Elder-Basilisk
First Post
First bit of advice: Read Sepuchrave II's story hours (The Paladin and the Succubus, Sepuchrave II's story hour, The Heretic of the Wyre, and The Rape of Mourne) in the Story Hour forum. He has a system that seems to work remarkably well and would be a good example for what you're trying to accomplish (I think).
If you want to have conflict between followers of the same god then the best way to do this is not to make the god a wishy washy sort with multiple contradictary natures (the reason that people are able to believe in the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all supposed to have the same moral character and nature). A better way to do this is to allow a narrow range of alignments (perhaps only LN, LG, and NG) and work from there.
Now people, even of the same alignment, are bound to have different opinions upon whether rebellion/schism is acceptable. So, say there is an evil ruler of one land which dominates the organized religion. He naturally favors the LN priests who are willing to make excuses for his behavior and to work within the system. The LG and NG priests who directly and indirectly oppose him are marginalized in the institution so as to avoid incurring the ruler's wrath. Over time, even if his descendants are not evil, the LN priests who now dominate the power structure are likely to appoint people who share their philosophies thus perpetuating their dominance. Now if another ruler were to arise and through evil acts or through incompetence cause a rebellion, many of the good priests might very well support the rebellion. If the neutral priests emphasized loyalty, this would be unacceptable to them. So, now, the Lawful neutrals, and some of the lawful goods would probably excommunicate the Lawful and Neutral Good priests who supported the rebels. Assuming the rebellion was successful, the Lawful and Neutral Good priests might establish a rival organization that emphasized good over loyalty. However, having already agreed to one schism, it is likely that they would be willing to divide their priesthood still further over the disagreements that would be bound to arise among a diverse group of people. So you would then have several seperate organizations all worshipping one deity.
If some prophet were to arise among one of the organizations, it is unlikely that he would be accepted by the others and over time, their doctrines could aquire significant differences--particularly if they lacked an unchanging set of scriptures or precepts to ground them.
Now, if most clergy did not have a direct connection that enabled them to work clerical magic, any of these organizations could turn to evil and nobody would notice the difference (most likely) except in their behavior. Alternately, even if low level clerical ability were common, bardic magic could simulate much of this and the bard class would provide the people skills necessary to fool some people into following someone who had lost the favor of their god (or never had it to begin with). That way, you could have a god who had a definite alignment and cared about the behavior of his followers but whose clergy all appeared to cast spells--even the evil ones.
If you want to have conflict between followers of the same god then the best way to do this is not to make the god a wishy washy sort with multiple contradictary natures (the reason that people are able to believe in the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all supposed to have the same moral character and nature). A better way to do this is to allow a narrow range of alignments (perhaps only LN, LG, and NG) and work from there.
Now people, even of the same alignment, are bound to have different opinions upon whether rebellion/schism is acceptable. So, say there is an evil ruler of one land which dominates the organized religion. He naturally favors the LN priests who are willing to make excuses for his behavior and to work within the system. The LG and NG priests who directly and indirectly oppose him are marginalized in the institution so as to avoid incurring the ruler's wrath. Over time, even if his descendants are not evil, the LN priests who now dominate the power structure are likely to appoint people who share their philosophies thus perpetuating their dominance. Now if another ruler were to arise and through evil acts or through incompetence cause a rebellion, many of the good priests might very well support the rebellion. If the neutral priests emphasized loyalty, this would be unacceptable to them. So, now, the Lawful neutrals, and some of the lawful goods would probably excommunicate the Lawful and Neutral Good priests who supported the rebels. Assuming the rebellion was successful, the Lawful and Neutral Good priests might establish a rival organization that emphasized good over loyalty. However, having already agreed to one schism, it is likely that they would be willing to divide their priesthood still further over the disagreements that would be bound to arise among a diverse group of people. So you would then have several seperate organizations all worshipping one deity.
If some prophet were to arise among one of the organizations, it is unlikely that he would be accepted by the others and over time, their doctrines could aquire significant differences--particularly if they lacked an unchanging set of scriptures or precepts to ground them.
Now, if most clergy did not have a direct connection that enabled them to work clerical magic, any of these organizations could turn to evil and nobody would notice the difference (most likely) except in their behavior. Alternately, even if low level clerical ability were common, bardic magic could simulate much of this and the bard class would provide the people skills necessary to fool some people into following someone who had lost the favor of their god (or never had it to begin with). That way, you could have a god who had a definite alignment and cared about the behavior of his followers but whose clergy all appeared to cast spells--even the evil ones.
