AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I bring this subject up because I've noticed that many people have a different opinion on religion in the realms than I do. Here's my view on the matter and I'd like to know what you people think, so I can modify/fit my RP in.

There are many deities around. I believe that most people - adventurers included- recognize that *every* Deity has its own domains and acknowledges it as important and significant.
In a polytheistic (sp?) religion, most people worship more than one deity every day, even though they might feel closer to a particular divine power.
That divine power is the "patron" deity. In my opinion, choosing a patron deity does not mean that the character has any special obligations towards that faith/church or following. A patron merely indicates which deity is the character's favorite and it reflects his ambitions, his view of the world around him and the values by which he lives. But no special obligations...

People still pray to different deities on a daily basis, even if these deities aren't in good terms with their patron. For example, a merchant might pray or give offerings to waukeen, to umberlee -if he is travelling by sea- or to Helm, asking for protection for the caravan carrying his expensive trading goods. In the same manner, an assassin might pray to Mask, the Lord of Shadows, to Cyric , asking for guidance in a murder, or to Bane, if he wants to terrify his pray.(and maybe all 3 of them together)

In short, to put it in the words of the 3rd edition FR campaign setting :
"The belief system of most Faerunians generally centers on a particular deity whose interests and influences are most likely to affect them, but acknowledges other gods as significant and important too."

I understand that fanatics exist. Some people make sacrifices to their gods, zealously following one deity. On the other hand, "others sacrifice to many deities, while upholding one as their personal patron."

To be honest, all the above is a badly written summary of what the 3rd e. FR campaign setting has taught me... I've also added some "Ancient Greek and Roman relion" to the mix and ... there's my opinion!

In my entire Amia life (a little more than a year) I've only met one or two players that accept the above view on religion. From what I gather, most believe that a character only worships -"serves"- his PATRON deity. They think that once you choose a patron, you have to stick to it, serve under it's clergy, expand it's cause and eradicate those that have chosen other patrons, because they "serve" a different cause.
In fact, this might be the case with most evil deities, but I've met Good aligned PCs who still refuse to accept that Toril is home to many deities(not exactly *home*, but you get the point).

So, what does one answer to the question ...
Whom do you serve?!

http://amiawiki.shatuga.com/index.php/R ... in_General

Thats pretty much my view on religion and to sum it all up quickly for the lazy. I agree though I think it is something bound to happen sadly.

Yeah, that's pretty much how it is in canon lore and how a lot of NPCs behave, for example. How individuals PCs handle the matter of religion is another matter.

React ICly as your character would, and take things as they come is the best approach.

Quote:

How individuals PCs handle the matter of religion is another matter.

And thus ends the topic.

I find that many PCs ICly reject the gods entirely. I think that this is an example of 'adventurer hubris' - they believe that they can vanquish anything, even the will of the gods after death. Which is probably a big mistake.

OOCly I dont know why they reject the gods.

My character, as a priestess of Sharess, naturally serves her goddess first and foremost. She still pays homage to others, though, most notably Hanali Celanil and, to a lesser extent, Lliira and Sune.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

How individuals PCs handle the matter of religion is another matter.

And thus ends the topic.

O rly? Just watch!

Yossarin wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

How individuals PCs handle the matter of religion is another matter.

And thus ends the topic.

O rly? Just watch!

I have a question with regards to amia religion, Amia treats relgion far differently from how it would be treated in the realms. Does this mean specific lore can be ignored?

Examples(none of these actually occuring) including vhearunite and drow followers forming an alliance to destroy the surface.

Banites and cyricists alliance to destroy paladins,

Maskaran and Loviatars alliance to destroy banites,

etc

Craig deathwalker wrote:

Examples(none of these actually occuring) including vhearunite and drow followers forming an alliance to destroy the surface.

I can guarantee that'll never occur

Yeah, I'm not too excited about the "My god can beat up your god" attitude many seem to have, even if the deities in question happen to be allies.

Like Xavi, my cleric does respect Valkur as his first priority, but also spreads out his respects to the likes of Selune, Istishia, Tymora, and Waukeen, among others.

Yossarin wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

How individuals PCs handle the matter of religion is another matter.

And thus ends the topic.

O rly? Just watch!

Well, it should have ended the topic.

First, I think that a lot of players have characters that reject the gods because of a combination of player and character hubris. Then again, I think most of the Faithless on Amia don't know what the Faithless are, or what happens to them after they die, according to lore.

Second, there is a scale by which a character who follows the deities is placed; let's call it a "1 to 10" - 1 being an utterly polytheistic believer with no true deity he/she follows over the other, to a 10, being the number most Paladins and Clerics are (seeing as how they are the mortal vassals of their god). Clerics and the like know, perhaps better than most, that the other gods exist and hold sway over the realms. However, they will obviously believe their god's teachings and mythos over all others and find their deity's power to be superior to that of others. If they didn't... they wouldn't be a cleric (I don't think any priest goes into the divine magic business with the mindset of "I'm rooting for Milil, the underdog!").

How do you answer, depends on your character. Every single one of my characters prays to multiple gods. Likewise, they all have their patron.

Willow has Silvanus, first and foremost, followed by Selune, Sheela Peryroyal, Yondalla, Tymora, Urogalan, the rest of the Hin gods, Nobanion, Mielikki, Eldath, all the elemental primordials and on and on.

Tu'jol has Eilistraee, first and foremost, followed by Corellon Larethian, Selûne, Sehanine Moonbow, Hanali Celanil, Lathander, Deep Sashelas, etc. etc.

Black Jake, being a "sailor", has Umberlee, first, then Istishia, Valkur, Selune, Talos, Auril, Anhur, and anyone else who will show him good fortune in his misadventures, like Tymora, Mask, Beshaba and Waukeen.

My newest is too new to Western Religions and is currently being influenced by the city she lives in, Nes'ek (Hoar, Kelemvor, Lathander). She also honors any god she's told that represents death, since she's a gravedigger (currently only knows Kelemvor and Jergal). And because of Cordor, Sharess and a few other gods who must remain nameless. >.>

I only have one character that is sooooooo self involved that their worship to their patron is very half assed and can easily be called a heretic in many respects (in other words, the character is probably going right to the wall when dead).

I think part of why people treat religion so lightly on Amia is because they don't understand the lore behind it and assume it's similar to RL religions where "no one really knows". For us who do know the lore, we know it's common knowledge among the people that gods are real.

If you haven't noticed with my time here on Amia, religion is one of my favorite parts of D&D. ^.^

I agree with everyone who's posted.

I think lots of players oblivious to FR lore associate the deities with modern day religions, competing for each individual's exclusive attention, rather than seeing it as some kind of divine all-you-can-eat food court, where you can approach any and all of the deities you wish, eating a little or a lot of what they have to offer.

I think because religion in our OOC society is often seen as uncool, people don't want their characters to be associated with it. I think many believe their characters will lose their individuality somehow, becoming a faceless acolyte, by joining or even acknowledging a faith, whereas most of us who are in the know realise its a great way to expand and depthen your character.

They're my thoughts on the faithless ones anyway.

As for characters who only pay homage to their patron, I think that's fine, at least theyre participating in religion some how, seeing as it does kind of dominate the affairs of the realms. I imagine there would be as many people in the realms who spread their worship around many gods as there would those who simply try and fit their patron's dogma into whatever problem or thought they may have.

And yeah, most evil gods demand exclusive attention eg. Lolth, Cyric, Bane... I think even a Lolthite would rarely pray to Selvetarm for favor in battle.

Quote:

some kind of divine all-you-can-eat food court

That's actually one of the best analogies you can have, in my opinion.

As with every large buffet, the pantheons each have their little sections, where worshipers can take a little of this and a little of that. So you have the salads over here (Silvanus, Mielikki, Shiallia), and then there's the group of fried and greasy foods (Bane, Cyric, Velsharoon). Over there are the big meats (Tempus, Red Knight, Uthgar). And there's always the dessert bar (Sharess, Sune).

But of course, there will be one certain item that they'll have to get seconds or thirds on (the Patron deity), and some people tend to stick to one section, while others want to sample as many different foods as possible.

Meanwhile, the Faithless sits there with his glass of water, miserable, watching everyone else eat.

So I may have gotten off track with the buffet metaphor. I'm sure there was a good point in there somewhere.

Champion of Helm wrote:

First, I think that a lot of players have characters that reject the gods because of a combination of player and character hubris. Then again, I think most of the Faithless on Amia don't know what the Faithless are, or what happens to them after they die, according to lore.

On the contrary, I believe I understand Faithless and the consequences of being Faithless very well. I play a PC who acknowledges that the buffet exists, but refuses to partake on account of the high cost of purchasing a plate; and that, ultimately, the food is ambivalent to his existence, providing neither dysentery nor nourishment but just so many empty calories.

My dwarf worships the dwarf pantheon.

I tend to see this as:
If you're going on a long journey, drop by the shrine of the God of Roads, if you're trekking through a dangerous forest, leave something for a nature deity etc.

Yossarin wrote:

Champion of Helm wrote:

First, I think that a lot of players have characters that reject the gods because of a combination of player and character hubris. Then again, I think most of the Faithless on Amia don't know what the Faithless are, or what happens to them after they die, according to lore.

On the contrary, I believe I understand Faithless and the consequences of being Faithless very well. I play a PC who acknowledges that the buffet exists, but refuses to partake on account of the high cost of purchasing a plate; and that, ultimately, the food is ambivalent to his existence, providing neither dysentery nor nourishment but just so many empty calories.

... Are you saying Torin is fat?! He is not fat!

His head is.

Yossarin wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

How individuals PCs handle the matter of religion is another matter.

And thus ends the topic.

O rly? Just watch!

But ...

AmianPlayer wrote:

Here's my view on the matter and I'd like to know what you people think...

Therefore it doesn't end the topic.
This is RP and "it's your world, your character, your story". I know that.

I just think that 40% of the new players are oblivious to the above "lore" and simply get drawn into it by the other faithful. Craig Deathwalker asked a very insightful question:

Quote:

I have a question with regards to amia religion, Amia treats relgion far differently from how it would be treated in the realms. Does this mean specific lore can be ignored?

Answering that question would end the topic - for me, at least. That was the very reason I created it.
There is a hypothesis (amia treats religion differently?). From Nekhy's post, I gather it's not correct, since :

Nekhy wrote:

Yeah, that's pretty much how it is in canon lore and how a lot of NPCs behave

So, to confirm the above, NPC-wise (the people of cordor, Uhm, Wharftown, the elves, the dwarves , but not the PCs) , is religion treated like in the buffet analogy? We work on the official 3rd e. FR lore, or do the people of Amia choose to be monotheistic (in which case "this specific lore can be ignored")?

By the way, I liked the buffet analogy. In fact, that's how I see it as well.

Thanks for your replies, everyone!

AmianPlayer wrote:

So, to confirm the above, NPC-wise (the people of cordor, Uhm, Wharftown, the elves, the dwarves , but not the PCs) , is religion treated like in the buffet analogy? We work on the official 3rd e. FR lore, or do the people of Amia choose to be monotheistic (in which case "this specific lore can be ignored")?

How is that lore being ignored? Most people are polytheistic - it's not really surprising in a world of millions that there would be a few hundred monotheistic characters.
We're just lucky that on Amia the gods don't take offence.

AmianPlayer wrote:

So, to confirm the above, NPC-wise (the people of cordor, Uhm, Wharftown, the elves, the dwarves , but not the PCs) , is religion treated like in the buffet analogy? We work on the official 3rd e. FR lore, or do the people of Amia choose to be monotheistic (in which case "this specific lore can be ignored")?

In general, most of our NPCs are fleshed out to meet canon standards.

You can assume, that your average citizen or villager on Amia and the other islands on the server worship more than one deity. They may or may not hold a patron deity. They are likely to give offerings to the evil gods, like Talona and Umberlee, when it benefits them (in times of sickness and when embarking a journey by boat, respectively).

"Named individuals" and NPCs of important status may do the same, or they may have different views about deities. It depends, just like for PCs.

And thus we get to the core of the issue. Should one ignore canon lore in RP or not, because on Amia characters act differently?

Lore as represented in the books is OOC information. Your character doesn't know about this "canon lore" from rule books. They live the lore, and look at it all from within. It's their world, and the books we (the players) read, describe that world from an outsider's point of view.

From our point of view it's crystal clear, that there's Faithful, Faithless and False, for example. We know it's a rule of the game, because we (game makers and players) made that rule part of the world.

From a character's point of view, it may not be the truth of matters. Characters, just like people IRL, sometimes believe something to be true when it's not.

To compare, Earth has been proven to be somewhat round planet and not a flat pancake. Let's assume that Earth being a roundish planet is an "OOC truth", an objective fact about the world we "play" in. That doesn't stop some people from believing it's a flat pancake. People believed it to be a flat pancake for thousands of years, and yet it was round all the time. Even after it's been proven it's not a flat pancake, some people refuse to acknowledge it's round, and go on believing their own thing.

In Forgotten Realms and Amia, we can just replace the objective fact of Earth's roundness with the OOC rule of the Faithful, the Faithless and the False. To a lot of characters (NPC and PC), the manifestation of the deities, magic and that sort of things are the proof about the Realms' afterlife. But not to all. I'd say, that most characters (especially NPCs) simply don't know what the truth is and just go with the flow. They just pick the idea that seems the best for them (just like people do IRL, as well).

I am of the opinion more characters should believe the opposite of what the rulebooks state as the truth for the RP to be more interesting. Or some twisted version of the "OOC truth". Or anything, that isn't what the rulebooks state.

It's terribly bland and boring when every character states OOC truths from an OOC rulebook, and immediately knows them to be IC truths as well. It doesn't say anything about the character, but only about the player's ability to read and memorise OOC trivia.

In summary: when thinking "what would a character do?", you shouldn't think outside the box, but instead get into the box and look at it from within. Forget the facts you as a player know to be "truths", and look at the issue from a restricted point of view. Then see if the character's idea and the facts (aka rules of the game) are too contradicting (or check with a DM if this is possible in the world you play in), and if it seems OK, go with the character's idea, not you-the-player's idea.

Yet shorter summary: just let your character react to other characters' interpretations of deities and faith as s/he would, without you-the-player's OOC knowledge about the rules interfering.

Bottom line: live and let live, when it comes to in-character interpretations of OOC truths.

This might help some of us out, as quoted by Ed Greenwood.

Ed Greenwood wrote:

The plain truth is: mortals (and therefore all Player Characters) don't know and can never know for certain the exact details of anything pertaining to the gods. Even if a supreme priest or even a god tells you something personally, they may not be telling the truth. They may believe they're imparting the truth, or may be lying, but either way their answer can't be trusted.

With this said, worship determines the power of a deity, and yes, a deity without sufficient worship is a demigod, and the Realms has always had its own wandering "hero-deities" like those of Greyhawk.

If a mortal steps into an established portfolio (like Midnight "donning the mask of Mystra"), they immediately acquire godly power - - though not necessarily either the knowledge or the wisdom of how to use it properly, or the consequences of their portfolios, existing relationships, and actions - - and will rise and fall depending on what they do and how this affects the amount of worship they receive. If no mortals know about the Mystra "switch," there's unlikely to be much change in worship of Mystra until godly events or statements (either by Mystra or her rivals) change how she's viewed by worshippers.

Please always bear in mind that everyone sane on Faerûn believes in the existence of all the gods, "knowing" them ALL to be real. Worship is the sum total of the prayers, offerings, deeds, and behaviour mortals exhibit when venerating one god over others (and a particular mortal may well daily pray to several gods for different reasons: human sailors, for example, pray to Umberlee, Talos, Beshaba, Silvanus, and Shar for appeasement (Umberlee that currents, waves, and sea winds drown no one and sink not the ship, Talos that no storms wreck, damage, or drive astray the ship, Beshaba that no accidents nor ill luck befall on the voyage, Silvanus that the forces of nature such as gales, tides, and whirlpools be "not wild" during their voyage, Shar that no one be lost at sea), Valkur for success for the ship, all hands, and the voyage, Tymora for good luck, Selûne for unerring navigation, Shaundakul for navigation and safe voyaging, Gond to keep their ship strong and true, Gwaeron Windstrom if they're going to be trying to find another vessel or hunt down pirates, Helm if they're going to be doing any exploring, Kossuth to keep away fires aboard while at sea, Oghma that the charts be true (and to guide their hands and measurements if they'll be drawing new charts of their own at any point during the voyage), Akadi that the ship make good speed and the airs be not foul or becalmed, Auril that cold and ice harm no sailor nor the ship, Istishia that the water not eat away the timbers of the ship nor poison sailors or cargo, Waukeen that the voyage be prosperous (or Garagos if the voyage is a raid, that plunder be plentiful, or destruction visited upon the foe be devastating), Ulutiu that icebergs not bedevil the ship, and even Grumbar (that whatever happens to the ship, sailors may come safe again to land). [BTW, this subject is touched on briefly in the just-published WotC D&D sourcebook STORMWRACK. Page 48, for example, displays the symbols of sea deities.]

So there's constant worship going on for almost every divine being, rumored-to-be-divine being, half-forgotten and misremembered godlings... and even slain divine beings linger on as demigods or divine sparks that can "come back" if the right conditions occur. It's hard to fall from the ranks of demigodhood, once attained: one simply becomes a weaker demigod. Mortals in the Realms are always whispering prayers to "forgotten" gods, in hopes that the grateful deity will give them a lot of aid, swiftly, either out of eagerness to have a new mortal worshipper to command, or simply because they hear and heed the prayer (where a more popular deity may miss or have scant regard for that one prayer, amid the deafening chorus of so many).

If a mortal comes suddenly to the attention of other mortals as someone "divine" (miracles happen at their behest; of course, sometimes this is just a very powerful wizard or sorcerer trying to fool people), and very swiftly receives a LOT of worship from many beings, they'll soar in divine rank and power accordingly. So, yes, an individual could conceivably go from mortal adventurer, say, to godhood overnight. It's just EXTREMELY unlikely to happen - - communications (so that a lot of people hear of an event or a "special" person quickly) are poor, and unless very unhappy with their current lot, people tend to dislike and resist change (and so cling to the gods they know, trusting in established, familiar faiths who have priests they see at work around them every day).

In most cases it's impossible to tell if an encountered NPC is a demigod or a quasideity, and in a good "heavy roleplaying" campaign it can be difficult even for the player of a PC to know if their PC is just a powerful mortal, quasideity, or demigod. After all, if you can do something miraculous, momentarily and unpredictably or even at will, is it really you? Or an unseen deity helping you? The usual "test" for onlookers is: does a slain and badly butchered, burned to ashes, or otherwise "really gone" creature "come back from the dead" by itself, repeatedly? If so, they'll probably regard that creature as "divine" (unless they can clearly see that it's a troll, undead of a particular sort, or other known-to-regenerate creature) - - even though the coming back to life may again be the work of a watching deity, or something as simple as a ring of regeneration.

In most cases, however, creatures slowly win power as their worship slowly grows, changing as their faith "catches on" in particular cities or regions, or among particular groups, according to their own deeds (or reputed deeds) or aid (or reputed aid) they've rendered mortals. So, yes, the norm is probably a lot of quasideities, and demigods, with "instant lesser gods" being a great rarity. If you've read Realmslore from the beginning, however, you can see that the Realms has been caught up in a time of great change, and deities have appeared, altered greatly, and disappeared from the 1st edition "old gray box" until the recent FAITHS & PANTHEONS.

So saith Ed, Master of the Gods.

That's great that is

I really like that summary.

The Cobbit wrote:

Quote:

some kind of divine all-you-can-eat food court

That's actually one of the best analogies you can have, in my opinion.

I loved it.

The Cobbit wrote:

And there's always the dessert bar (Sharess, Sune).

I guess this makes Sharessin binge-eaters.

I think a few people misunderstand the Patron deity as being the one above all the rest; and serve that one and that alone, in terms of the following comparisson:

Despite the amount of deities there are to opt from, it could be possible to think of each deity, as it's own religion. Or a different church by any means; a christian is a member of a certain church; you get the orthodox church/faith, the roman catholic tradition... etcetera. Despite being similar in their teachings, to the best of my knowledge, one is only part of one church.

Just as with the different religions themselves; the faithful follow their true religion and none others.

However, my hold on it is as follows; going back to the root of the word 'Deity', and its meaning. I quote from wikipedia:

Quote:

The word "deity" derives from the Latin "dea", ("goddess"), and '"deus", ("god"), and other Indo-European roots...Also related are "divine" and "divinity," from the Latin "divinus," from "divus."

Already from the root we get that there's more than one of these god-like beings, and each is ruler of it's own domains in the grouping of the elements (for example).

On amia/Neverwinter Nights, in perticular, there is an entire pantheon of them; not just one.

Quote:

A pantheon (from Greek Πάνθειον[1] - pantheion, literally "a temple of all gods", neut. of πανθείος - pantheios, "of or common to all gods", from πᾶν - pan, "all" + θείος - theios, "of or for the gods", from θεός - theos, "god") is a set of all the gods of a particular polytheistic religion or mythology.

Emphasis is on that last line. Because there is an entire pantheon of gods and goddesses in this perticular world, it connects to Polytheism, which is as follows:

Quote:

Polytheism is the belief in and worship of multiple deities, called gods and goddesses. These are usually assembled into a pantheon, along with their own mythologies and rituals. Many religions, both historical and contemporary, have a belief in polytheism, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Ancient Greek Polytheism, Roman Polytheism, Germanic Polytheism, Slavic polytheism, trinitarianism, Chinese folk religion, Neopagan faiths and Anglo-Saxon paganism.

Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally, but can be monolatrists, specialising in the worship of one particular deity. Other polytheists can be kathenotheists, worshiping different deities at different times.

Polytheism is a type of theism (belief in one or more gods), but contrasts with monotheism (belief in a singular god), which is the dominant belief in the world today. In certain religions, such as Hinduism and Wicca, the various deities seen as emanations of a greater Godhead.

So here, from denoting the word 'deity', we see that within the world of Amia it is polytheism that is the theism, and not monotheism.

Overall I think the main emphasis, from that last quote, is the short, second paragraph (which I have put in bold). A character can be a monolatrist OR a kathenotheist, but whichever a character chooses they should not deny all others, because "Monolatrism or monolatry (Greek: μόνος (monos) = single, and λατρεία (latreia) = worship) is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity."

But to be honest, I've never come across any character denying other deities in game. There are fanatics, but they're just insistent that their deity is the best; they still know that others exist.

Meh. I couldn't find Ed's reply about a Banite priestess performing a ritual to Ilmater and Bane. Herkles, go look it up!

Anyhow, I agree with Nekh about IC misunderstandings. There should be more of that. However, I think there's a relevant distinction to make: false IC beliefs used consciously as part of the character are awesome, but false IC beliefs based on OOC ignorance aren't desireable. I'm of the opinion that before you can create something new, you must understand the old and already existing. This doesn't apply to just RP, but all kind of culture. There's no virtue in creating something interesting by accident, without actually understanding its relation to other culture yourself.

That's why topics like this are always useful: while they don't tell you how you should play your character, they may give you insights into why your character might be how he is, and what you could do to improve everyone's RP experience. Education is always good in and of itself.

I completely agree with Iron - it is desirable to have as much OOC knowledge as possible before deciding the level of ignorance of your character.

To be honest I thought it was just common sense to research something before going into an in-depth roleplay with it in the first place.

A character shouldn't preach about something without the player being oblivious to the true facts - in comparisson, as Iron said, and Yurell as well, if you have the information and just want your character to be ignorant as part of his or her personality then it's okay because you still know the truth behind it, and you're not going to get confused as well as your character. It's more enjoyable that way.

IronAngel wrote:

I think there's a relevant distinction to make: false IC beliefs used consciously as part of the character are awesome, but false IC beliefs based on OOC ignorance aren't desireable.

Yup. You should get it wrong the right way.

Player should know the facts, the character preferably shouldn't.

xx_straw_hat_xx wrote:

To be honest I thought it was just common sense to research something before going into an in-depth roleplay with it in the first place.

Players over-researching is far more of an issue in most cases, believe it or not. It really, really shows in their RP that they've done their rulebook lessons and that's not always a good thing at all.

I'm excluding stuff where the DMs actually expect you to do your research, such as for special characters. They're not relevant for the "everyday RP".

Totally agree. The only character I RP as being really good with over all Religion is Willow. Tu'jol is decent, but not great. My new character is the one that is learning everything about religion in the West from scratch, for the most part anyway. It's been fun to do it and I'm looking forward to the character learning from other PC's about different gods. The character is likely have a flawed and/or bias understanding of a number of them because of this (to start, anyway), which should make for a fun experience.

Nekhy wrote:

Players over-researching is far more of an issue in most cases, believe it or not. It really, really shows in their RP that they've done their rulebook lessons and that's not always a good thing at all.

I'm excluding stuff where the DMs actually expect you to do your research, such as for special characters. They're not relevant for the "everyday RP".

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, there... I'll give an example of what I mean. One of my characters is a tiefling, so straight away I researched, before I made her (and did her description), things such as their attributes, characteristics, traits, etcetera.

Then I just went wild, and decided okay, for her history let's decide that she's from a certain place, for example Calimport. I want to know that it's possible that she could have come from there (EG, she's not likely to come from a barbarian town in Icewind Dale). That's just for background reading, however.

Then during roleplay she gets converted to a deity which I have no clue on, OOCly, but ICly I still act as my character would, then when I get the chance after the roleplaying's over I read up on said deity for personal understanding of what my character's gotten into, but as my character I still roleplay as her and her knowledge, not as mine.

I don't see how that is over researching. I think of roleplay as I do creative writing, or even acting; you should know the basis of what you are acting/ writing about, without exploiting it in character. As I've said before, it just means that you can happily roleplay and enjoy it without being completely lost and unsure.

I suppose Nekh means characters who pretty much cite the OOC game products by heart, failing to understand how to treat that knowledge in RP. Or people who worry about their characters staying "true to canon", failing to understand that a character is an autonomous (or rather, there's the illusion of that) and evolving project that doesn't adhere to static facts and generalizations in books, but is rather based on them and them reacts to RP and the world based on his/her personality and situation.

A good example of this is players who OOCly worry about whether their PC is being "a good Tyrran" or whatever. That misses the point of role-playing altogether: you should study the background of your character and determine what he might know and how he might have grown to view the world, and them make active decisions based on that. You shouldn't keep checking whether your character's behaviour is line with his deity's dogma or racial stereotype. That's what your PC should do IC: if he notices he's breaking the doctrines of his god or the traditions of his people, it's a dilemma he must face and solve, not something the player should research in the books and "fix" the "mistake" by defaulting to the stereotype. That's not RP at all.

IronAngel wrote:

You shouldn't keep checking whether your character's behaviour is line with his deity's dogma or racial stereotype. That's what your PC should do IC: if he notices he's breaking the doctrines of his god or the traditions of his people, it's a dilemma he must face and solve, not something the player should research in the books and "fix" the "mistake" by defaulting to the stereotype. That's not RP at all.

Agreed; though I personally only use the OOC information for my own understanding (plus it interests me and I like reading it), I don't use any of that OOC information in game or IC.

I can understand how that can be an issue though, now that you've explained it that way.

Yups, Iron's addendum ish good and correct.

IronAngel wrote:

A good example of this is players who OOCly worry about whether their PC is being "a good Tyrran" or whatever. That misses the point of role-playing altogether: you should study the background of your character and determine what he might know and how he might have grown to view the world, and them make active decisions based on that. You shouldn't keep checking whether your character's behaviour is line with his deity's dogma or racial stereotype. That's what your PC should do IC: if he notices he's breaking the doctrines of his god or the traditions of his people, it's a dilemma he must face and solve, not something the player should research in the books and "fix" the "mistake" by defaulting to the stereotype. That's not RP at all.

Although to be fair a lot of people detract from said type because:
a) They're human trying to play an alien race or;
b) They didn't do their research.

While a can be kept minimal, b certainly needs to be avoided at all costs. That said, don't change your RP because you discovered new information. If your character suddenly discovered something new about his culture that he hasn't known for the past 400 years, why would he suddenly an completely alter his own personality to suit it? Would you (omni-you)?

I also found another thing Ed greenwood posted of note.

Ed GreenWood wrote:

Now, as for these current questions: Uzzy, the Realms is pantheistic; everyone believes in almost all of the gods they've heard of, and worships most of the relevant gods of their own racs' pantheons (by relevant, I mean Auril isn't worshipped much in hot deserts, and Umberlee not all that much by folk dwelling inland, far from a sea, who never travel near one). So unless you mean "followers of other gods" to mean just clerics of those gods, or clergy-in-training, or fanatics, no one's "tied to one god."

Again I'm inclined to agree - most characters in FR (perhaps not Amia) tend to worship the pantheon, picking individual gods to give offerings to as convenient.

Nekhy wrote:

I am of the opinion more characters should believe the opposite of what the rulebooks state as the truth for the RP to be more interesting. Or some twisted version of the "OOC truth". Or anything, that isn't what the rulebooks state.

It is what I was trying to do with my priest of Vhaeraun: as a player, I was purposefully blind to the Lore and gave my character's own interpretation to the dogma. But... alas... too many players let their OOC knowledge get in the way. EDIT (Rephrasing): I know the Lore, but I tried to make my priest in a way that he would only grasp the parts of the Lore that seemed more interesting for him, for what he wanted.

IronAngel wrote:

A good example of this is players who OOCly worry about whether their PC is being "a good Tyrran" or whatever. That misses the point of role-playing altogether: you should study the background of your character and determine what he might know and how he might have grown to view the world, and them make active decisions based on that. You shouldn't keep checking whether your character's behaviour is line with his deity's dogma or racial stereotype. That's what your PC should do IC: if he notices he's breaking the doctrines of his god or the traditions of his people, it's a dilemma he must face and solve, not something the player should research in the books and "fix" the "mistake" by defaulting to the stereotype. That's not RP at all.

This is important. I remember going to Iron for advice and what he said made me feel better about my RP.

Even though now I gave up the Vhaeraunite faction.

Here's the words of Ed Greenwood himself copied and pasted in an article on questions about deities I guess:

Now, as for these current questions: Uzzy, the Realms is pantheistic; everyone believes in almost all of the gods they've heard of, and worships most of the relevant gods of their own racs' pantheons (by relevant, I mean Auril isn't worshipped much in hot deserts, and Umberlee not all that much by folk dwelling inland, far from a sea, who never travel near one). So unless you mean "followers of other gods" to mean just clerics of those gods, or clergy-in-training, or fanatics, no one's "tied to one god."

Craig deathwalker wrote:

Maskaran and Loviatars alliance to destroy banites

etc

Actually....

Quote:

Followers of Bane can enlist the aid of his servitor deities Loviatar, Malar, Mask, and Talona, although their alliance is more a pact of mutual nonaggression than true friendship. The greatest ally of the Banites is the Zhentarim, and all followers of Bane are being taught how to read Zhentarim safe-markings and proper countersigns to give an agent of the Black Network.

And yet, what PCs decide to do is 100% their business. I doubt the alliances of the cosmologies are well known beyond the basics.

Tormak, why or how would the churches not know this, or the churches clerics not know this?

I think that's bonkers, and I think it's absolutely crazy, personally, that a priestess of Loviatar can gengineer a plan with Talos to fight against the Banites and Loviatar doesn't go "Are you F'ing crazy? Bane will fuck me up! I mean FFS, he ROSE FROM THE DEAD!!!1!!" but, hey, this is Amia!

:roll:

Regards,

I have to agree with Tormak. Generally speaking, I doubt most people would know of or understand most god alliances.

Look at Mystrans and Azuthans against Velsharoonites. They fight often and those gods have an allience. Though, granted, it's an extremely loose one. Look at Kelemvorites and Jergalites. Those two gods are pretty close and yet their clergies do bunt heads because of the undead thing. Look at the Dark Moon heresy. Shar and Selune are the biggest, most bitter of enemies. Look at the clergies of Silvanus and Chauntea who bunt heads quiet a bit and have even fought despite the two gods being pretty close allies. The gods don't care as much as you think, about fighting with their allies clergy. It's known to happen and the gods don't step in to do anything about it.

FA_Frey_XC wrote:

Tormak, why or how would the churches not know this, or the churches clerics not know this?

I think that's bonkers, and I think it's absolutely crazy, personally, that a priestess of Loviatar can gengineer a plan with Talos to fight against the Banites and Loviatar doesn't go "Are you F'ing crazy? Bane will (censored) me up! I mean FFS, he ROSE FROM THE DEAD!!!1!!" but, hey, this is Amia!

:roll:

Regards,

It's actually pretty common. Gods themselves don't play active roles in the actions of their clergy.

A good example is actually Sheverash and Eilistraee. Sheverash and Eilistraee (as individuals/gods) have a peace agreement (more like a mutual 'I won't shoot you' pact, but still) between eachother; yet still their clergies end up on opposite sides of swords and often ending up getting killed/hurt by the other side.

*noddles*

Yea, Tormak aced me on this one in MSN.

I retract my sentiment.

Regards,

On further reflection, it occurs to me that many PCs deny the gods ICly because their players have not done any research. This is not necessarily a bad thing - like the lack of haks, it enables people to just walk right in to Amia and start playing. When I joined Amia I had no knowledge of the FR setting, and about the extent of my knowledge was to ask someone what deity would be appropriate for a druid. The lore is something you pick up over time, either actively or by osmosis, and you can use it (with the results of your RP) to flesh out your character.

Xaviera had no deity until several RL months into her existence when I happened to sit down and read some FR lore, which I then RP'd as a conversion experience. I certainly wouldnt have wanted to get into a discussion of religion prior to that time, and now the amiawiki has the most information about Sharess on the internet. :wink:

I agree. Not knowing is not a bad thing. Not learning is.

In fact, the moment you know everything about a given subject and there's nothing more to learn, that subject becomes pretty boring. If there weren't new things to discover and learn in Amia and the Realms, I would have stopped playing this game ages ago.

IronAngel wrote:

I agree. Not knowing is not a bad thing. Not learning is.

Agreed. And this applies to all things in life for me, not just D&D.

Learn, people! Lazy gits!

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

I agree. Not knowing is not a bad thing. Not learning is.

Agreed. And this applies to all things in life for me, not just D&D.

Learn, people! Lazy gits!

But what do you do when you have too many things to learn? :cry:

Sylfwe wrote:

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

I agree. Not knowing is not a bad thing. Not learning is.

Agreed. And this applies to all things in life for me, not just D&D.

Learn, people! Lazy gits!

But what do you do when you have too many things to learn? :cry:

Everyone starts somewhere. Even being able to recognise the names of the gods,their pantheon (elf /dwarf / human etc.) and whether they're a good guy or bad guy is a step in the right direction

Religion in the Realms

Who is online