Dragon 370 - Invoker Preview

[TwinBahamut]

Which is why I said "In 4e, you have a shorter list of gods, but still, you're going to have 'that God from the other continent that the Orcs and savage humanoids pray to'."

And which god is that? Based on how 4E has been handled so far, that "god some savage orcs pray to" is likely to be a different name for an existing god. If they are good/unaligned orcs (not possible by RAW, but whatever), they might be worshipping Kord or Melora by another name. If they are bad orcs, they might be worshipping Asmodeus by a different name. No reason whatsoever that it is an entirely different pantheon, or that it is a totally irreconcilable one (considering how flexible most polytheistic religions tend to be).

But okay. Let's crack open the 4e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. It spells out on page 80 the 'Pantheons of the World'. Five different Pantheons: The Greater Gods, the Gods, the Exarchs, the Primordials, and the Archdevils. An Invoker could pray to any of those (even the Primordials, who the gods Battled).

Sorry, I don't have that book, so I can't really comment. It doesn't seem to address your original concern, though, since all gods are lumped together in that structure.

Yeah, well as a DM and a Player I have a problem with it. And my interpretation is that Gods would have a problem with it. I

To yoru second point, I don't consider that valid. Yes, two pantheons might have a God of the Sun, but you don't have people jumping between pantheons and using the other God's name, they're using one.

You are a bit incoherent here... I don't even see how what you are saying is relevant to either of our points.

At this point, all I can say is that if you want to ignore the way things have actually been perceived in real polytheistic religions and do your own thing for your own D&D game, that is fine, but that is a far cry from saying that the concept of the Invoker is inherently absurd. It may be absurd based on your own preferences and historically-inaccurate interpretations, but that does not mean it will be the same for the rest of us.

 

[Dionysos]

Yeah, well as a DM and a Player I have a problem with it. And my interpretation is that Gods would have a problem with it. I

Sounds like a personal problem. Go ahead and change it to suit your taste in your game.

In the real world, the Romans had no difficulty adopting the Greek gods and identifying many of those deities as being the same entities as their own gods. It was very common in polytheistic societies for different people to share gods as part of larger cultural exchanges. Isis at one point had more temples in the city of Rome than did Jupiter!

Caesar identified the Gallic gods as being essentially the same as the gods of Rome. There are scores of examples.

From a polytheistic point of view, there is always room for more gods, and there is no reason not to worship as many as you want.

Again, if you don't like it working that way in Dungeons and Dragons, go ahead and change it. But your distaste does not make your position instrinsically right, or the polytheistic assumptions of 4th edition fundamentally wrong.

 

[The Little Raven]

And my interpretation is that Gods would have a problem with it.

Where do you derive this interpretation from? The PHB is pretty clear on this issue, and seems to contradict your assertion that the gods have a problem with it.

Most people revere more than one deity, praying to different gods at different times. Commoners in a small town might visit a temple that has three altars, where they pray to Bahamut for protection, Pelor for fertile crops, and Moradin to aid their skill at crafting. Clerics and paladins more often serve a single deity, championing that god’s particular cause in the world.

Clerics and paladins are essentially fanatics, while the rest of society acts far more normally. And it makes sense. Even if I consider Gruumsh to be a supreme god over others, why wouldn't I pray to a goddess of life and childbirth to ask that my wife produce healthy kids? The god of slaughter isn't really the one to be asking for those things.

As people have pointed out, it's no different than real world pantheons have been for a long time. If you wanted your son, the soldier, to return from war, you prayed to Mars. If you wanted to gain greater wealth, you sacrificed to Pluto. D&D has always been weird in its application of monotheistic values (worship of a single god) to a supposedly polytheistic pantheon.

 

[Rechan]

Sounds like a personal problem. Go ahead and change it to suit your taste in your game.

No, it sounds like an opinion, and yes, that's the plan.

And which god is that?

Any other god that pops up!

No reason whatsoever that it is an entirely different pantheon, or that it is a totally irreconcilable one (considering how flexible most polytheistic religions tend to be).

No reason that it isn't an entirely different pantheon, either. The core rules is intentionally brief on Gods. In fact, the Gods have little influence on the setting besides 'well, there are Gods, and they fought the primordials'.

It doesn't seem to address your original concern, though, since all gods are lumped together in that structure.

But it does because an Invoker could just go to all the pantheons, instead of staying under one. The pantheon issue doesn't matter for the issues that I have pointed out.

but that is a far cry from saying that the concept of the Invoker is inherently absurd. It may be absurd based on your own preferences and historically-inaccurate interpretations, but that does not mean it will be the same for the rest of us.

Thanks for the condescention and insult there. I didn't say that the Invoker is absurd. I said that I dislike it because this is the impression that I get. In fact, my comment was:

For instance, this fluff turns me off really hard.

I never stated fact: Invoker is absurd. I even said, in the initial post, that:

I find it interesting that the same fluff can excite one person, and turn the other off.

So even before you felt the need to comment, I was all ready acknowledging that some feel differently about something, based on opinion and taste.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I agree with Rechan in that the polytheism exhibited in the staff blog fluff is not how polytheism has been traditionally portrayed in D&D. In D&D, it's always been "this is the god you serve, now serve them." I also don't feel that a character who "prays" to Bahamut one moment then "prays" to Tiamat the next is very compelling, but, meh, it's not my character I guess.

But you're talking to someone who doesn't require divine characters to have the same alignment as the deity they serve. So I guess all divine characters are like invokers IMC.

IIRC there's supposed to be a Dragon article in the next couple of months that talks about how there might be evil worshippers of good gods, or non-evil worshippers of evil gods.

 

[The Little Raven]

I also don't feel that a character who "prays" to Bahamut one moment then "prays" to Tiamat the next is very compelling, but I'm not willing to declare badwrongfun here.

I find it most compelling. You have a man, a merchant perhaps, who prays to the Platinum Dragon to ask for protection over his servants and possessions... and then he turns and prays to the Chromatic Dragon Queen to ask for wealth beyond avarice, as she is the goddess of greed... and then turns and offers sacrifices to Bane to ask for the war between the elves and the humans of the borderlands to continue, as this merchant sells weapons and profits from the continued conflict.

It portrays a far more nuanced and compelling person than "I love Bahamut and only Bahamut."

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I find it most compelling.

By "compelling," I mean "a character I would want to play." So when I said "I don't find it compelling," I'm not saying it's objectively bad or anything like that, just that I wouldn't want to play it. I could have been more clear.

 

[Rechan]

Where do you derive this interpretation from?

From the way interpret things?

I'm not talking about Farmer Joe that in general gives proper reverence to Pelor, but occasionally will give a nice thank-you to the Nature Deity when it comes time for planting or harvest. Farmer Joe is giving respect and tribute. He is, to put it another way, writing a thank-you card or a request to that deity, submitting it to a clerk, and hoping that it eventually makes its way up to the big guy's desk and that the God will be nice enough to agree to it, or accept Joe's thank-you letter.

I'm talking about Invoker Bob who prays to Pelor, who Pelor gives direct power. Invoker Bob is directly calling Pelor and saying "Hey, send an air-strike down here, ASAP" or "Hey, gimmie some divine juice right now to re-attach my friend's arm."

I determine a big, fat, bold line between tribute and respect and tangible, irrefutable, immediate magical power. Pelor isn't faxing down any divine purification when Farmer Joe says grace - Joe can still die of food poisoning or choke to death on his food, after all. But he is faxing down that divine mojo on behalf of the Invoker. So they are different.

In Real World pantheons, priests aren't calling down flame from the heavens with their voice with immediate, quantifiable results. They aren't healing people with the snap of their fingers in an instant, and none can deny it. They are asking very nicely if the God might intervene in some hopeful fashion, and that maybe fate will work out in their favor. The same way that Farmer Joe is asking for a good harvest. It's not the same as "BAM, I rose you from the dead."

It flabbergasts me that the two are being considered as the same.

Given that I draw this distinction, my issue is that the Invoker can just call up any God he pleases and get divine interventione/power, and this just isn't a problem with any of the other Gods. Not only that, but he has no repercussions, he doesn't have to give anything; the Cleric has to dedicate himself to that God, or that church, or whatever, but the Invoker? He is beholden to no God.

 

[Stogoe]

too bad the druid didn't get anything that nifty

I hope you're joking. An extra at-will and Wild Shape (including shift as a minor action) make them plenty good without also giving them cantrips.

On the other hand, priests of many historical religions did exactly the same thing: taught reverence of the entire pantheon, not an individual deity. So they offered up prayers to whatever god best suited the situation.

Indeed. If your divine characters aren't at least a little bit henotheistic, that seems odd to me.

I agree with Rechan in that the polytheism exhibited in the staff blog fluff is not how polytheism has been traditionally portrayed in D&D. In D&D, it's always been "this is the god you serve, now serve them."

Well, no. It's not how polytheism has been 'traditionally' portrayed in D&D. But it does better reflect how polytheism was actually practiced in ancient cultures. In my opinion, breaking polytheism in D&D out of the framework of monotheism can only be a good thing.

 

[DandD]

I don't know. Isn't getting divine powers more now like being imbued with it, and (practically) irrevocable? I mean, 4th edition clerics don't get accepted by their gods, but rather, they get initiated into the church by another cleric in a ritual, for example, aren't they? At least, that's what the player's handbook says, I believe.