AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Can a vaunted walk into the lathander temple without dm around to watch?

Can a Sun Elf walk into a Lolthite Temple without a DM around to watch?

i would say it goes under the being banned code thing...you cannot enter a area you are not allowed without dm being present...so..i would say no peacok

It's not a faction area and if he's allowed in Cordor, I'd guess he's allowed in there too.. Assuming he's not flaunting his patronage.

Gravemaskin wrote:

It's not a faction area and if he's allowed in Cordor, I'd guess he's allowed in there too.. Assuming he's not flaunting his patronage.

Temple or Chapel? The Chapel is in Cordor the Temple is in Nes'ek.

if you find out what deity I worship, then you can ban me from your church >_> til then RP *nudge wink =O*

um, unless your intention is to explode things, or an incident could occur. then you probably should refrain from entering their church.

ed: what i'm trying to say is there are right and wrong times and ways to do it, if you walk in with a ghost in full black with a deity cloak and a scythe, you might need a dm. nes'ek one is faction from what i've seen, and I say no more.

I suppose it depends entirely on the approach.

Would it matter what your god is if you walked into a temple if others can't tell visually? I wouldn't think so. You'd surely be welcomed in as though yet another random person from the roads.

If, however, you're strolling in to Cordor's chapel of Lathander all in black, skull images up the wazoo and a T-Shirt saying "I <3 the Undead" on the front and a picture on the back of a man having sex with a walking corpse, then I think NPCs wouldn't react in the usual way.

Similarly if a Dawnguard in Boppiwear(tm) walks into Tarkuul commenting on the gloomy atmosphere.

I don't really care what the approach would be. RP-wise, a follower of a clergy that opposes another would not WILLINGLY enter it. And if they did, they'd do so on either a held-hostage scenario, or with a malevolent purpose.

Both of which would end badly for the offender.

Last edited by AlphaWaves on Thu, Sep 16 2010, 17:42 PM, edited 1 time in total.

The Peacock wrote:

I don't really care what the approach would be.

Boooooooo. What a lock on creativity!

The Peacock wrote:

RP-wise, a follower of a clergy that opposes another would not WILLINGLY enter it.

Why? No exceptions? Are you sure about that?

They NPCs in Cordor's Lathander Chapel are just civilians. As long as they aren't going out of their way to be bastards or have a ghost following them, they probably won't try to get a guard or anything.

If a fight breaks out? Yeah, certainly. But just walking in? No. If the PC in question is banned from the city itself, that's a whole other issue.

as for Nes'ek, I don't know. In either case, if there are Lathanderan PCs there, though, I'd encourage you to have fun and do something with them.

Well... I am speaking on behalf of the clergy my main mostly follows. And my others - and if they entered another temple opposing their own without any other purpose than to destroy it. They'd either A. Be smote themselves by the Deity of said Temple. B. Be slain by the Guardsmen in the Temple, or C. Be smote by his own god for not entirely ransacking the place.

Lathander's temples are a bit different in that they have a draw for evil characters.

The Peacock wrote:

Well... I am speaking on behalf of the clergy my main mostly follows. And my others - and if they entered another temple opposing their own without any other purpose than to destroy it. They'd either A. Be smote themselves by the Deity of said Temple. B. Be slain by the Guardsmen in the Temple, or C. Be smote by his own god for not entirely ransacking the place.

A DM can of course correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I doubt very much a deity would take the time to say "Hey, that guy just tracked mud into my temple. *SMITE!*" for every follower of an opposing deity that may walk in.

Deities are busy people and usually leave such things to their followers, unless in extreme cases.

Read the story of Sheverash's Devout.

The Peacock wrote:

Read the story of Sheverash's Devout.

Didn't find anything about it on the forums. Is it Amia-related?

Canon-Lore of Faerun, I am sure.

The synopsis of it is, Champion of Sheverash is assigned to kill a High Priestess and bring her head. He ventures into the UD alone, kills hordes of Drow, something happens, he finds an Eilistraee Priestess, they fall in love. He returns back to the temple and upon setting one foot in the Temple - Sheverash smites him.

Or so the tale goes...

It's all very niche stuff and can't be extrapolated across the board applying it to everyone. It's great that you stick with it with your characters as part of their background. Makes them deeper, sure. But does that apply to everyone? Certainly not.

There are exceptions to it, definitely - but opposing churches, or enemies to a church are exactly that. Enemies. It is not the followers that decide the enemy of their Clergy, it is a beef between Deities.

Lathander is very lovey dovey about all this stuff - or at least one may assume he is. There are interpretations to him being very cruel, very spiteful and very immature towards those that wrong him. I have no doubt that if somebody from an enemy of Lathander's Dogma and walked into his Temple with whatever intention - that it would be the duty (if known) of those within the Temple to defend Lathander's honor and sanctity, save for better judgement.

So then you would say you care about the approach. Very much so. Because that is what matters the most.

I don't see why you would need a DM, only way they would know who you are like someone basically saying guns blazing, and the priest/priestess will most likely ask you to remove your hood if you are coming in hooded, otherwise there really is no way to tell who you are unless you dress as you usually do. Thats the beautiful thing about disguises. I wish disguises were coded into the game as things you can buy or get widets for. Certain major players of corse without there hoods will definately be recognized. Crimson for example pretty much can't walk into any place and no be recognized by guards. I think it really depends on the faction area and you must rememeber yea that guards are perminate in their station but you must rememeber those guards are going to have shift changes, nothign is coded to do that. As far as I know the guards in Kohligen, and Cordor aren't atomatons so they do need to eat and they do need to sleep. Please need to use common sense when it come to that, either that or put no name guards instead of naming them. When you put a name everyone assumes they are always there 24/7. Its no different then the temple in Ne'sek, I am sure the priestess there needs to sleep once in awhile so its not going to be the same priest all the time. People make mistakes, guards get lazy its part of everyone nature. Not every guard is and not to poke fun at the British, not everyone is like the royal guards who don't move, and even they have shift changes.

Polytheism, it crosses alignment boundaries.

The Peacock wrote:

Canon-Lore of Faerun, I am sure.

The synopsis of it is, Champion of Sheverash is assigned to kill a High Priestess and bring her head. He ventures into the UD alone, kills hordes of Drow, something happens, he finds an Eilistraee Priestess, they fall in love. He returns back to the temple and upon setting one foot in the Temple - Sheverash smites him.

A story about the wrathful drow-hating elven god smiting one of his champions who spit in his face and got smited for it applies how?

It only goes to show that yes, gods smite people. It would be relevant if the Champion walked into one of Lolth's churches and gotten the smite stick to the head or if his Elli lover walked into Shevarash's church and got hit with the smite stick.

As has been said, it's not a faction area, it's only used by a faction. It's free ground; people can come and go as they please, if they're welcome to the city and "come in peace."

I disagree with the Peapenis' very strict view on enemy clergies/faiths. It's not so black and white as you seem to think it. Perhaps some gods might view it that way, but it surely wouldn't be all gods -- or most gods, for that matter, imo. If a Silvanite goes to a temple of Malar, s/he won't be smitten for not killing/preaching/destroying. There are plenty of indirect ways to negatively affect an enemy than to smash, kill and flap your gums to them. I would think the gods would see that. Circumstances are everything. Intent means everything. That's what counts.

vandel123 wrote:

I don't see why you would need a DM, only way they would know who you are like someone basically saying guns blazing, and the priest/priestess will most likely ask you to remove your hood if you are coming in hooded...

Priest might ask you, but as long as "hood-free policy" isn't in the law of the settlement, they cannot order you to do so, and force you out if you refuse. One might refuse to remove his hood for more than i-dont-want-you-to-know-who-i-am reason. One might be a freak, or scarred, and doesn't want other people to know that.

Cordor doesn't say anything about taking off the helms whitin the city walls, so if you are not banned from Cordor, you have all rights to wear the hood anywhere and noone can do anything about it, as long as the guard doesn't ask you to reveal your face.

Even if you are famous evil necromancer, and recognized as such, if you are not banned from Cordor, you have the right to spend your time in the Chapel of Lathander, as long as you don't violate the law or do something wrong. It's a public place, not a fortress.

If there are NPC guards around, then no.

If they are no NPC gaurds, then yes.

Its not about the faction area, it's about ignoring NPC's.

Zzz.... just PM a DM about the obvious specific incident this topic is about and don't waste time making spammy topics on the forum.

I claim the right to ban anyone I like from the Temple of Love and call the guards (PC or NPC) if they disobey. That being said, there are very few people who would be banned - high Banites, overt Sharrans or Loviatarans, obvious palemasters, black-clad necromancers, or anyone who disobeys the general rules of the Temple or otherwise gives me or the other priestesses an IC reason - essentially, anyone clearly and overtly antipathic to the faiths promoted in the ToL. I expect that the Lathandrans and members of the Triadic faiths would claim the same right for their temples. And I further expect that any PC Loviataran cleric would ban me from the Shrine of Screams if I were to cause a problem there.

You claim the right to be the boss in the temple and throw people out, just becouse you dont like them, then those may claim the right not to obey until you bring DM on, and have the NPC guards sort out the "problem" (with quotes), by the law of that city.

By the law of the city, you own no right to ban anyone from any part of the city if they haven't broken any official law within the city walls. If my toon killed you in Kohlingen, but smiles to you in Cordor, you have no right to ban him, for he is not breaking any of the city rules. Temple of Love is, like the Chapel of Lathander, within the city gates. So if priests and paladins of metnioned deities want to enforce their own rules, either take over Cordor and rewrite the laws, or get your temples and chapes out of the city walls. Simple as that.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

If there are NPC guards around, then no.

Bobo_Underhill wrote:

If a fight breaks out? Yeah, certainly. But just walking in? No.

Citizen Xee of the Temple of Love has DM backed Authority to remove people from the Temple of Love and would be assiststed by NPC dto do as such.

For simply not liking someone's outlook, without him or her breaking any law of the city?

He said ban from the Temple, not the city.

Temple of Love is private property and Citizen (Emphasis on the Citizen, due to Cordor's Commonwealth) Xaviera Xuider Xee is the government-supported and accepted (by being a Citizen) owner of the premises.

If she wanted to, she could probably boot you out because you're not good looking enough.

That said, the Temple of Love is a specific circumstance, due to the fact that the guards and military both have the power - and reason - to step in.

This is different to, say, the Chapel of Lathander which isn't privately owned (To my knowledge) and likewise is not privy to the same Citizen-Based perks and bonuses - at least not by ordinary adventuring Lathanderites.

So the temple of love is separated entity, with the law of its own (which states that citizen Xee is the law), within the city of Cordor?

PS. Nothing against you Xavi, just clearing out some things.

Dead wrote:

So the temple of love is separated entity, with the law of its own (which states that citizen Xee is the law), within the city of Cordor?

PS. Nothing against you Xavi, just clearing out some things.

No, but Xaviera is given basically carte blanche to run the place and keep it clean.

"He was asked to leave by me as the owner of these premises. He did not leave. Therefore he is tresspassing on private property.".

That's really the only clause that need be pulled by any owner of a private residence. It's hardly it's own laws. Xee would still be required to follow every law. She simply has the power to say, since it is ultimately 'her' temple, "I do not want you here; do not tresspass"

No, if it's the private property, and if Xavi was given free hands to do so, then alright. Violating of private property yes. But still, public place like Chapel of Lathander, is not under overship of the PC faction who uses it, and they have no rights to ban anyone, or ask him to remove hood, until the chapel becomes private property, like temple of love, or until they are made officialy the guards of Cordor.

Basically my point was this. If I were in the world of Amia, and I followed a clergy that opposed another, or were enemies. I, as that person, would be afraid to enter their temple in fear of being smited. Because, with religion comes superstition. And superstition as a tool of fear is extremely powerful.

But of course - I forget that everyone in this game is a Hero.

I wouldn't classify any church or religious locale as a public place, per se, barring government run / owned resources, such as the Temple of Waukeen in Cordor.

That said, the question in regards to, say, the Chapel of Lathander is ultimately - how much power do they have in a social context. Xaviera is a Cordorian Citizen with the papers and certification to give her a high place on the city's totem pole as well as having close ties with the government (Council) and the local military (Adventuring Guard); and the Temple of Love is the first religious place built since the Commonwealth became the new order and likewise a government supported institution if you will. Compared to the Chapel of Lathander which is ultimately a small place with relatively little acknowledgement from the local guard, and no certified Citizen running the place, I find it less likely that they could enforce bans of faith unless a law was actually broken.

Mind, this is just my understanding of it, as a player.

If you're an open nerdy dorky all black necromance or revealed to be one, you would be asked to leave the premises of the Chapel of Lathander in Cordor, and any PCs who tired to do so would be aided. This is common sense. Did it really need to be spelled out?

Chances are if it's questionable enough that you need to ask, it's questionable enough that you'd want a DM explicitly saying that you can go in.

Man... player initiative is just as mythical as DMs.

TormakSaber wrote:

If you're an open nerdy dorky all black necromance or revealed to be one, you would be asked to leave the premises of the Chapel of Lathander in Cordor, and any PCs who tired to do so would be aided. This is common sense. Did it really need to be spelled out?

It's not a common sense. Chapel of Lathander is as public as Temple of Wauken is. The law either applies to all equally, or it does not.

What's the point of going into the chapel if you're obviously an enemy of Lathander? It feels like, you're simply going there to brag around IC that you're untouchable when you're really just hiding behind the OOC limits and rules. NPCs can't react. PVP in the chapel is also a no-no. So... you're untouchable? The chapel isn't public space. The street/ground outside the chapel is public space.

It's like how people can mouth off at Cordor square because there wouldn't be any consequences there unless there's a DM available to supervise the retaliation.

Just my 2 cents.

So what you are basically saying is that worhippers of Mask and Graz'zt should not be allowed in Temple of Wauken? And quite the opposite. I am not the one who is hiding behind no-PvP zone. Those who initiated this whole thread are. That is pretty obvious.

I'm saying that you should act accordingly. If I have a Mask fanatic character that's sporting all the latest Mask fashion wear plus an aura of despair; with maybe, a few high profile murders of Waukeen followers under my belt... I'd imagine that the Tristana would probably be reacting unfavorably or asking me to leave her temple, if she could react. So I'd just avoid the temple as much as possible until I have business to be there (for example, destroying it with DM supervision.)

She would react unfavourably. But that's still not a reason to throw you out. As long as you dont do anything wrong.

You can throw someone out of your house. The Temple of Love is basically Xavi's house in this case. What is being said is that NPC's would aide her if required. Which then means that if a DM isn't around you shouldn't ignore the actions of an NPC. In which case you refer to rules and rulings about dealing with NPC's when DM's are not present. In Cordor, if someone breaks into your house, and you try and force them out, the NPC guards would help them keep you out. Its law.

As the NPC is this case would be a guard, you would be required to back off or find a DM.

Wooo... I actually wasn't intending to start a firestorm or, indeed, claim any special privileges for Xavi (though it's nice to know she has Ze Powah! :lol:

).

Dead wrote:

Priest might ask you, but as long as "hood-free policy" isn't in the law of the settlement, they cannot order you to do so, and force you out if you refuse.

Cordor doesn't say anything about taking off the helms whitin the city walls, so if you are not banned from Cordor, you have all rights to wear the hood anywhere and noone can do anything about it, as long as the guard doesn't ask you to reveal your face.

Even if you are famous evil necromancer, and recognized as such, if you are not banned from Cordor, you have the right to spend your time in the Chapel of Lathander, as long as you don't violate the law or do something wrong. It's a public place, not a fortress.

I strongly disagree with the above statement.

There are various levels of access to some areas, which are enforced by various means. City guards (PCs & DMs) have authority to impose temporary or even permanent bans. Many faction areas are exclusive by design, ie. you need a special key or pass. Some areas are restricted ICly or OOCly to certain alignments or races.

I personally think that a religious group - or any group that 'controls' or 'holds' an area - should, generally speaking, have the authority in their own premises to ban opponents of their faith or faction (read, ICly request that such people not enter). Whether they can back up those restrictions is another matter, and it should be done in an IC manner, in the sense that it shouldn't be "just because I don't like you" (in the same way that PvP needs an IC rationale). Xaviera, for example, is banned from Tarkuul (not sure if there's an alignment gate there any more, but that's OOC as opposed to her IC ban) and is also apparently on a Banite death list for actions against the Banites in the past. Given the enmity between her and the Banites, and between her and the Living City, and the view that she espouses regarding her faith's attitude toward necromantic and/or evil practices, I think it only fair that in 'her' premises she be able to refuse access to Banites and obvious necromancers and palemasters. Lolthite drow have attacked the ToL in the past, so she has rationale to ban them as well. Now, if Gurth Balmor or Darthion Illys were to enter the Temple (assuming they weren't banned from Cordor), she couldn't do much except yell for the guard. It would, I suppose, be up to the guard (DM or PC) to make a decision or pronouncement if the issue is pushed, but I'd assume that simply from a "don't make waves" perspective they would ask the 'offender' to leave.

Similarly, I think that the Lathandrites have the 'moral right', if you want to call it that, to restrict Banites, necromancers and whatnot from the Chapel of Lathander. Or the Triadic Knights have the right to ban same from the Temple of the Triad (assuming they can get into Kohl in the first place). Or the EO in the Chapel of Saint Elizabeth in Nes'ek. Or the Druids in Oakmist Vale or the Grove. Or Loviatarans in the Shrine of Screams in the UD (or whoever's controlling that these days). These are all small areas and none of them hold special shops or quests that will hurt anyone by restricting access. The Temple of Lathander in Nes'ek is a special case, and I would think that an OOC request to enter to get or complete a quest would be reasonable. Similarly with Tristana of Waukeen - perhaps Tristana's dedication to money is so great that she'll let anyone tromp over her carpets in muddy boots, but I'm sure that a DM could speak on her behalf to ICly ban someone from using that portal location, just as they could possess a guard to ban someone from Cordor.

The point is that faiths do have enemies, and members of those faiths arent going to want those enemies wandering around their premises. The more powerful the enemy or the more wrong they have done that faith, the more of an offence to the faithful and to the deity it would be and I think the more of a 'right' the members of that faith should have to request certain people stay away.

I have to agree with Xaviera's statement and the general sentiment that the faithful who serve in maintenance of a temple would and should have the right to remove any whom they are concerned by (such as enemies of their faith).

Going back to the Temple of Love comparison, again: It's basically a business/privately owned state-supported structure. While I am not sure the extent, I would wager that breaking it down, the owner/proprieter of a business, or their legal representatives would by Cordorian law be permitted to ban someone from their premises, for any number of legitimate reasons, even including something simplistic as "I have serious reason to believe he does not mean to bring business to this establishment and is in point of fact more likely to be disruptive, and in fact RUIN business."

That'd REALLY get you in trouble in the City of Trade, I reckon.

That said, characters of opposing faiths may have legitimate IC reason for going to these temples, whether benign , malign or academic.

So I like the approach, of as much as possible making sure there's a PC around in the appropriate area you wish to be in that you shouldn't, unless it's because you've been banned from the city that Temple area is in. (then you'd need DM supervision, but IMHO it's worth it. Actually come to think of it, DM supervision in general if you're going to a place you really ought not be is worthwhile, even if no DIRECT interaction comes from DM controlled forces, and the PCs not belonging then at the least, you have the supervision there to say 'Okay, the PCs got in fairly and squarely without trouble' )

Dead wrote:

It's not a common sense. Chapel of Lathander is as public as Temple of Wauken is. The law either applies to all equally, or it does not.

You have much to learn. Man-made laws only apply equally in an ideal world, which is not the one we live in - and especially not the one our characters live in. Your desire for fairness is trumped, and soundly so.

Since you all apparently need a DM to spell it out for you:

What you consider "enemies of the Lathandran faith" can enter the Chapel of Lathander in Cordor without a DM.

I'm not going to overlook what the Peacock says, though, because he is right - some gods take very particular interest in their sacred ground. Some don't. Some do and don't, depending upon their mood, depending upon the territory itself, or depending upon the astrological ruling of their various identities. For example, the Peacock explains that Lathander has been known as benevolent and merciful as well as unwaveringly pious in the face of what he consider the dark stain on humanity's soul. In that respect, he is very much like the mythological Apollo, who could grant you the gift of medicine or shoot you in the face with a flaming arrow. What makes the difference?

The story. You'll note, of course, that every instance we have of the actions of the greek gods - and, for the most part, the actions of Faerunian deities - come through stories.

If you asked Father Redweth or a seasoned Lathandran why, say, a member of the Vaunted could enter the Chapel of Lathander without being struck down by a bolt of pure sunshine, the dogma-supported answer would be that it is "a sign of the Morninglord's capacity to forgive and to be the shepherd to the lost and struggling soul; the defiler may come to a civic holy site with the intent to abscond with the symbolic regalia of our faith or to hurl vile curses at our bearers of the light, but every moment the defiler spends within the Chapel is an opportunity for the holy and undiminishable light of Lathander to reach out and quench the thirst in his soul, the very thirst that led him to drink from the black waters of ignorant or evil powers. This light may come from the defiler's sudden revelation granted by his view of the architecture of the site; it may come through the words of the faithful, who show him mercy, or who show him the strength of the Morninglord if his actions turn towards violence; it may come from the Morninglord Himself, taking particular interest in the life of a mortal and reaching down to instill within this dark wanderer the ineffable lightness of being in His presence. Lathander works not only through us, but through the social architecture we build in His name, and through His own hand..."

Things in Khem are very different however, and there, an "enemy of the faith" may certainly want to contact a DM before entering. That is a very holy site, invested with ages of import. It is settled in a land dominated daily by the watchful eye of Lathander, in a land overwhelmed by his own faithful, and, arguably, in what is a very ancestral culture for the deity himself. There's no telling what may happen when he or she does.

As for Xaviera and the Temple of Love, Xaviera has full authority to do pretty much whatever she wants there for the following reasons:

- She has the love of the people and, more importantly, the people in charge. If she says someone doesn't belong there, they are far more prone to believe her than the person who has been removed.

- She is not seen as a secular woman, she is viewed as the priestess she is, and therefore, in possession of a kind of divine knowledge and authority. This goes a long way, and even if your PC is a level 30 cleric, your PC hasn't earned the rights and the "image" of a true cleric she has earned through years of RP directly with the people.

- It is, in some small part, a microcosm of a DM'ly ideal. We would like to see the possibility of purely player-run areas. So far, it has worked out beautifully in this one small area. While it is true that the Temple is within the Commonwealth and the Ministries can (and they made it very apparent early on to Xaviera herself) step in and dictate and "overrule", they have thus far been given absolutely no reason to do so. Some people have made extremely lame and poorly thought out attempts to coerce the authorities to cause trouble there, and they failed for those very reasons. Of course, this ideal also reveals something that bothers us as DMs (I'm being uncomfortably honest here, btw): that our "ideal" will inevitably be favoritist because some of you are capable of managing areas and doing so fairly (like Xaviera) and most of you are not.

Do I need to clarify anything else here, or can you actually start thinking for yourselves yet?

walking into the opposing church

Who is online