Why I dislike Sigil and the Lady of Pain

[S'mon]

This doesn't seem to leave room for divine power without divinity. Or, alternatively, it suggests some sort of puzzling situation where the hopes and convictions of atheists give rise to a god of the non-existence of gods, who is the source of power for atheist clerics.

Given that demon lords can't channel Divine power to their cultists, I would restrict Clerics of a Philosophy to philosophies which are essentially quasi-religions; basically gods without the personality. So for 4e I'd allow Clerics of Buddhism, Clerics of Taoism, but not Clerics of Atheism, Clerics of Scientific Materialism, or Clerics of Nationalism Socialism - a Nazi Cleric could be Protestant, Catholic or Pagan, but couldn't draw their power from National Socialism per se.

 

[Ryujin]

Suppose I buy that - can you give me an answer to my second question, namely, what the relevant psychological state is that clerics have but other fervent individuals lack?

Utter, unshakable belief in what grants their 'divine power.'

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], that makes sense to me.

When I ran an Oriental Adventures Rolemaster game, the Buddhists were either Channelling (=divine) (roughly, Pure Land types), Mentalists (=psionic) (Zen and Theravadan, without worrying about the fact that Zen is actually Mahayana) or Hybrid Channelling-Mentalism (for the more esoteric/tantric types).

I treated Taoists as Essence (=arcane) even though Taoism and Zen are similar in many respects, solely because this tended to fit with the depictions of Taoist priests and magicians in early-to-mid-90s Hong Kong films that my group had been into.

 

[pemerton]

Utter, unshakable belief in what grants their 'divine power.'

What bothers me about that is that I don't see it reflected in the actual play of these characters.

 

[Ryujin]

What bothers me about that is that I don't see it reflected in the actual play of these characters.

That would be a failure of role play, not of the concept.

 

[sciborg3]

Well, doing philosophy is part of my day job. Which may be part of why I'm not a big fan of Planescape's take on it.

See, I'm completely the opposite. Dead Gods makes me yawn - as written it's one of the most railroady modules I've ever seen. Whereas the 4e cosmology just keeps giving and giving with game-driving themes and conflicts.

Oh, heh, Dead Gods was pretty bad in that regard. But I think that's less a judgement on Planescape as a setting than adventure design issues that, if I recall, a lot of TSR adventures possessed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually glad 4e created a new cosmology. What bothered me was the designers claimed to have seen the light and realized that ALL of us had been doing it wrong.

I think everyone is going to have different takes, and 4e provides new ideas and new options. Not everyone is going to like it, just like not everyone is going to like Planescape. For me reading the primordial vs gods, and seeing the elementals with helmets and faceless angels...made me stifle groans of embarrassment for the 4e cosmology.

I do like that the Feywild and Shadowfell border the planes, we'd already seen this stuff elsewhere so it wasn't a great creative triumph but nice to put it as a central feature.

Oh, and someone mentioned preferring Shadowfell's Keepers to the dabus? Er, the Keepers are at least as old as Planescape.

As for the PS backgrounds that no one sees - I think that is group dependent. I remember hearing one amazing story about how players called in their favors and political connections and stopped Faction War before it started. Shemmy's characters (and thus her players), from her excellent story hour, live their backgrounds and almost all of them had planar origins or acclimated well to planar life.

But yeah, we're just tossing opinions. Everyone is going to love different RPGs. I know people who were in love with Kult, but having read the sourcebooks I find it way to over the top horror to scare me. Some people hate Mage Awakening, as did I, but over time I've grown to see it as a worthy successor to Ascension.

Curious, though, if you had to make a faction based on your ideas of what philosophy is, what would its beliefs be?

Edit: Just want to say I am not attacking your game, or saying that your conflicts are boring. I actually think they are really cool and interesting, and...heh...would be served better by the Great Wheel. Again, one man's opinion!

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't think you berks are quite grasping it.

There's always some graybeard willing to tell you the truth of the multiverse, but when you've been out there and seen a dozen eternal rewards staring you in the face, well then you'll think before rattling your bone-box.

Primes talk about faith in the gods and afterlives which they will never visit; heh the Godsmen's "Source" is as intangible as they get. But real faith, you don't know real faith till you've stepped through a portal and visited Mount Olympus or sailed the Styx into Hades. Planars know exactly where they'll end up after they're put in the dead book. Worship Corellon, observe his precepts well and you'll spend the rest of your days in Arvandor. It's not just theory, it's the way things are on the outer planes.

See, faith is about a real choice, cutters, and to make a choice you need to be as well-lanned as you can. You need to know what your options are. Faith on the planes means knowing what afterlife awaits if you worship Zeus or Corellon well...and what awaits you if you fail. It's not just your life on the line, but your eternal life, and you know - with your own eyes - what that means. Is there a greater commitment?

And that's the true power of the gods, the real test of faith.

 

[pemerton]

That would be a failure of role play, not of the concept.

My concern is that it is not only a failure of role play, but that it puts limits on the game that I'm not sure work. I don't think I want a game in which every person of conviction thereby becomes a divine power wielder - I quite like the idea of my non-spellcasting sage who won't leave his tower/library as the orcs approach, because of his conviction in the value and potential of reason over brute force.

So it holds to reason that they obviously ain't the best of the best

<snip>

See, it goes to reason that there's something above the gods themselves, like I already demonstrated. It's like a ladder, see? Each rung's got something above it, and the powers ain't at the top. That's where the Source sits, that thing that makes up all of us.

This seems to suffer from the same prima facie incoherence as the standard version of the cosmological argument, or the standard version of Plato's one-over-many argument.

If everything has something above it, then it follows that nothing is at the top, and there is no Source.

 

[Incenjucar]

If everything has something above it, then it follows that nothing is at the top, and there is no Source.

Unless it runs in a circle, like the relationship between mortals and deities.

 

[sciborg3]

I think worthy of veneration and believing in infallibility are different things. In several polytheistic societies, it seems the gods are fallible and are defeated, at times, with relative ease in comical ways. (I'm thinking of the Monkey King here)

In Greek Mythology, Ares was held by some to be an outright coward, and even Zeus got tricked once in awhile not to mention gutted by Typhon if memory serves.

(edit: As Incenjucar previously mentioned - sorry, forgot to give credit where it's due!)

I think one of the ways to look at the D&D gods is as personal manifestations of the cosmos. In the same way one loves a parent, one can love a god. The love a god, however, is tied to their domain - you love them because they represent the the "living symbol", as Planescape called it, of something you want to see in the world. To worship Nerull is to channel Death, to worship Tempus is to worship War.

Then again, some people might believe that the god is destined to reward them, or destined to ascend as the God of Gods - perhaps with their help, as the worshipers of Vecna believe.

Also, I think clerics get power because they are willing to become vessels for their god's energy and do His or Her work in the world. Loyalty seems a greater requirement than zealousness.