-The deities determine it themselves.
However the Unaligned alignment has a lot of benefit to it for gods and divine casters. An UA god can have divine casters of all alignments, while an UA divine caster can worship any god. So you can have LG and CE clerics of Oghma in the same church (not that they would be happy with each other) or a UA cleric of Bane who is a benevolent dictator.
However the Unaligned alignment has a lot of benefit to it for gods and divine casters. An UA god can have divine casters of all alignments, while an UA divine caster can worship any god. So you can have LG and CE clerics of Oghma in the same church (not that they would be happy with each other) or a UA cleric of Bane who is a benevolent dictator.
"unaligned alignment" ... you have to let this roll off your tongue and think about it. Who came to such nonsense (in the truest sense of the word)? What was wrong with the old alignments ... bar their heavy handed descriptions and suggested usage?
NB: A general remark and question, nothing against you HV!
"unaligned alignment" ... you have to let this roll off your tongue and think about it. Who came to such nonsense (in the truest sense of the word)? What was wrong with the old alignments ... bar their heavy handed descriptions and suggested usage?
-Neutrality and "Unaligned" can be used as synonyms, but when you analyze them, they aren't necessarily the same. To hold a neutral alignment means that you have tenets in which you hold where you purposefully make sure not to "rock the boat". To hold an "unaligned" alignment...Well, it's an oxymoron. To be unaligned is to not have an alignment.
-Neutrality and "Unaligned" can be used as synonyms, but when you analyze them, they aren't necessarily the same. To hold a neutral alignment means that you have tenets in which you hold where you purposefully make sure not to "rock the boat". To hold an "unaligned" alignment...Well, it's an oxymoron. To be unaligned is to not have an alignment.
I was not asking for an explanation of the words, mum
-You put question marks at the close of those sentences. I am giving you theoretical answers for your queries.
Yes mum. So you are some WotC'er in disguise then? (Ouch, another question mark you may deem necessary to clarify :surrender *
*:surrender <- don't take that literally. You won't scare me away from here that easily
-The deities determine it themselves.
I meant, how does it happen? Does someone just have enough power that someone Labels them a God? Does AO admit them through some idenification scroll? Is there some clerk at a desk who writes their stuff down? Or is it the famous FR way of "it just happens", and everyone is satifyed with the half ass reason.
I meant, how does it happen? Does someone just have enough power that someone Labels them a God? Does AO admit them through some idenification scroll? Is there some clerk at a desk who writes their stuff down? Or is it the famous FR way of "it just happens", and everyone is satifyed with the half ass reason.
Designers do that. And new designers tend to add a bit of "their own" into the mix, sometimes to the better, sometimes to the worse of the setting. Sometimes it follows previous lore, sometimes it overrides it. In this case, 4E rules bended the old lore.
However the Unaligned alignment has a lot of benefit to it for gods and divine casters. An UA god can have divine casters of all alignments, while an UA divine caster can worship any god. So you can have LG and CE clerics of Oghma in the same church (not that they would be happy with each other) or a UA cleric of Bane who is a benevolent dictator.
Somehow I don't think a UA cleric of say bane is going to remotely be nice and even more certainly have little in common with say a UA cleric of Selune.
Yes mum. So you are some WotC'er in disguise then? (Ouch, another question mark you may deem necessary to clarify :surrender *
-No.
I meant, how does it happen?
-It just does. The designer who writes the book wants it a certain way, and thus, it is said, it is written, it is done.
Designers do that. And new designers tend to add a bit of "their own" into the mix, sometimes to the better, sometimes to the worse of the setting. Sometimes it follows previous lore, sometimes it overrides it. In this case, 4E rules bended the old lore.
-No.
-It just does. The designer who writes the book wants it a certain way, and thus, it is said, it is written, it is done.
ROFL! Ok...and you guys are sastifyed with that? If I told you I am a God of earth, you would just accept "because I am?". What a terrible design for such a vast rich setting that is based from DnD.
What would this forum do without me? Honestly, am I the only one who looks at everything in a logical perspective? And what's sad is I don't even play DnD.
-It just does.
LMFAO
http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
However the Unaligned alignment has a lot of benefit to it for gods and divine casters. An UA god can have divine casters of all alignments, while an UA divine caster can worship any god. So you can have LG and CE clerics of Oghma in the same church (not that they would be happy with each other) or a UA cleric of Bane who is a benevolent dictator.
We can develop the Nelanther Isles and Chult by filling them with socialist banana republics!
There is a nagging sensation in the back of my brain telling me that I may be the only person in creation who thought that joke even remotely funny.
(sigh)
We can develop the Nelanther Isles and Chult by filling them with socialist banana republics!
There is a nagging sensation in the back of my brain telling me that I may be the only person in creation who thought that joke even remotely funny.
(sigh)
-I find it slightly funny that there is a clothing store called Banana Republic.
-I find it slightly funny that there is a clothing store called Banana Republic.
Me too.
-I find it slightly funny that there is a clothing store called Banana Republic.
I think consumers are supposed to infer that BR's clothing line is "edgy" and "fashion elitist" and "adventurous" in that actual banana republics are ... well, dangerous, unstable (you might have to run for your life at times), and ruled by a wealthy elite.
Of course, turning the analogy on it's side, one might see the hidden (and hilarious) joke that the fashion industry (in various respects) could be viewed as elitist, filled with "radicals," entirely dependent on making the young and poor shell out money for whatever they say is "fashionable", and ultimately corrupt.*
*I'm not saying that this is my opinion, I just think the joke inherently points this way because of the name comparison that people could make.
-Well, that's putting a lot more philosophical and metaphorical value into it than I ever have.
Heh! :D
Mostly, it's because I watch this hilariously dumb show called "Project Runway." Yes, I'm ashamed.
-Well, that's putting a lot more philosophical and metaphorical value into it than I ever have.
Don't worry, you're sane.
Heh! :D
Mostly, it's because I watch this hilariously dumb show called "Project Runway." Yes, I'm ashamed.
And insane.
Heh! :D
Mostly, it's because I watch this hilariously dumb show called "Project Runway." Yes, I'm ashamed.
I've watched that too! I don't think it's dumb.
The clothing store/line, i always felt, was trying to evoke the colonial (and colonialist) sense of exploration and adventure accompanied by U.S. presence in places like Tegucigalpa or Managua while brushing under the table the whole thing where the banana corporations brutally opposed land reform for decades. What really gets me is that in the 1980s and 1990s the people who were actually making these clothes were sweatshop workers living in many of the same countries whose ambiance the line was trying to conjure, and not paid enough to be able to buy the clothes they made.
/end rant
I do like the idea of the nelanther as populated by pirate states, socialist or otherwise.
The divine energy made up from the questions and experience of the worshippers of dieties also also have a strong effect on a diety's psyche. A god litteraly sees through the eyes of his holdings and worshippers who's vantagepoints have a certain moral environment. But ultimately a gods dogma is more important than a diety's alignment, although the morals inherent in his worshippers certainly can be labeled onto the god itself.
The term "banana republic" technically refers not to socialist states but rather ones like pre-sandinista Nicaragua or many central American countries for much of the twentieth century - countries ruled by right wing dictatorships backed militarily and financially by local familial oligarchies and increasingly multinantional corporations like United Fruit, which is now Dole. The term was supposed to dramatize and mock the yoking of these regimes to corporate/yanqui interests - which is what the socialists where actually organizing against.
The clothing store/line, i always felt, was trying to evoke the colonial (and colonialist) sense of exploration and adventure accompanied by U.S. presence in places like Tegucigalpa or Managua while brushing under the table the whole thing where the banana corporations brutally opposed land reform for decades. What really gets me is that in the 1980s and 1990s the people who were actually making these clothes were sweatshop workers living in many of the same countries whose ambiance the line was trying to conjure, and not paid enough to be able to buy the clothes they made.
/end rant
I do like the idea of the nelanther as populated by pirate states, socialist or otherwise.
Wtf....