In a world such of GH, it makes nosense (IMHO) to pray an unique god.
Your PC can be closer to pelor than heironeous, for instance, but he can make a prayer to Farlangh before an during a long journey, or to zilchus before a financial engagement, to istus before a die roll, and so on. I think you'll be nearly all agree with me on this point.
Considering the priest, it's more difficult. How exclusive has he to be? the same for paladin etc.. I choosed the idea of "preference" but no exclusivity in my campaign. But i would appreciate to have opinions.
But my main problem was the god's alignement. Do they really need to have one? are they not above that? I prefere to asign them domains (death, sea, healing, etcc) like it's already done, but nothing more. Would a paladin be heretic because he made a prayer to elhonna (who is Chaotic)? you can find plenty of example like that.
Of course an LG PC won't pray a CE god, but not beacuse of his alignement, just because he has little interest (..) in destruction death and pain. And the reverse is also true.
I really think god's alignement tends to restrain roleplay. Try to suppress them, it won't change anything! just a CE wizard won't feel guilty to have interest in Celestian domains... wich would be ridiculous i think.
While Nerull portfolio might suggest that he favors matters on the darkside it in no way makes him inherently evil. Instead Nerull seeks proper respect by mourners of a loved one. Those that fail to invoke his name in such endeavors may indeed invoke his wrath instead. His priest may take a similar role in each society.
WeeJaas is also a god of Magic and Death. Both of which are seen as less desirable practices. Yet many peasants who fear the unnatural (magic) will call for a priestess of WeeJaas when a loved one passes on. But other then that these same peasants will avoid this priestess at almost any other time of their life.
Phoultus is seem as a god of light, virtues, lawfulness, and the one true way. Now to most people this sonds like a god who is out and out chock full of goodness. But isn't a dictatorship a lawful strict society that believes their laws are the one true way to live? Plus in a society which is actively polytheastic, Pholtus'es priesthood might be seen as an evil a blight on the beliefs common in most societies of the Flanaes. Especial in the Pale where pholtus is the only acceptable religion while all others are viewed as heresy. Just think about forceing people who worshipped a group of gods like many of their ancestor's into following one god and his domains are supposed to replace those the other gods had always filled. Lawfulness the one true way, couldn't devil worshippers claim to be following the one true way when they are following their lords wills?
All this is food for thought! But unfortunately there will be someone who is so inbreed with alignments that they will not only disagree with me but consider my ranting's idiotic.
Too this I say poor poor poor soul. It's ok to disagree but please give a vaid point of view when you do. Alignment is not a valid arguement for gods IMHO.
Anyway, the reason alignment issues pushed me to GURPS is because GURPS has a nice system of Advantages and Disadvantages that can be used to mimic the differing alignments, without actually constraining the character (or the deities) unduly. So for instance, when a Paladin falls, it's not because he or she committed a chaotic evil deed; it's because she violated a sacred vow or oath.
I am in the process (following the Quintessential Cleric) of creating a portfolio of Vows for worshippers and priests alike of specific gods. Gods whose alignment descriptions have "Good" in them require their followers to take vows that help other people in their communities and uphold certain moral tenets. Gods with Lawful designations have tons of little vows that regulate how people live their daily lives, etc. Chaotic deities mostly lack or have very few vows that regulate their daly lives, etc. I am quite excited by the system that is emerging. It allows me some flexibility in portraying gods and their followers. I can create crazy cults of gods who at first glance seem like they should be good (especially to those players who have read all about such and such a deity) and put a spin on them, by dropping the vows that deal with "helping other people," which might not be apparent at first. In the case of the lawful neutral (bordering on dictatorial evil as Argon points out) aspect of Pholtus, this works well.
For mere followers, in GURPS terms the vows are trivial 1-pt quirks, which serve more as role-playing guidelines than actual character constraints. It's a bit more serious for priests, however. They can actually lose some or all of their powers by violating these vows, depending on the severity of the vow: sacred or mortal.
This has been my way out of the Alignment dilemna. Even if you prefer to use 3e rules, it might be worth looking into GURPS disadvantages just to add role-playing depth to characters without pigeon-holing them into rigidly structured alignments.
No. Just by people who like to drink wines, that's all.
You can find plenty of example in mythology like that.
I just want to mean that god's domain add more than god's alignement do, because alignement restrain, stupidily sometimes, worshipper in d&d.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
The D&D gods essentially behave like human beings do, so as long as human beings have alignments, so should the gods.
The Greek Gods also behaved as humans did, so I see your point. Myself, I have a playability problem with Good and Evil as universal constants in that when players see a Cleric of Nerull the Reaper, they scream, "Aha, Neutral Evil, don't trust that guy. In fact, attack him first chance you get." I've always found the alignment system useful as a guide but too rigid for the kind of campaigns I like to play. That's why I did away with them. Besides, I like have "evil" priests of supposedly "good" religions. Though possible within the alignment constraints of D&D, it's easier to just do away with them altogether.
Originally posted by makoma
let's think about Roman gods.. Does bacchus (gods of wine etc..) has been worshipped by good or evil human?
No. Just by people who like to drink wines, that's all.
You can find plenty of example in mythology like that.
I just want to mean that god's domain add more than god's alignement do, because alignement restrain, stupidily sometimes, worshipper in d&d.
I would posit that the creation of Olidammara was heavily influenced by Bacchus. He's Chaotic Neutral... evil, good, doesn't matter, so that fits in nicely.
I like alignment. I think it works well to help clarify and define the differences between gods. And I believe that clerics are the arms of gods and should ONLY get their power based on their extreme devotion to the principles of a god. I do not allow generic clerics. Why should a wizard have to study and spend all that money on spellbooks and a cleric just have to say, "Oh, I think that Pelor dude is neat." No, a cleric has to exemplify the principles of ONE god and alignment helps determine how well a player is doing and it gives the player solid boundries within which to work so that they're less likely to frell up.
I recall a very old Dragon issue that posited an alignment-less campaign -- based in an alternate version of Britain -- with Germanic tribes invading the eastern coasts, native Britons being incorporated by the Romans, and savage Celts (Welshmen) in the hills of the west. With alignments, the pseudo-Arthurians couldn't fight the goodly Celtic rangers and probably should negotiate with the Odin worshipping Germanics...
The article described how to adapt campaign play to deal without alignment.
I liked the idea a lot for reasons similar to those already mentioned in this thread. Basically I wanted characters to act as they were motivated personally and socially rather than merely because of their alignments.
Eventually, however, as a DM it became apparent to me that without alignment restrictions, players tended to justify behavior that was out-of-character for their character. Without alignment, folks tended not to uphold any principle except "take what you can, when you can." Furthermore, folks tended not to recognize when behavior was out of character.*
I stopped playing AD&D around this time and tried out White Wolf's Storyteller System. When I finally returned to playing AD&D, I used alignment to set outer limits and then had players choose "archetypes" (a construct of the Storyteller System) for their characters. Combining alignments with archetypes was fantastic! By focusing on the archetype they'd chosen, players were better able to roleplay in accord with the alignment they'd chosen.
* Sociologists and cognitive psychologists have developed findings regarding this incremental sort of justification. Summarized, what seems like an extreme change of behavior to others typically is just the "final" step in a series of changes that were less noticeable.
Most obvious example: Athena as the patron deity of the city of Athens.
Less-known example: Mars as the patron of Rome.
Monotheism does happen in Greyhawk. For example, Pholtus as the sole accepted deity of the Theocracy of the Pale. Hextor is dominant in the Great Kingdom of Northern Aerdy. And so on.
Alignment is therefore relevant in determining the character of the deity in question. For example, Nerull is not a god of peaceful death. He's a god of (ideally painful) murder. It's also worth noting that unlike the tight pantheons of many pagan systems, the Greyhawk gods are a loose pantheon. They don't have any single leader, nor do they maintain a collective afterlife.
A worshipper of St. Cuthbert does not expect to end up in some afterlife run by Nerull (egads!). He or she expects to end up in St. Cuthbert's realm. Hopefully, Nerull will have nothing to do with their transition (since he'd probably try to turn them into undead anyway).
Even Wee Jas merely ensures that her worshippers and those of the Suel gods find their way to the correct afterlife. She doesn't keep them all herself. In her case, she is more strongly inclined towards law than she is towards Evil. Hence she performs this role with a businesslike efficiency, as opposed to Nerull's delight for painful death and atrocity.
Alignment therefore fits for deities as a way of defining how they relate to their portfolios. Zilchus is a god of wealth and prestige. But his Lawful Neutral alignment makes him prefer honest business over robber barons and bandits (who would more likely worship his brother Kurell).
The gods of Greyhawk all have clear moral stances of some sort, and that is part of what defines them. Heironeous and Hextor are both Lawful war gods. But the Good/Evil division between them affects not only their own behavior but the behavior of the religions that follow them. Indeed, that ideological divide is one of the core elements that led to the sundering of the once vast Kingdom of Aerdy, with Lawful Good Heironeans congregating into Furyondy and Nyrond, and Lawful Evil Hextorans maintaining the "core" kingdom centered on Rauxes (until Ivid dragged the whole thing down).
So I think alignment is very relevant to the play of religion here.
Originally posted by Psionycx
So I think alignment is very relevant to the play of religion here.
I whole-heartedly agree that alignment helps a DM define and structure specific gods' religions. But I also agree with Makoma's point that adhering strictly to the alignment system sometimes unnecessarily restricts the numbers and kinds of worshippers gods may have, or vise versa, restricts the kind of god a character may worship. Worse yet, it doesn't really allow for much character change, which seems the hallmark of any good story. Of couse, as with all things, this depends on how the DM enforces the rules and how the players play their characters.
I've run into players who use the lack of alignments in my campaigns to justify any kind of behavior. My solution: I don't play with them any more, because they don't role-play, which is what I'm primarily interested in. I've finally culled out a group of six players, all of whom role-play without any unnecessary alignment goads. It's great!
From a lay worship perspective, alignment is less relevant. A peasant farmer who is mostly Neutral might still worship Pelor or St. Cuthbert despite those gods' strong ethical association with Good. The farmer doesn't have much need for high-blown ideals. he merely wants a god that will look after him.
It is only in cases of ethical conflict that a problem occurs. Pelor would probably take exception to an assassin's profession and would certainly disapprove of them murdering people for pay. St Cuthbert would probably turn a stern eye towards a thief who steals to enrich himself. Both such characters are roughly conforming to the Evil axis and thus conflict with the Good (or in Cuthbert's case Lawful) bent of the deity.
Alignment is therefore not so different from an ability score really. A DM can point to a character's low strength score and say "no, I don't care how much you think you should be able to, you cannot bend those bars". Alignment is merely a mesaurable value for ethical stance and a yardstick for defining what a character can or cannot do within a particular role-playing context.
If your players don't need it, great. But it's handy for outlining why a character that's supposed to be a cleric of Heironeous can't just go burning a tavern to the ground because he dislikes the inkeep.
If your players don't need it, great. But it's handy for outlining why a character that's supposed to be a cleric of Heironeous can't just go burning a tavern to the ground because he dislikes the inkeep.
OK, but wouldn't be enough to say that, as a cleric of heironeous, such a behavior doesn't respond to the code of chevalry?
The idea of guideline is insteristing in fact. The gods' alignement give a rough idea of his ideal, but the domain od influence should prevail IMHO.
I found the answers in this thread very interesting, and some replies gave me an idea. I would like to have your opinion on it.
Alignements are sometimes complex to deal with, but would it worth to give each Pc, depending his class and the player choice, a degree of investment, implication, in his alignement.
Eg: Let's imagine 3 degrees, like very light, moderate, and fanatic. Your Pc could be a barb CN 1 (light) , or a CG 3(fan) ranger and so on. BUT to be a priest you should be a fanatic, to be a paladin a moderate at least etc... Depending your degree, you can be allowed or not some deviance.
A fanatic must consider his god as essential and omnipotent and his clergy as a supreme authority. Others gods exists, you shouldn't do anything to sirve their cause. The same for alignement, deviance , even the least, cannt be tolerated. Playing such an alignement would give some advantage, of course.
May be some clergy can allow moderate priest etc..
A light tends to his alignement direction, but can pray nearly all gods, he is not very strict towards his behavior.
This is just a beginning of idea that can be develloped much more, if it adds something to the game. Not for getting it more hard to deal with of course.
If you have any suggestions or if you have already tested similar ideas, i would like to have your opinion.
You can be diffrent kind of LG pc in the game, that's all i mean. Like in politics, you have passive, moderate, and activists people.
For example, an activist who believes that existing laws are unjust and should be defied is really drifting away from a Lawful ethos and towards Neutrality, or even Chaos.
For example, King Belvor of Furyondy feels obliged to play by the laws of his land even though that means that some of his nobles can obstruct what needs to be done for the good of the kingdom. He could say the heck with it and force them into submission, but then he would be Neutral Good not Lawful Good, and there would be questions about his Paladin status.
Alignments don't exist in vacuum. They DO offer some guideline as to behavior. And that can be useful in resolving these kinds of issues. Again, there is a big difference between Heironeous and Hextor, or between Heironeous and Trithereon. That difference is driven by where they are on the alignment axis.
Alignment is useful because players WILL try to play logic games to justify what they want to do, which may or not fit with the religious ethos of their god. For example, someone who believes that they should pursue the cause of Good in their own way and not be tied down rules and strictures should NOT be following Pholtus or St Cuthbert, but rather Pelor or Trithereon.
Personality within an alignment is different. But behavior is not. Your reference to a chivalrous code is just a more abstract representation of the Lawful Good alignment. If we assign tangible values to things like mental ability (Wisdom and Intelligence) then why not ethical stance?
A character might argue that their PC is "outgoing and sociable", but if they've got a Charisma score of 3 then the DM can rightfully argue, no, they aren't. They maybe THINK they are. But they aren't.
I would urge you to check out the Quintessential Cleric by Mongoose Publishing. They have created a system of religious vows for both followers and priests of gods, according to their alignments. I have found this accessory very handy in defining individual religions, using their stated alignments as a guide, in a way that then allows me to get rid of the whole alignment thing altogether. Or if you prefer to keep alignments around, you can and this system still adds flavor.
An alternative way of handling alignments appeared in a Dragon Magazine article a while back (don't remember the issue, it was the one with an orange Brom cover for some Dark Sun articles of a ghoulish looking thing holding onto a charm of some sort). The article was called "Getting your Priorities Straight," and featured a system where different elements such as King, Country, Homeland, Religion and others were ranked according to the importance individual characters placed on each. This ranking constrained the way characters would act in given situations by dictating which ideals or values were held higher. I found it an interesting remedy to the static alignment problem because it allowed for variation within the same alignment, although there wasn't a lot of variation within the Lawful alignments, as you can imagine. You might hunt down this article and set hierarchies according to how you think individual deities would expect their followers to act.
One thing the system would need to deal with is alliances between faiths. FtA systematized (or started to) these deific alliances, and others were either noted or implied in earlier sources -- GA, WoG.
It sounds like that Mongoos product might be useful. I've not bought anything by them and have heard mixed to bad reviews about their Slayers Guide series.
Why don't we get more specific? Care to describe your campaign? If we get concrete, I think the discussion will be more fruitful.
I'll start: in the my present 3.5e campaign, the PCs are based in the southwest of the Wild Coast -- in petty fiefs southeast of Badwall. While PCs have included priests (of Dalt and Bleredd), the only religion the party has encountered is the Church of Wee Jas in Badwall. While individual NPCs may worship other gods, the PCs haven't yet learned how religion does/not affect their behavior. Even the most obvious other "religions" -- Incabulous and/or Nerull -- remain somewhat of a mystery as far as the PCs' comprehension of how religion motivates the NPCs.
The PCs learned that the Church of Wee Jas has harsh rules and that adequate notice is not plainly given. While individual NPCs may be more/less rigid in their beliefs, overall the PCs have the impression that the Church is dangerous and a potential enemy.
So IMC by limiting the scope of play and choosing only to include certain religions in certain ways, I've dealt with some of the issues discussed in this thread.
Just to give you a concrete example of some vows I came up with for St. Cuthbert, I've copied and pasted them out of the GURPS character builder for you guys to look over. The only other religions I've done so far are Phaulkon and Norebo since my campaign will begin on Lendore Isle. The numbers are the point values of the "disadvantages" in GURPS terms. I apologize if the format makes reading them a little difficult, but I have to go and don't have time to edit.
Minor Vows for followers and priests:
Vow (Ablutions) [ 1] (Wash hands and mouth in sacred waters before entering shrine, temple, cathedral, etc.); Vow (Clothing) [ 1] (Wear simple clothing; avoid self agrandizing outfits that make others envious.); Vow (Common Sense) [ 1] (Do not make rash decisions; meditate upon problems to decide best course of action.); Vow (Dietary Restriction) [ 1] (Eat only simple foods necessary for nourishment: breads, the fruits of the earth, milk, gruel, etc. Avoid foods requiring too much refinement; e.g., meat, pastries, etc.); Vow (Do not Cheat) [ 1] (Do not cheat; keep your oaths, but make no oath contrary to Cuthbert's teaching.); Vow (Do Not Kill) [ 1] (Do not commit murder; though, killing in self defense or just retribution is permitted.); Vow (Do not Steal) [ 1]; Vow (Dress simply) [ 1] (Wear simple clothing; avoid ostentatious displays that prick up one's vanity or make others feel inferior.); Vow (Golden Rule) [ 1] (Respect your neighbor; treat them how you would like to be treated; aid him or her when asked.); Vow (Good Citizen) [ 1] (Follow the laws of the land if they do not contradict the precepts of St. Cuthbert.); Vow (Obedience) [ 1] (Obey the directives of your religious superiors.); Vow (Observances) [ 1] (Observe St. Cuthbert's Day on Flocktime 15th.); Vow (Oppose Evil) [ 1] (Do not tolerate evildoers, specifically the followers of evil deities: Iuz, Incabulous, Nerull, Hextor, Erythnal, etc. Take action against their activities by informing church elders, etc.); Vow (Prayer) [ 1] (Pray 2x daily, upon rising and going to bed.); Vow (Prayer) [ 1] (Pray before each meal to cleanse the food and give thanks to St. Cuthbert for providing to his faithful.); Vow (Rise Early) [ 1] (Rise early to make the most of daylight hours. Early to bed in order to get adequate rest.); Vow (Wisdom) [ 1] (Practical experience should supercede book learning in making important decisions.).
Sacred Vows for priests, penalties apply if violated:
Vow (Celibacy) [ 5] (You may not marry; for you must devote yourself wholly to the work of St. Cuthbert.); Vow (Charity) [ 5] (Must aid followers of St. Cuthbert if asked.); Vow (Clothing) [ 5] (Must wear the crumpled hat and simple robe of your order at all times. Shun self agrandizing clothing.); Vow (Dietary Restriction) [ 5] (Eat only simple foods necessary for nourishment: breads, the fruits of the earth, milk, gruel, etc. Avoid foods requiring too much refinement; e.g., meat, pastries, etc.); Vow (Fraternisation) [ 5] (Do not consort with followers of an evil god: Iuz, Incabulous, Nerull, Hextor, Erythnal, etc.); Vow (Holy Symbol) [ 5] (Display Holy Symbol Prominently); Vow (Ministry) [ 5] (Must attempt to convert at least one person to St. Cuthbert per month.); Vow (Murder Prohibition) [ 5] (Thou shalt not kill, except in self defense or defense of the church and its followers.); Vow (Oppose Evil) [ 5] (Actively seek to oppose and destroy the mechanations of evil gods and their followers.); Vow (Prohibition against Theft) [ 5] (Thou shalt not steal, under any circumstances, unless it be to recover an item unlawfully taken from the church or its followers.); Vow (Shepherd) [ 5] (See to the spiritual well being of St. Cuthbert's followers. Allow no back sliding into evil ways.); Vow (Travel) [ 5] (Must travel at least 50 miles each month and spread the good word.).
Mortal Vows for priests, powers stripped if violated: .