cleric switching god

[MoonZar]

We werent discussing Joe Random's God Change, we were discussing a God Change brought on by roleplay, where the god change did, in fact, make sense. Lathander did NOT send help to his "Faithful" cleric. He didnt send one of his Paladins, a lay person, an adventuring party, he did NOTHING for months while his devoted follower was tortured and abused. The character feels abandoned, and the player, quite rightly, thinks that a switch in gods is not only warranted, but justified. I agree with him. Lathander FAILED this cleric, for whatever reason, when his need was great. Now, he has a burning desire for justice and retribution, which Lathander does not stand for.

Lathander and this cleric no longer have anything in common, and Lathander has already abandoned him.

If you want to discuss Joe Random bad player who switches gods every other game session, feel free, but it should have nothing to do with this thread. I play D&D to roleplay, not to move miniatures on a battlemat, so when someone institutes new Draconian lawful evil rules to punish my characters for rp, I dump them and their game as a bad habit.

As i said in this particular case this very good roleplay.

Maybe this was very late, but as the other guy said, maybe lathender or another god (TYR) really save the cleric after all. This a miracle according to me that a group of adventurer save him and that he's still alive.

 

[Seeten]

The OP is the DM in question, and he did not comment, "Lathander sent a party of adventurers to save him" simply that a group of adventurers did.

 

[smootrk]

A cleric who has a lack of devotion during a time of crisis is not good role-play. Like someone else remarked... the Cleric is there to serve the Deity.... The Deity is not there to serve the needs of one of his (apparently) non-faithful who lapses during a trying time.

Be peaceful about this. These are my opinions (and others as well), and they are not LE or Draconian. They may not work for your group's dynamic, but they are sound and plausible for many others. A cleric should be the very model of devotion and loyalty in all situations, as they would probably see any trying moments as 'tests of faith'.

 

[MoonZar]

The OP is the DM in question, and he did not comment, "Lathander sent a party of adventurers to save him" simply that a group of adventurers did.

Yeah i known this was just a supposition, that the priest could see thing like this.

 

[MoonZar]

A cleric who has a lack of devotion during a time of crisis is not good role-play. Like someone else remarked... the Cleric is there to serve the Deity.... The Deity is not there to serve the needs of one of his (apparently) non-faithful who lapses during a trying time.

Be peaceful about this. These are my opinions (and others as well), and they are not LE or Draconian. They may not work for your group's dynamic, but they are sound and plausible for many others. A cleric should be the very model of devotion and loyalty in all situations, as they would probably see any trying moments as 'tests of faith'.

Well i think this good roleplay, he have good reason to quit his god, and if he choose to stay with his god he would probably also have good reason. In both way the cleric is a very good roleplayer to me... He did not act with no reason, the priest reacting to the situation, and i don't think we could juge for the player what the character should do, don't you think ?

 

[smootrk]

Well i think this good roleplay, he have good reason to quit his god, and if he choose to stay with his god he would probably also have good reason. In both way the cleric is a very good roleplayer to me... He did not act with no reason, the priest reacting to the situation, and i don't think we could juge for the player what the character should do, don't you think ?

It may be good role-play for a cleric with a 'devotion crisis', but I don't think he should be very surprised at a drastic change in his divine granted abilities and powers when he turns his back on his Deity, as this thread has detailed earlier.

 

[MoonZar]

It may be good role-play for a cleric with a 'devotion crisis', but I don't think he should be very surprised at a drastic change in his divine granted abilities and powers when he turns his back on his Deity, as this thread has detailed earlier.

Well according to me good roleplay is to play the character with emotion, personnality, goal, ambition. Whatever the cleric decision i don't see how he could be a bad roleplayer.

I was very wrong with my Xp penalty earlier in the topic, you convince me that this was a very stupid idea.

I still agree that he could lost some power for a while, or have other penalty. But I really think now that he should be reward for this nice roleplay with a bonus of xp and not punish because he change god.

 

[smootrk]

Possibly a poor choice of words when I said not 'good role-play'. I conceed that, but still, the opinions of the penalties are still not EVIL or Draconic in nature. They are quite rational. I think it just pains some players who can only think of the loss of "power" (most probably in the combat or spell sense), when they choose to role-play the cleric who has no faith in their deity.

 

[MoonZar]

Possibly a poor choice of words when I said not 'good role-play'. I conceed that, but still, the opinions of the penalties are still not EVIL or Draconic in nature. They are quite rational. I think it just pains some players who can only think of the loss of "power" (most probably in the combat or spell sense), when they choose to role-play the cleric who has no faith in their deity.

I respect your opinion and i was thinking like you at the beginning of the topic.

But now i don't see any reason to punish the player if he do good roleplay, this make new oppotunity to push foward the campaign, like a quest to join Tyr and maybe also make peace with latender later, he could make peace with him and stay with Tyr. The choice of the players is a gift to the dm for plots.

Of course this could have explanation why the cleric could loose Xp, but at the end the most important thing is the players happiness. I would probably be very sad if my character lost Xp even if the choice was very logical for my character personnality. This just doesn't make sense to me.

As many people told me in the topic they are glad that they don't play in a campaign where the dm give Xp Penalty, and this not a good sign. As you known, the DM can't play without players.

Then my conclusion is that the DM should be a guide and talk with the player, and he have very good reason according to me for this choice. This doesn't matter if we agree with the choise or not, he have reasons...

If this was a case that the player just wakeup and want to change god, that would be a very different story, but as some guy suggested we should stay in topic.

Maybe you should read a topic i had started about Xp Penalty a while ago : http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=127277

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It is not the place of a priest to decide if the actions of his God were appropriate or not. What exactly did he expect his God to do? Send an Avatar to kill the goblins and rescue the important and obviously devout 3rd level cleric?

I side with you. The gods don't save their follower's backsides personally all the time (except if the goddess in question is named Mystra and the follower is Elminster, of course, but then, you can argue that lovers look out for each other ;-)). But that's not really the point. That poor guy did just endure months of torture, which is a tremendous strain on body, mind, soul and spirit. He felt left alone by his god. Things like this can change person.

Who is to say that his God did not arrange for the arrival of the adventuring party or that He stayed the hand of the goblin leaders.

If that were true, than there would have been a sooner rescue.

Who is to say that the priest was not being punished for his lack of faith, or even tested to see if he is worthy.

The fact that we're talking about Lathander. Lathander's neither evil nor stern. Lolth does things like that to her followers all the time, for she's evil and chaotic. Ilmater might do things like that, since he's the deity of suffering. Even deities like Tyr or Helm might do it, for they demand blind obedience. But Lathander is a gentle soul. He tests the hearts of his followers in different ways. (For example, he might let one of his followers fail in a athletic contest even though he's the best sportsman in there, because he didn't train hard enough. By thinking he was good enough for the rest, he stopped becoming better. Only if he tried hard he'd become the best again.)

If the priest feels that at the first sign of personal anguish, lose and setback, is a sign that his God has forsaken him, then he obviously places more value on his role in the Church that is reasonable.

I'm sorry? First sign of anguish? He was tortured for months. After he had to witness most of his comrades die. The fact that he survived this shows that he's all but squeamish.

As for him changing Gods. An Evil God might take him, just for spite, but a Lawful Good God would not. Who is to say that at the first sign of difficulty, this priest won't bail again. He obviously feels that a God is required to earn his devotion, instead of learning that it is the God who requires a level of devotion and repays that devotion with granting the priest special powers and divine spells.

Again, we aren't talking about "the first sign of difficulty". Tyr would see that this soul has suffered much and now burns with the desire to right the wrong done to him. I'd say that he'll receive him with open hands.

And the gods have to earn the devotion of their followers. After Ao saw that the gods had become careless, he first cast them down onto the Prime, and after the Time of Troubles was over, he declared that the power of a deity is directly dependant on his followers, so they actually have to vie for them. That's also the reason why only deities can grant divine magic now.

If this good roleplay like the case of this topic why not, but sometime people change from a good god to an evil good for no other reason that they want to be allowed to make slaugther and murder. If have see this case a couple of time when i was a player, even in a tournment in montreal. This very disturbing when most of the group is good.

Okay, this is another situation entirely. Especially considering that evil characters aren't allowed in "normal" campaigns, and this counts twice the homicidal maniac type you describe here. In that case, the DM would have to take that player to the side and explain to him that this will make an NPC out of the character, plus in this case the Church Inquisitors and Consecrated Harriers will hunt him down, for he has torned evil and really betrayed his church.

This doesn't have anything to do with the original case.

I'd let him cast spells prior to being initiated to a new diety. Obviously house rule territory, but I'd just say he's developed enough of a knack for his lower level spells that he doesn't need a dieties direct approval to cast them.

Oh yes he does, at least in the Forgotten Realms, where this campaign obviously takes place. In the realms, you simply cannot cast divine magic without a divine patron. All magic comes from without, and if the source of your magic isn't available to you, you stand there spell-less.

I just really don't like the idea of a cleric going without spells. Then again, I don't generally sunder weapons or steal spellbooks. Not that I really consider this to be the same thing - the player is making the initial decision. I just know that I wouldn't have much fun as a player if I couldn't do what my class was supposed to do.

I don't like crippling PC's either - my initial reactions in this topic should have made this clear as a diamond - but it is the very logical thing to do.

Note that it won't be for long, though: As soon as he finds a new patron, he has access to magic again. In game terms, I'd say that he will be without his spells for one mission, which should span about one game session, while he proves his worth and sincerity to the new god. That should be bearable (he's practically turned into a warrior for this time, and not really helpless - most clerics have decent martial prowess even without their magic).

There might be a period consisting solely of social interaction, when he seeks for a new deity (if he hasn't already made that choice - in our example here, he has), vistiting several temples and listening to the priests. After that, there will be a quest for his new deity. Maybe he will be without his magic until then, maybe he will be lent some magic item (like a wand or staff) to simulate just some spells (like healing, or stuff that really fits the deity and his/her portfolio) to better succeed in his mission. Maybe they first test him with magic and interrogation whether his motives are sincere (of course, he has to submit to this magic), or place him unter a geas, and then grant him his magic on probation. If he should abandon his quest, he'd lose his magical ability again, along with his chance to be adopted by this deity - or any other, unless there was a really good reason for abandoning his quest.

I do agree that in this particular case, which sounds to be good role-play to me, that there would be little retribution from Lathander the deity. His clergy on the other hand, in a more realistic sense, might still have issues with the ex-cleric. After all the organization would have internal politics amongst the men who make up the clergy.

Yes, there might be some ill will toward the cleric, as this cleric or that Morninglord will hold a grudge, or consider him an infidel, but I really doubt that this would turn violent or nasty in any way. It's just not the way of Lathander and his faithful.

Changing to a new diety should entail much more strife than I think most in this forum seem to want to entertain. Maybe for some campaigns this should be manifest in ability penalties, and xp loss, and for other campaigns it should revolve around the role-play aspect of the change. I think either is probably correct, but depends on the DM ,his individual players, and his particular group dynamic. Ultimately, making the game fun is the goal.

It also depends on the circumstances, and crippling penalties cannot be fun for any player, especially if said player considers his actions justified.