You know that ghosts have bodies in d&d-land, right? The classic ghostliness comes from those bodies being on the ethereal plane, not from them not existing. Having bodies that can do things is just what humans do in the game, no gods needed for that. The petitioner may not be made up of the same sort of stuff as someone from the material plane, but that really shouldn't be a significant handicap to them day-to-day.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E [Forgotten Realms] The Wall of the Faithless
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
You know that ghosts have bodies in d&d-land, right? The classic ghostliness comes from those bodies being on the ethereal plane, not from them not existing. Having bodies that can do things is just what humans do in the game, no gods needed for that. The petitioner may not be made up of the same sort of stuff as someone from the material plane, but that really shouldn't be a significant handicap to them day-to-day.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
And neither is "the status quo is corrupt and must be overturned." D&D characters have been offin' gods since you could show bosoms in monster books.
I can't control how others act. It'll be up to them to decide what to do. There are plenty of interpretations that don't lead to enemy status, the most obvious of which is the same logic that my character is using to work with the believers: there's bad guys out there that we all want to beat up before we get to the finer points of Balance. You might even opt to take the view seriously, if you're into your character potentially changing in their belief - it's certainly not an uncommon belief in post-Cataclsym DL that the gods are bloody useless since they went and dropped a mountain on people. It's why divine magic is rare - people have been turning from the gods for eons at this point, rejecting them. The gods are there, but folks are getting along just fine without 'em (until one of the evil ones decides to press the point). A character who views them in the same light is more in line with the setting than divergent from it - they would prefer to keep a godless world rather than return to a world with Cataclysms.
The only thing that makes my character crazy is the same thing that makes any heroic character crazy - a belief that they can change the world for the better. Dismissing it as simple madness is understandable, but like with The Wonka trope that the character trucks in, shows a lack of understanding. He's thinking on a different level than those around him, and dismissing it as insanity says more about the character doing the dismissing than it does about him.
The Cataclysm was caused by the gods - they're the ones who chucked the mountain. Blaming the mortals is just blaming the victims (the millions of screaming, innocent victims). If something forced the gods' hands, it's not part of the story - aside from "the Balance," no reason is given. My character's sincere belief is that any world order that requires the periodic slaughter of millions of innocents in the name of sustaining the world is a world order in severe need of up-ending, and that rather than Balance, the world can be sustained, empowered, and made better by the Change - something as dynamic and ever-changing and open to random intervention as the Balance is precise and exacting and passionless and cruel.
Why would you think this when clerics and paladins wield power that is a direct manifestation of the deity's power? Seems to me the people of Faerun witness miracles on a near daily basis. Clerics, paladins, and all the divine characters wield a god's power through faith and prayer. There are lots of divine characters in the Realms within communities exercising a god's power every day. In a place like the Realms the exercise of divine power would be as prominent as science in the modern world.
Hussar
Legend
[MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] - from the first line of the Dragonlance Nexus that you linked:
A little later in the same paragraph:
From the Nexus page on the Kingpriest:
The Kingpriest was going to commit genocide on a massive scale. Anything that didn't follow his beliefs was to be killed. He had already started these pogroms and had committed genocide against the orcs. There's a reason there's no orcs in Dragonlance, and it isn't the gods. The gods sent 13 warnings to the Kingpriest to try to dissuade him. They allowed Lord Soth the chance to stop the Kingpriest, and Soth failed.
The gods didn't smite Istar because of a whim. They did so as a last resort after being summoned, more or less, by the Kingpriest in his attempt to become a god.
So, no, I'm not buying that this is simply a "difference of opinion". The beliefs of your character directly contradict the canon of the setting. They didn't do it to restore balance, although that was part of the reason. They did it to stop a madman from becoming a god and wiping out vast swaths of the planet.
--------
But all of this is somewhat beside the point I was trying to make. In making a character with an obscured background, it makes it very difficult for anyone else at the table to interact with your character. Look at what we have. Ok, the swashbuckler is in it for the die rolling. Fair enough. He's not terribly interested in the role play aspect of the game. But, look at the other four characters - all embedded deeply into the setting, with families and ties to the land, ties to various factions and peoples in the setting and ties to the history of the setting. From a DM's perspective, what would you do? Would you add things to the game to tie to your character's background or go with the four other players who have created characters that are directly tied to the setting and the campaign?
Put it another way. If you took your gnome and put him in the Tyranny of Dragons campaign, what would you have to change? Anything? Would you have to change a single thing on the character to put him in a completely different setting and campaign? Now, try to do that with the other four characters. It would be extremely difficult to shift those characters to another setting and campaign. Most of what they are is tied directly to the Dragonlance setting and campaign. We'd have to rewrite the entire character to do it. About the only thing that would survive is the mechanics, and even those, for at least two of the characters, is tied directly to Dragonlance.
That's my problem with this style of character. It's not tied to the setting, or at least tied so loosely that it doesn't really matter. There's nothing to play off of. The interplay between the elf, the paladin and the fighter/cleric(ish) is really, IMO, adding to the campaign. And, just to back up a bit here, because it sounds like I'm piddling all over your play and I totally don't mean to. I LOVE the gnome. He's memorable and a fantastic, and really fascinating character. He definitely stands out. But that's because he's being played by a fantastic player who would bring any character to life. ((I still remember your 4e gnome with the bloody chicken on a stick - LOL)) But, all that being said, he does tend to be this very odd man out. Which means, I think, that all that background and beliefs will never actually see any real table time.
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Like I said, it's entirely a play style thing. I would be extremely frustrated in your shoes. Playing a character with all this potential that mostly resides in my head is something I don't like doing at a gaming table.
A little later in the same paragraph:
From the Nexus page on the Kingpriest:
The Kingpriest was going to commit genocide on a massive scale. Anything that didn't follow his beliefs was to be killed. He had already started these pogroms and had committed genocide against the orcs. There's a reason there's no orcs in Dragonlance, and it isn't the gods. The gods sent 13 warnings to the Kingpriest to try to dissuade him. They allowed Lord Soth the chance to stop the Kingpriest, and Soth failed.
The gods didn't smite Istar because of a whim. They did so as a last resort after being summoned, more or less, by the Kingpriest in his attempt to become a god.
So, no, I'm not buying that this is simply a "difference of opinion". The beliefs of your character directly contradict the canon of the setting. They didn't do it to restore balance, although that was part of the reason. They did it to stop a madman from becoming a god and wiping out vast swaths of the planet.
--------
But all of this is somewhat beside the point I was trying to make. In making a character with an obscured background, it makes it very difficult for anyone else at the table to interact with your character. Look at what we have. Ok, the swashbuckler is in it for the die rolling. Fair enough. He's not terribly interested in the role play aspect of the game. But, look at the other four characters - all embedded deeply into the setting, with families and ties to the land, ties to various factions and peoples in the setting and ties to the history of the setting. From a DM's perspective, what would you do? Would you add things to the game to tie to your character's background or go with the four other players who have created characters that are directly tied to the setting and the campaign?
Put it another way. If you took your gnome and put him in the Tyranny of Dragons campaign, what would you have to change? Anything? Would you have to change a single thing on the character to put him in a completely different setting and campaign? Now, try to do that with the other four characters. It would be extremely difficult to shift those characters to another setting and campaign. Most of what they are is tied directly to the Dragonlance setting and campaign. We'd have to rewrite the entire character to do it. About the only thing that would survive is the mechanics, and even those, for at least two of the characters, is tied directly to Dragonlance.
That's my problem with this style of character. It's not tied to the setting, or at least tied so loosely that it doesn't really matter. There's nothing to play off of. The interplay between the elf, the paladin and the fighter/cleric(ish) is really, IMO, adding to the campaign. And, just to back up a bit here, because it sounds like I'm piddling all over your play and I totally don't mean to. I LOVE the gnome. He's memorable and a fantastic, and really fascinating character. He definitely stands out. But that's because he's being played by a fantastic player who would bring any character to life. ((I still remember your 4e gnome with the bloody chicken on a stick - LOL)) But, all that being said, he does tend to be this very odd man out. Which means, I think, that all that background and beliefs will never actually see any real table time.
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Like I said, it's entirely a play style thing. I would be extremely frustrated in your shoes. Playing a character with all this potential that mostly resides in my head is something I don't like doing at a gaming table.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
First, they wield an indirect power of their deity.
Second, outside of adventuring types (which are rare), I don't think divine magic is commonly used. Clergy of a local temple are probably low level, if classed at all. The Deities survive on faith, and that quickly disappears (not to mention fosters dissent) when the local 1st or 2nd level cleric starts casting healing magic.
"I'm sorry, I can't help any more, I am unable to call upon any more miracles until tomorrow"
Can you imagine the outrage over who is healed, or who suffers, or worse, dies? Not to mention the lack of faith generated if your God can only heal 2 people today. Why can't you cure my blindness? What do you mean you can't cure my disease?
Third, I don't think they do witness miracles on a near daily basis. In Elminster's Forgotten Realms Ed describes temple income:
"most folk in the Realms know that the priests of some faiths (such as Wakeen's) sell pardons and medicines, and demand offerings or sometimes set fees for performing certain rituals, such as cleansing, weddings, and atonements.
...
Almost all clergies expect offerings in return for certain prayers and certainly in return for spell casting.
...
The largest source of daily income for most churches is payment for the delivery of verbal and written messages, documents, and small valuables over vast distances, from one individual to another.
...
Many temples serve as banks and keepsakes...also perform the same moneylending and money changing functions as our real-world banks..."
None of this implies that they see miracles on a daily basis, and in fact if those are the major sources of income then spell casting (although mentioned) is but a small part of it. Not all clergy are classed spell casters either.
Aside from that, the power wielded by a cleric or paladin on behalf of their deity is probably largely indistinguishable to the average lay person as any other magic.
In the same book under How Magical Is the Realms?
"Everyone has heard tales of magic, and most city folk see use or results of magic daily, often in the form of glowstones and similar magical light sources.
However, the average common laborer, crafter, servant, farmer, or shopkeeper has never felt magic cast on him or her, or handled anything bearing dweomer or that could be called a magic item."
So no, I don't think that most people have witnesses miracles on a daily basis, or even within their lifetime. The difference between a healing potion and a healing spell, and who can cast one is lost on the average person.
In larger settlements, they are probably more likely to witness or hear second-hand of magic wielded by adventuring types, wizards, sorcerers, etc., than by clerics or paladins. Their Art is flashier, and to an outsider, more potent.
"Did you hear that the wandering priest of Ilmater mended Gornan's broken arm?"
"That's nothing, you should have seen that sorcerer blast three orcs with fire and lightning! They didn't stand a chance/"
Ilbranteloth
I've read in many times over the years that true clerics are to be considered rare. Most followers of a faith, even higher-ups in temples and whatnot, generally have no power whatsoever.
The Forgotten Realms: nullifidians not welcome.
It is the direct power of their deity. The deity manifests his power through them. If they fail to serve him properly, he can remove their power at any time. Indirect would be you taking an action with his power. The priest is the indirect power of the deity. The spells he casts are the direct power of the deity.
Nearly every module or book I've read has some 3rd level or higher priest listed as part of the settlement. Cantrips are usable constantly. If nothing else, a cleric could do plenty in a day even when exhausted of spells.
Outrage? Gods do as they wish. People come back the next day. Gods don't operate on a human schedule. If they tell you they're done for the day, they're done for the day. If someone becomes outraged, they would be looked upon as a fool.
Atonement is a spell. Cleansing is a spell. I know clerics of Lathander wander the land healing people.
...
Even if they're getting paid, they're still performing a miracle. That miracle is witnessed on a daily basis with cleric spells being performed on a daily basis.
...
And a little book known as the Faiths and Avatars and other such books on religions now supersede what Ed wrote, which is more in line with historical churches than fantasy churches. Ed didn't much thought into the idea of churches with priests that wield a god's power if that is what wrote.
No, they are not. Plenty of classed clergy run temples. They can and do perform spells, which are the manifestation of a deities power, on a daily basis. There are other books besides the one you cited with plenty of information about priests wandering about healing and doing other activities than delivering messages and acting as banks. That sounds more like churches of Waukeen than Churches of Lathander or Torm.
It is distinguishable because the cleric or paladin ensures that it is such.
No, it is not. There are other books than Magic in the Realms. There is also what is sensible. Just as in today's world priests, reverends, and the like publically preach faith and would, if they had power like D&D clerics, display that power often to ensure followers know the deity is acting on their behalf. Fact is Ed didn't think about Forgotten Realms religion very well. I'm glad others have done that for him in other books where clerics are extremely active and display the power of their deity.
Only if the priest or paladin isn't good at preaching. Let me see, priests and clerics have a much higher Charisma than most wizards, so I think they would be better at preaching. Fact is Ed Greenwood was never very good writing clerics and paladins. He loves his pet wizards and has always paid short shrift to the idea of truly empowered clerics and paladins serving their faith in a very potent and public manner.
Even if one goes solely off the mechanics of the game, people in the Realms would watch miracles by priests and paladins, publically displaying and preaching the power of their deity in combination. Though I don't have my Faiths and Avatars or other religious Realms books on me, we will have to disagree as to how D&D religion works, especially in a high magic world in the Realms. I see things very differently from Ed Greenwood. And having read tons of game books on the Realms with priests in nearly every settlement as well as the religious books, I can confidently say that the passages you cited contradict the way they built the world and how clerical magic works. Not to mention how priests would actually act if they had the real power of their deity flowing through them from prayer.
I see the Realms folk as seeing the display of power from the gods on a daily basis, even if it is a bunch of 1st level clerics casting cantrips or low level spells on a daily basis. I think they take it for granted.
Yet they populate every settlement with leveled clerics in game books. The disconnect between what they write and they do I guess.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
Well, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the majority of what is published is geared towards classed characters. For example, the way Faiths and Avatars was presented, only classed characters can be clergy. But in other publications it is mentioned that classed characters (clerics) make us a small part of the clergy.
Nor is it a surprise that they provide classed clerics in any temple they publish. This is undoubtedly for a lot of reasons, including providing access to healing magic for the PCs, providing for a similar or greater level NPC (D&D has never had a decent 0-level system), and also because it's just expected that they would have a class and level.
In response to your longer response to me, that's the whole beauty of the Forgotten Realms - each DM's Realms is their own. Even among the published materials there is a lot of inconsistencies and incompatibilities. In my campaign Ed Greenwood's writings are the primary source for what I use to develop my realmslore, with other primary TSR/Wizards writers just below Ed. Beneath those are the widely varying Realms supplements in quality and content, including the many things that weren't really designed for the Realms but dumped there by company policy.
We all have to pick and choose what we keep and what we throw out based on the game books. You choose to disregard (or at least downplay) Ed's approach, which is fine. The published books have all sorts of contradictions and compatibility issues. Faiths and Avatars is one of my favorite Realms supplements, and there's a lot of great stuff to work with there. I've been divided between updating Faiths and Avatars material to 5th Edition (I've created clerics of Ilmater and Bane already), to shifting to the simpler approach as it's currently presented. But it doesn't invalidate Ed's material, and it certainly can't 'supersede' a book that was released a decade later. Ed's writings are the ones that specifically speak to what the 'normal' Realmsfolk experience, rather the the implications of more game-centric books like Faiths and Avatars. The Volo's Guides are phenomenal, along with Ed's various columns in Dragon and online over the years.
One of the reasons why I love Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms is it was the start of a process that appears to be continuing in the 5th Edition to bring the Forgotten Realms closer to it's original arc. Of course, some of us have followed TSR/Wizards away from that arc more than others. I know that as my campaign progressed into the 2nd and then 3rd editions it followed a lot of the published material very closely, trying to maintain credibility as each new book (whether Forgotten Realms or D&D rulebook) introduced more rules and such. By the 4th Edition we tried to make the 4th Edition fit our 1st-3rd Edition world, and had varying degrees of success until things sort of fell apart. The fact that the 2nd Edition made the Realms the base campaign and started tacking practically anything they could onto the Forgotten Realms (like the Mongols, Arabian Nights, and the exploration of the 'New World' with Aztec and Native Americans), and then the reverse of trying to bring all of the game worlds to a single standard concept (including planes and Deities) in the 4th Edition, it's really hard to determine what 'they' feel is the Forgotten Realms, whether referring to Deities, religion, or anything else.
The 5th Edition makes it possible to accommodate pretty much any of the options in 2nd-4th edition, but in a simpler 1st edition feel. More importantly (particularly with a few tweaks) it gets the game out of the way of the world and the story, and is a direct reversal of the prior direction.
I say this because starting in the 2nd Edition, material such as Faiths and Avatars was increasingly written with the idea that the players needed more options, more powers, etc. Rather than developing the world, or explaining how the rare classed adventuring types fit the world (they had already mentioned it), they started doing the opposite and fit the world into the game system. This is problematic when the game system changes, either with new supplements or a new edition.
As a DM I was willing to allow the players a wide latitude to use any option that interested them, but that did not change the greater world that started for me first in the pages of Dragon, and then more fully with the release of the original FR Campaign Set.
And that was all based on the premise that the vast majority of people in the world do not have a class, and live in a world as described by Ed Greenwood. A trip from a small village to a larger town is more of an event if the amount of diversity in creatures and magic increase proportionately. Certainly a native of Waterdeep is accustomed to magic use on a daily basis, the temples and clergy of many Deities preaching their 'truth' with magic to back it up, and creatures of all races and classes wandering the streets that they share with the common folk who just live there. All those wondrous things that they have heard about in stories and legends, perhaps caught a glimpse of with a small band of adventurers passing through their village, are on full display (and relatively commonplace) in a big city. But most Realmsfolk will never see all of that. The older and wiser might actively discourage their young from going to experience it (they're just stories, you'll just be copperless and struggling to survive in a place filled with thieves, beggars, and murderers).
That world makes sense to me, and that dichotomy is part of what makes the Realms fascinating. A world where high-level clerics are in every village is one where disease, poison, injury, and even death are just inconveniences and available to those with the devotion and enough coin. Price wars for spellcasting services between temples to get more worshipers from their rival temples, all sorts of possibilities arise when you ratchet up the level of magic, whether divine or arcane. Ed's novels, particularly Spellfire, present this growth extremely well. The model isn't a new one either, being pretty much the entire point of The Hobbit, just with more wizards.
I will say all this discussion makes me want to go back and read the Cleric Quintet again, though.
Ilbranteloth
Similar Threads
