once again on a regular basis.
But now there is a difference - all that incredibly powerful raw magic has washed over Toril, and seeped into everything, and Priests are able to reach down inside themselves and bring the magic forth.
Now, I'm not saying that's the way it happened, but it is an explanation that works. Of course, this is 4e, and if you play in 4e you don't really need any explanantions, do you?
It is what it is. :P
If some of my postulating is correct, in regards to how to retcon the old system so the new way makes some sense, then we can continue down that same path and say the Weave wasn't exactly what the church of Mystra like to tell everyone it was.
-It's not what the Church of Mystra said. It's what canon sources have said.
-Firstly, this doesn't happen to everyone. Those surely convinced in their convictions, it wouldn't happen to. And, remember, Clerics are able to differ in the alignment of the deity they serve. Deities "cater" to a large variety of alignments, there's the "One Step" rule...
Remeber a LONG time ago I told people here that I had at one time been training to be a Minister?
When I see my Christian friends - which is VERY rare these days - and they question me about leaving the church, I respond "I didn't leave the church... the church left me".
And leave it at that.
I still believe everything I did back then, believe it or not - I just think the folks in charge have lost site of their convictions, and I don't want to be like that.
The same things happens to some politicians, I think - they don't all start off bad. In fact, many of them probably start off thinking they can really make a difference. Then they get elected and find out how things really work, and somewhere along the way, they lose themselves.
And at the same time, many of them do not even recognize the internal change - they still think wat they're doing is for the right reasons, even if logic dictates it's not.
So the priest who now casts spells that doesn't fit with something his god would support simply has convinced himself that it is the right thing to do. This is how we wind up with Catholics and Protestants killing each other in Ireland. Of course I know it goes deeper then that, but the reality is that people can convinvce themselves that anythings Okay for a cause, and if that 'divine magic' now comes from within in 4e, then it makes perfect sense (to me) that this is the case. I can even point to canon examples of a god showing "the Truth" to two different factions of their church, which is two completely seperate versions of "the Truth", usually leading to large-scale internal conflicts (Lolth is a master of that).
-It's not what the Church of Mystra said. It's what canon sources have said.
And I guess you don't believe that anything has been retconned for 4e?
In fact, I could have sworn someone very wise said something to this effect quite recently... oh... here it is -
-The rules just get thrown out the window. Very problematic.
;) :P
Remeber a LONG time ago I told people here that I had at one time been training to be a Minister?
-No, no I do not.
So the priest who now casts spells that doesn't fit with something his god would support simply has convinced himself that it is the right thing to do.
-But, in the Forgotten Realms, it does not work like that. Violate the tenets of your deity, and the deity can snap his/her/it's metaphorical fingers, and you cannot cast Clerical magic anymore. Nor does the deity need to grant spells when they are preyed for.
-The Heretic of the Faith feat mucks all of this up, but the above has been how it always has been, going back into 2e, and maybe 1e, I'm not sure.
And I guess you don't believe that anything has been retconned for 4e?
-Retcons cause incongruities in continuity.
-That said, the point is that it's not that Mystra's Church is/was lying about anything. That's how the rules of Realmspace work.
Just like the time of troubles changed the rules on how deities and priests interacted, the spellplague again altered those rules. Cannon changes with every new sourcebook and novel that is released.
Just as in RW our knowledge of science increases. At one point it was cannon on Earth that the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe (based partially on teachings of the christian church), we have since then learned that this is not the case. Cannon is only cannon til someone with the authority to change it changes it. And remember there are still members of the Flat Earth Society to this day, but they are usually mocked and disregarded, only being taken seriously by there own fellows.
-And, sticking to what we already know of the setting, deities would not be able to grant their followers spells, now, because of the lack of the Weave, just like magicians should not be able to cast magic, period, as interaction with Raw Magic is harmful to mortals. The rules just get thrown out the window. Very problematic.
That is simply not true. There have always been other magical traditions completely separate from the Weave and Mystra. We haven't really seen much focus on them, but they do exist and they would have continued to exist as they always had after the destruction of the Weave and Mystra.
Gods being what they are, it is not difficult to imagine them having their 'divine essence' drawn upon each time a cleric casts a miracle. Obviously, this would be taxing to a deity (which is why you have miracles that can only be cast per encounter or day instead of all of them at will). It also means that they have to limit the number of clerics that can tap into the power, whereas before the number was unlimited thanks to the Weave.
But, in the Forgotten Realms, it does not work like that.
Things change. It is easy to change how things work in the Realms and keep it in line with cannon perfectly. Although I don't really like Ao, he could just wave his hand and make it so the gods 'fall silent' - then it could be just like in Eberron. That is why Ao was added to the Realms in the first place, to allow for changes like this - however I don't even think he's needed. The destruction of the Weave solves most, if not all the problems while keeping things in line with cannon.
You might not like it, and that is perfectly legitimate, but that does not mean it does not fit with cannon or the Realms. Anyone who does not like it can still easily use the old alignment system, the old dogmas, and the old way of doing things. It is a very easy fix. I am ignoring whatever they publish in the FRCS and doing things my way, which I have already described previously.
As this thread moves forward, it got me thinking more and more about RotP, and the ending does seem to have been clearly written with this 4e concept in mind. I can pretty much pick the exact page where RAS found out about the 4e changes - the entire book does an about face (and the current three-book storyline abruptly ends without any sense of closure) and goes off on a sidequest about evil priests of a good god.
Up until the Orc King, I have read every one of RAS's FR novels, but that rather blatant cow-towing to WotC's demands has made me lose respect for him, and has lost me as a reader. Not only have they torpedoed their own readership with the 4e absurdities, but they've made him jeopardize his own career with this foolishness.
All of the authors have been getting handed their plots and endings lately, and the only one I can say I still respect is Elaine, who stuck to her convictions and didn't allow a bunch of uncreative hacks to dictate what she was going to write.
So I take it you know RAS personally and knew who choose to do that because WotCd and not because he wanted to?
Plus anyway I like RoP.
At any rate, it sounds to me like your character might have more problems for violating Ilmater's dogma than for alignment issues.