Sell me on Arcana Evolved.

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am not sure if taking the divine/arcane distinction out of the equation will solve this problem (or if that was even one of the intentions), but I believe it was a noble risk. Taking on a D&D sacred cow requires some nads.

I'll agree with THAT!

IMHO, I believe that where you get your spells is as much a flavor and role-playing element as anything and if the player and the DM decides (and the PC believes) that they derive their power from their god, then it doesn't require a mechanic to say it is true.

OTOH, I believe that in a context in which gods are extant beings of real power, it makes sense to have an actual mechanical difference between spells granted by such a being and spells that result from a deep understanding of the supernatural world or as innate abilities.

Its not a necessity, but I have less of a problem with that than with no distinction at all.

 

[catsclaw227]

OTOH, I believe that in a context in which gods are extant beings of real power...

Unfortunately, they have been given real power with the Divine Rank mechanic in the SRD. I was never a fan of statting gods, but I guess if someone wants to play divine-epic-exalted style games, you need this.

But then again, I have heard of people playing priests that say that they derive their power from belief -- not belief in a diety, but belief in an idea. "I worship the principles of law and order." This is where someone claims to get power from within, and not from a being of real power.

...it makes sense to have an actual mechanical difference between spells granted by such a being and spells that result from a deep understanding of the supernatural world or as innate abilities.

Its not a necessity, but I have less of a problem with that than with no distinction at all.

Hmmm, I see your point and agree idealogically with it, but I am not sure if it's necessary or relevant to the way AU/AE approached it. In the Magister section (pg 62) it is listing archetypes and one of the is the priest:

Priest: A faithful adherent of your chosen deity or religion, you are recognized by others as one ordained in ceremony to represent that god. Your love of lore has enabled you to learn much of the world, of history, and of philosophy. Others see your spells as an extension of your faith—your magic is a gift from your god.

For me, this is good enough, without the necessary mechanics. The Ceremonial Feat "Priest" is really just a skill check modifier and (like you said) doesn't properly reflect the duty of a priest, which is really what it is all about.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Unfortunately, they have been given real power with the Divine Rank mechanic in the SRD. I was never a fan of statting gods, but I guess if someone wants to play divine-epic-exalted style games, you need this.

No, I'm not talking about statting gods...something I find kinda cheesy myself. (For the record, if you encounter a god with book stats in my campaign, you're meeting a manifestation, an avatar, not the god itself.)

I'm just saying that in a reality in which there are beings called "gods" and they have "powers beyond the ken of mortal men" (in other words, a typical fantasy setting), there probably would be a discernable difference between what could be accomplished by divine and arcane magic, and in the methodologies by which such things could be accomplished.

As the old joke goes, when a scientist challenged God to a contest on creating life, the scientist said, "First we take some dirt..." and God interrupts "Ah-ah-aaaah! Make your own dirt!"

As for the Priest description under the Magister heading (with which I'm quite familiar), I see it as either 1) a distinction without a difference- something I abhor, or possibly 2) the description of someone who is deluding themselves and/or others (see below).

In a sense, the gods of AU/AE are merely mythical- all power derives from the same source, despite what people believe.

Look at it this way: as much magic as there is in AU/AE (or most FRPGs), spellcasters would be quite aware as to the source of their powers. If that source were believed to be divine, ascertaining its divinity (or lack thereof) would be possible, if only by Akashics:

Memory Possession
The akashic can absorb the memories of any intelligent creature who is alive or who as ever lived for 1 round per level...Akashics use this ability to allow their allies to speak with and ask questions fo the possessing memory... AU p29

If there was no divinity, those who claimed there was would be naught but frauds. If there were, we get back to the distinction between arcane and divine as discussed above.

Unless, of course, the gods have fallen or have been diminished. Then, and only then, do we get into a quasi-Clarksian state in which "any arcane magic, sufficiently sophisticated, is indistinguishable from divine magic."

 

[Aldarc]

If there was no divinity, those who claimed there was would be naught but frauds. If there were, we get back to the distinction between arcane and divine as discussed above.

I take it that you have some serious troubles with the possibility of ambiguity. This is the beauty of AE. If your setting doesn't really have gods, the power of magic can be something just innate in the world. Or perhaps gods do exist and the magic of the world is likewise a part of the world. You seem to think that there needs to be a distinction in magic when gods exist, while I fail to see the need for a distinction between divine and arcane magic at all. In fact, the distinction was one of the primary things that I hated the most about D&D as I saw it as being completely illogical. Why is the magic given by gods different than the magic of the world? Shouldn't all magic be the same? In D&D being a priest amounts to casting healing spells in plate mail. In AE, being a priest is a more social implication. Why should the servant of every god be the same class? Wouldn't something like a mageblade or even ritual warrior be a more appropriate priest for a warrior god? Wouldn't a magister be a more appropriate priest for a magic god?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I take it that you have some serious troubles with the possibility of ambiguity.

Nope.

My problem is that with the nature of magic in AU/AE, this kind of ambiguity couldn't exist.

Consider that akashic ability I mentioned. By using it, the akashic would be able to discern without a doubt that a particular deity existed. Either the entity would posess the akashic, thus allowing others to communicate with it, or nothing would happen- indicating that such a being never existed.

You seem to think that there needs to be a distinction in magic when gods exist, while I fail to see the need for a distinction between divine and arcane magic at all.

A spell granted by a god would be as natural as a bird in flight- natural, elegant, relatively easy to do. Why? Because it is the rare god who would want to make it difficult for its priests to do things in its name. The easier it is for a priest to cast divine spells, the better it looks to potential followers, thus spreading the god's influence in the world. In D&D this is reflected in the way divine spellcasters learn spells (gain a level, learn them all), and ignoring spell failure due to armor.

A spell gained through research would be akin to a 747- there's the research, the testing, the manufacture, the fueling...and yet not as maneuverable, mechanically complex, etc. There is nothing (that I can name, at least) that both man and nature (and in the D&D context, gods) do that man does better. In D&D, this is reflected in how difficult it is for arcane spellcasters to learn new spells, and ASF.

In AU/AE, a god (assuming they exist) can only grant you abilities as good as those you could gain on your own. In such a setting, gods become superfluous (at least to spellcasters): why bend your knee to a god in exchange for spells when you could do just as well by reading a few books and not making yourself beholden to anyone? After all, there are no negative consequences to NOT following the gods...

Are we ready to stop hijacking the thread yet?

 

[catsclaw227]

Another thing I like about AU/AE is the removal of alignment. There have been many threads about this in the past, so I won't rehash the issue, but suffice to say, it makes our game a bit clearer when we have PCs that are generally good do something for the greater benefit of the people, yet in and of itself is fundamentally evil.

This is not a recap of the "Is Jack Bauer LG" thread, but simply a statement that I like the removal of alignment that AU/AE implements.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IMHO, alignment has its place, but removing it is no impediment to roleplay.

My 2 favorite systems, HERO and Mutants & Masterminds, have no alignments. Since they are traditional "4-color" superheroic games at their core (though they may both be used to simulate any genre- like any good superheroic rpg should be able to do), alignment is subsumed into the heroic archetype.

However, I do think that alignments may be a benefit to players who are n00bs or who are unfamiliar with a genre's concepts. A newbie may not understand what drives a Paladin without alignment. A player unfamiliar with superheroes may not understand that Captain M-azing, defender of Truth, Justice, and the American way really shouldn't be caught on camera with his "terrible, swift "blazing sword of force at the throat of...well, anyone.

So while AU/AE's alignment-less system is suitable for an experienced FRPG player, it may not be so good for entry level players.

As a side note...I'd LOVE Monte Cook to take his AU/AE construct and morph it into a modern FRPG like WotC did with D&D > D20 Modern > Urban Arcana.

 

[SWBaxter]

Consider that akashic ability I mentioned. By using it, the akashic would be able to discern without a doubt that a particular deity existed.

Nope. He'd be able to discern without a doubt that whoever's memory he's channeling believed that particular deity existed (or didn't), nothing more, and the ability doesn't actually compel the channeled individual to respond so it's not guaranteed he could even determine that much. For a more objective result the Akashic could try delving into the collective memory, but that can be altered by sufficiently powerful spellcasters and so probably isn't reliable for powerful mortals, let alone powerful otherplanar beings.

You can run an AU setting where the gods exist objectively, or one where their existence is completely ambiguous, or one where they're known (or at least strongly believed by the majority) not to exist, or one where powerful otherplanar beings claim to be gods but the truth of their claim is unknown. None of these are proscribed, or particularly hard to set up given the rules as written. Heck, it's easy to do 'em all in D&D, and that has a much stronger case for implied existence of gods, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they also work in AU.

I dunno why exactly you're so hung up on the issue of gods in AU - beyond the fact that there's no explicit arcane/divine magic split, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue for most people. Unless you're going to claim that those of us who have featured various different expressions of the divine in our AU campaigns are having badwrongfun, I don't really see what you hope to gain by continually bringing the subject up. And your remarks about hijacking given that you in fact are the hijacker really smack of trying to apply a "case closed, I win" stamp on the issue.

 

[SSquirrel]

The akashic ability would also be useless if the gods were simply created or came into being and were already divine. They had never "lived" per se. MAYBE a god who had once been a mortal and was raised up could be subject to it, but I don't see it.

Gods in AU are more like the Christian God really. No definitive word one way or the other as to their existence. People believe in a being b/c they want to have something to believe in, in a fantasy setting or otherwise.

My reading of AE has the Gods there, but not interjecting themselves into the setting ala the Roman/Greek gods or the gods of the Forgotten Realms. Priests are just other people who are strong in their faith. Hav a Warmain priest if you want. In D&D the Priest has come to be just the guy who is a healing PEZ dispenser and turner of Undead. Just a fraggin coat hanger really. Give me someone who is a priest b/c they want to roleplay someone who believe strongly, not b/c we need someone to suck it up and be the healer.

Having no arcane/divine split and everyone capable of healing is the smartest idea Monte had in this system, w/no alignments being a distinctly close second.

Also, the player should know from his own life experiences that a goodie 2 shoes character probly should NOT be threatening ppl w/his sword left and right, esp in public. You don't need alignment to show that. Then again, Champions fit a setting w/no alignment much better than a Paladin does.

 

[DarkKestral]

Nope.

My problem is that with the nature of magic in AU/AE, this kind of ambiguity couldn't exist.

Consider that akashic ability I mentioned. By using it, the akashic would be able to discern without a doubt that a particular deity existed. Either the entity would posess the akashic, thus allowing others to communicate with it, or nothing would happen- indicating that such a being never existed.

I happen to see a VERY handy spell that will neatly deal with this: PURGE AKASHIC RECORD.

It's a high level spell, (9th/10th level) that can purge an individual's presence from the entirety of the Akashic record of history. If a god wanted to hide themselves, it's entirely possible that they would have used that spell at some point.