Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ajanders" data-source="post: 1002023" data-attributes="member: 3271">Re: Re: Re: Re: Religous WarsRight.Not necessarily correct...some agendas cannot be imposed at all.  Think about a hypothetical god of freedom.  How do you impose that on people?(I have this really comical image now of a man in a Phrygian cap waving a mace and telling peasants "You're going to be free RIGHT NOW, gosh darnit, or I will MAKE you be free with my whackum stick!)That's how they get more powerful, after all...the more smiths there are, the more residual power the patron gawd of smiths picks up, and the more prayers and worship are offered up.  And they generally seek to impose those agendas to the exclusion of everything else, right?  [/B]</blockquote>But the god of smiths is not espousing a moral philosophy in the sense of being a "good god".  Smithing is neither Good nor Evil.  Your example is certainly correct historically, but it dodges the question again.According to the SRD,     "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have     compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him."The god of smiths you describe is neutral, because you:I.E., the smith god doesn't care if people are benefitted or not.  A good god, on the other hand, will make a sacrifice (even of their own divine power or reputation) in order to aid or protect others...say, by NOT having a war or torturous inquisition against heretics.[/QUOTE]

Verification