Bane the FR deity of tyranny joins GH's own Pelor in the new core 4e pantheon. "Cats and dogs living together . . . real wrath of god type stuff." I cannot express (politely) how underwhelmed I am with this decision. _________________ GVD
Well, I don't think its a problem that the are mixing and matching gods per se. It is a problem that Bane, at least, (and perhaps the GH gods) will be actively involved in the campaign setting that is still being developed. There is going to be a natural conflict between WotC discussions of "Bane" as core and "Bane" as FR. The same will be true if there is any GH development under 4e.
Just look at all the crap that gets labelled as "GH" under your definition of "core vs GH" in 3e. :D Seriously, do they think that they can create a Bane vs Bahamut rivalry that matches Hextor/Heironeous or Bane/Torm? And if so, what's the point?
I think that exemplar gods are kind of dubious in the first place. But if you are going to have them for the sake of artwork and background fluff in published adventures, at least have the decency to create a pantheon from scratch.
People who already know the names of these gods are going to go "wtf?", while all the new players WotC is going to summon up with 4e aren't going to recognize the names anyway.
I guess it's just one more reason to question 4th edition itself. I started up another thread earlier about the deties as well. Kind of a slow topic, I thought more people would be "puzzled" by WOTC line of thinking when it came to mixing and match pantheons from different game worlds plus using some real world pantheon deities as well.
1. They change deity focus (at least to a degree with Pelor, and more so with Bahamut).
2. They introduce the idea of a temple having multiple deities which are totally unrelated (so far as the information they have given thus far).
3. Plus followers of two different deities don't really get along that well and they are in the same temple. See Mr. Wyatt's article in Dragon (electronic version).
May be one man's idea and not standard ideas but still, coming from the developer's of the 4th edition I'd expect something that makes sense. I had no idea that creating a unqiue pantheon for 4th edition would be so hard. Perhaps WOTC should have asked for help from the gaming community on this one. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Well, the idea that there is a one 'holy spot' in a small village isn't that unreasonable. Usually there is a patron god with the major influence and then shrines of "lesser" deities around, assuming they aren't actively hostile. The village isn't likely to support many... if any... full time clergy. With the kind of struggle for survival a littlel PoL village is having, resources aren't there for folks who sit around praying all day.
So you probably have a "generic" Greenbriarian temple (whatever the culture is) with a central altar and small shrines. The gods worshipped there come and go depending on whom the villagers favor. Pelor was the original patron, but for some reason Bahamut has taken over. Some old school types think supplanting Pelor is asking for trouble, etc..
I'd think you'd either want to use historical gods that new players recognize or have entirely new gods that don't have any baggage associated with them. But whatever. I do like that they are getting away from race specific gods, but I know that others (Rasgon, for instance) are likely to strongly disagree on that.
What I am getting rather leery and tired of is this frequent commentary to the effect of "well, we couldn't think of anything, so we just did this". They couldn't figure out how to make the existing planes "cool", so they dumped them. They couldn't figure out how to make succubi different from erinyes, so they merged them. They couldn't think of better gods than the ones they had, so they created a mishmash.
It seems to me that the mechanics, what little that they are revealing, seem interesting. Though it is further moving the game towards an anime/superhero style, which 3e already has done in a major way imho). But the new flavor for wizards and fighters sounds like the right way to go.
Its a shame that sort of creativity doesn't exist for the rest of the background.
I agree that 3rd edition started the super character idea at least as compared to 1st edition (didn't really play 2nd edition myself so I can't speak of it). I felt a noticable change in play feel with 3rd edition, especially with feats, multiclassing rules, prestige class, and the XP required per level.
I have taken some measures to try and draw it closer to a 1st edition feel simply because to me that's what D&D was and is. I'm not being critical of the rules so much but didn't care to change the feel of the game. Feats were fine for me to accept, though I felt they were to stingy with the number most characters received.
Prestige classes I didn't like at all so I decided to try and get away from the prestige class concept and instead attach them to a guild, religion or other organization.
Haven't play tested the rules yet but essentially the player would find a prestige class they liked and take an XP cut to learn the abilities. They would not increase their character level when entering the prestige class but instead be considered a faction of the church, unique guild member, etc.
When they accept the XP cut, they are allowed to select the first prestige class ability available. When they advance another level in their regular class, they can if they choose select the next prestige class ability (if one is available at level 2), and increase the XP cut, and so on. If an ability was an enhanced version of a previous ability they would of coarse have to start out with the original before moving on the the bigger and better version. The character would also be required to meet any prerequisties the prestige class normally carries. Prestige classes were very unpopular in my campaign (a choice of the players, not mine), this will hopefully increase their popularity as well as make me happier as well in regards of how the campaign works. The trick will be making sure I don't set characters back to far with XP cuts or not enough. Essentially you buy the abilities you want and as a result advance slower than those who don't want extra abilities.
The multiclassing rules were the other thing that made me feel like the game went into super hero mode a little bit. Way to much jumping around for my taste. I am more of a career character class sort of person myself and the players seem to be as well. People just weren't interested in taking one class and then another, followed by another. Instead they wanted to excel in one area. I haven't found a solution here. Since players don't jump from one class to the other it hasn't been a problem. I don't like the idea of gaining a new class and really not doing anything to LEARN the class. To unrealistic for me, yet one doesn't want to eat up valuable campaign time with months and years of training either. Anyone out there feel similar on this one who found a viable solution?
XP...well simply changed that to become much closer to 1st edition. Kinda slow for the players now that they have reached 11th level but they told me (and I agreed) they didn't like the official advancement at all. I take the level your advancing to and multiply it by the listed amount for that level, the total is what they need for the level.
Getting back to the deities of the article though: What I thought was odd (and maybe others view deities differently than I do) was not having one holy site in a village but multiple unrelated deities in it. I can see multiple related deities such as for the seasons or if one deity reached godhood through another, kinda like Zagyg and Boccob. But maybe others do it differently, not a right or wrong thing....just different. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Well, it depends on what you mean by "unrelated". Most fantasy campaigns tend to have a hodgepodge of gods that don't really seem to be organized in any way. Its almost a 'multi-monotheism' approach, where every god has its own self sufficient church that handles cradle to grave rituals.
However, its just as likely that there is a unified pantheon of gods with some sort of common basis point. The Greek gods, for instance, were all one family (ehh, depending on which "greek" mythology you examine, anyway). The norse gods had a unified origin, etc.
Though they weren't identical, they did have a common basis of beliefs. They squabbled amongst each other and competed for followers, but ultimately they all taught "Greekness" as their ideology and could share holy ground.
So...its possible that the author's "temple" is something like the Acropolis of Athens on a smaller scale. Or, perhaps, more appropriately, the Erechtheum, one of the temples on the Acropolis. The Erechtheum has multiple sacred sites within the same building dedicated to different religious figures, including both Athena and Poseidon. Who just so happened to compete for the right to be the top god in Athens and generally didn't get along, without being actual enemies.
Its not like Pelor and Bahamut would likely be foes. Their followers are squabbling in this particular temple.
Eileen; IMC, if a player wishes to multi-class they simply role-play the character as being interested in that particular direction. For example, a character interested in picking up a level or 2 in Mage does subtle things like buying books on wizardry, hangs around with other pc/npc wizards and just generally develops an interest in the subject. That way when they decide to take the new class the transition is less jarring. It helps that between sessions we have play by mail turns that further develop these background ambitions without detracting from the "live" sessions.
No player has suddenly decided on a whim to change class, so it's kind of an unwritten rule that you have to work at it in advance.
I don't run the xp system as written, either. To explain how I do run it would be tedious, but progress is generally 1/3rd what the DMG suggests. This works well for everyone IMC, although using lengthy pre-written adventures that require a party to progress from 4th to 14th level (Elemental Evil, for example) can be tricky to pace.
As for Deities; as I've said elsewhere, pure exasperation .
I don't mind the idea of different God's followers sharing a temple precinct; as Vormaerin said, there is a strong historical precedent. I do object to the pulling in of deities from different sources, changing them to suit one's needs and then having the nerve to call it a brand new pantheon.
Good point, I had not considered this idea, and I agree with you that perhaps that was the intent by the author. Funny one gets so use to doing something one way that sometimes "You just don't get it" Thanks. Good response. In a way I like the idea as explained by you. You broadened my thinking.
So using this idea Vormaerin, (the Greek pantheon serving as an example), what Greyhawk Gods would you put together in one church? Would you have clerics available for each religion stationed there or have a holy site off to the wayside that clerics of each god visit every now and then?
Ragr:
About the best I had come up with having some of this training conducted prior to the party starting out at first level. Of coarse to make this realistic, one would have to map out their background with multi-classing in mind.
My players develop well detailed background prior to play which makes them rather interesting. It allows the the player to become very attached to them and play the character with a lot of personality. If the player decided that as a young lad the character spent a few years learning magic but never completed their studies, I would have them finish when they decide to multi-class. If they included this in their background but never followed through with it as they advanced in levels, essentially they kinda dropped out of school, which doesn't present a problem either.
Thus far, the only one who has multi-classed was the wizard (she took a level in fighter somewhere around 8th level). I shortened up time spent learning taking into consideration the BAB she had already acquired, spent some time learning new feats, that sort of thing, all in all, reasons to shorten things up. It would be nice if the game offered solid, workable rules on how these things could be learned within a good time frame without stretching the imagination.
I never understood why folks would bop around from one class to the next like 3.5 offers (and it would appear 4th edition as well). I look at NPC's WOTC creates and it seems hard to find a single classed character these days. Maybe it isn't cool anymore.....I don't know. Everyone different, just seems like I missed the train on this one. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
Well, it really depends. I have a number of "pantheons" in the Flanaess, so to speak: Suel, Southern Oeridian, "Velunese", Old Faith, Western Oeridian, Baklunish, Northern Flan. Some gods will go together in some places and wouldn't elsewhere.
Some gods go together so well they probably are worshipped together 90% of the time. Velnius, Atroa, Sotillion, Wenta, and Telchur, for instance. And IMC, the Old Faith is a mystery cult that centers on Beory, with Pelor, Nerull, Obad Hai, Berei and a few others having subordinate roles.
But generally it is going to vary from temple to temple and location to location. Some places are going to be sacred to more than one god, as the Erechtheum is. So those gods are either going to have separate shrines really close together or a unified building. Regardless of whether or not they fit together normally.
One thing to consider is that a very common thing in polytheistic cultures is for patron god to be determined by birthplace (if not, its usually by profession or family tradition). Everyone from Athens has Athena as their patron goddess, regardless of what they did for a living. Or even where they lived. While in Sparta, it was Ares. Everyone from Bubastis in Egypt held Bast in the highest esteem, though they venerated others as well. Given that, you may find that the community's worship center is dominated by that god and everyone else may just have shrines unless the community is large enough to support more priests.
If your little town has Bleredd as its patron, the temple will be centered around him and you may have any number of odd associated deities. A shrine to Merikka, because she is important to agriculture. A shrine to Celestian because he is believed to escort the souls of the dead through the sky to the heavens. And one to Lirr, who performed some miracle here two centuries ago.
The clergy situation is going to depend on the size and wealth of the community. A small village isn't going to have the surplus wealth to have a priest who does nothing but priestly stuff unless a local lord has endowed the church or something. So you may find one priest giving the nod to all the gods on behalf of the village, with particular emphasis on whomever is traditionally the village patron. While the Grand Cathedral of Rao in Mitrik may have integral chapels to the other gods of the Velunese pantheon in it (Allitur, St. Cuthbert, Zodal, etc) complete with attendant clergy. Even though Mitrik probably also has full temples to those gods separately.
You've got me thinking about multi-classing, Eileen. I know the original topic of this thread was deities so I'll be as brief as possible.
What makes this game so much fun is that different people are playing entirely different types of campaigns whilst using the same setting. IMC multi-classed characters are as common as they are rare in yours, Eileen.
Three reasons spring to mind;
1) Recently there have only been 3 players and me as DM. Having a broad range of skills and talents became important in dealing with the challenges of adventuring without using a host of back-up npc's (although we do that too).
2) I run a low fantasy/magic game. I don't really like either term because neither fully explains the campaign. Magic is limited; there are limits on the number of spells a caster can know (a la 1st edition) and all arcane spellcasters must be specialists (I won't go into detail as this is a whole new can of worms). What this means in game terms is that problem busting magic (Fly, Levitate, Passwall etc )is not always available as a first option, meaning characters have to rely more on their skills and, of course, some classes get few skills.
3) My players and I have long since stopped looking at characters as members of a given class (I'm not assuming you do by the way, this is certainly not a criticism). Nobody dares judge a book by its cover in my version of Greyhawk. For example, of the 3 main characters being run at the moment, one is a single classed fighter heading for a modified version of the Kensai Prc, the second a single classed Transmuter, but the third is multi-classed. Thorn started as a Ranger, took a level of Fighter in response to a near death experience and then a couple of levels of Deepwood Sniper. Might seem a mish mash but nobody considers him anything other than a tough man of the wilderness who is something of an expert with that bow of his. In effect he is a "Thorn". A unique character only really possible through the multi-class rules and likely there will never be another character quite like him again.
So, I've really liked the multi-class rules and have'nt found it led to over powerful characters or players that constantly want to chop and change. Maybe I've just got a good group of players who are on the same wavelength as me.
Vormaerin; I concur with everything you've said above. I've used the same kind of pantheonic temples IMC, and they mostly work fine. I also treat followers of The Old Faith as an enigmatic force. Sometimes they appear dark and threatening, at other times friendly and honest, but always otherwordly. You never know quite where you stand with them, which makes them incredibly interesting amongst a group of deities that can commonly be called "good" or "bad" (mad?).
Thanks for the response. I agree that it is interesting to see how other folks play/run a campaign differently with the same world, whether it be how deities/temples interact with the populace and characters or whether it be how multiclassing is handled/viewed.
I too, have a small group and so therefore not all base classes are covered, we have me, the cleric, a wizard with 1 level of fighter 2 levels bloodline, and a paladin who's looking into a prestige class but still undecided.
Our campaign is deeply rooted into character development and roleplaying. Each individual has a complicated and lengthy background as well as very distinct personality. This is how we measure the worth of the characters. The idea of only this class is good, or this must be played that way, or my character has this magic and that magic are really not important at all. It's primary character and campaign storyline development. A lot more fun than the early days of hack and slash and "what's roleplaying" when I was first taught to play. The only things I miss from the old days are 1. Everything was new so there was a certain amount of excitement which is hard to capture these days. 2. I miss the old players.
Overall, multiclassing and prestige classes were just not real popular, not even sure why. I know if I had a different group where it was more popular I would work with the idea of acquiring a new class in order to make things more believable more than I have. I like to explain these things, more to satisfy myself I suppose than anything else. I don't really see it as a broken game mechanic or right or wrong. I just like to be pleased with as many aspects of the game/campaign as possible.
I'm sure there is an assortment of other things we do differently as well. In regards to deities I have always gone with the 1 deity per temple idea, with the exception of deities of the seasons and Boccob/Zagyg I would also lump together occasionally.
The biggest area my campaign has differed was in the view of worship. I think many campaigns are ran so that the general populace and perhaps even some characters worship or at least pay respects to more than one God. The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer approaches this idea as well. I decided to alter this model a bit (or quite a bit).
In our campaign, common folks do take this approach, but it was decided that the deities viewed this as a lack of reverance on the part of mortals and over time were offended by it. Eventually, over centuries of being disappointed that people no longer worshiped them (one person/one deity) that they decided to cast judgments upon the world. This is the basis of the entire campaign.
It is my purpose to pass this knowledge to the populace and warn them of their transgressions and prophesize the upcoming dooms each deity brings to Oerth. It is also my responsibility to attempt to persuade the populace to return to the worship conducted by their ancestors.
This entire situation of coarse has deities bickering about it. The only thing they really agree on is not liking the way they are revered and punishing mortals as a whole. They also agreed to send judgments to punish the wicked so to speak. Each judgment is based on the deities spiritual focus, and a few of these judgments have come up in the game.
Meanwhile, certain deities are attempting to manipulate the entire situation for their beenfit, which helps create good villains for the campaign.
Another example of how things are done differently from one campaign to the next. Same world, different take on what sounds good and fun for various players and DM. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I like the sound of your campaign, Eileen. Can't recall having heard anything remotely similar either. Your character seems to be in a bit of an unenviable position, however; your choice? Or were you "assigned" it by a kindly DM?
Interesting topic here. Thanks to everyone who chipped in on ancient religions.
When I launched my Yeomanry campaign, I borrowed heavily from Living Greyhawk's Yeomanry region, and their "Church of Seven Faiths". Allitur, Delleb, Fortubo, Joramy, Kord, Norebo, and Phaulkon are all worshiped (somewhat) equally, with each holy day on a different day of the week. It was a big family in the sense of most terrestrial families - bickering, disagreement, competition, and occasional mutual support.
While I don't like a lot of what the RPGA did with LG, this made more sense than a bunch of gods spread really thin across a slew of villages... For me, the "shared temple space" isn't much of a jump.
And yeah, the "superhero" thing really rubs me the wrong way, but most players want to be extra-extraordinary. I wish I had an answer.
My choice of background. We have a very small group 2 players and the DM (me and my family). Occasionally an NPC gets drawn into the mix but is not a permanant thing. I was asked to play a character as well given the small group size and closeness of the family. In the old days when we had groups of friends playing, the DM never played a character. Given the choice, I'd go back to that if I could.
I intentionally made Eileen non-combat oriented but a lot of fluff in order to avoid being pushed to the front of the campaign as a strong party member. Most of the events revolving around her are fluffy and much of it keep the campaign itself moving without her being the limelight. The
thread "Your Characters Welcome" gives some information about Eileen.
Everyone was asked to role up a character that was designed more like a hero than a run of the mill character. We started the campaign towards the end of 2nd edition, knowing that 3rd edition was on the horizon. Creating heroes was kinda a kick off for it. Everyone was 1st level when we started, we are now 11th. We use a very slow XP progression in order to savor the characters more, plus it is what people were use to from 1st edition.
The group got together as follows: Eileen was selected as a prophet and tasked with bringing forth this ancient approach to detiy worship. The Paladin joined in because she believed her prophecies were true and actually requested if she could serve to protect her, the wizard was sent to spy on her by the University of Magical Arts because she presented a significant threat to arcane magic. The threat stemmed from a prophecy of an upcoming war between arcane and divine magic as well as teaching the churches that clerics can also make divine magical items without wizards via creation feats. We are finally gearing up for a war against arcane and divine magic, one of the early prophecy of Eileen's.
The other two characters have equally complicated backgrounds which are onging within the campaign as well, yet everyone's seem to criss cross as time goes on. Both individuals are involved with the Tomb of Horrors (more the wizard than the paladin). The other characters get an equal amount of spotlight as well.
I have a ton of modules and have been linking them together in order to flesh out a lot of the campaign specific details which apply to each character's unique background. Some work with the religion aspects, others involving undead get tied to Tomb of Horrors for the wizard, others are tied to the paladin. I find a thread somewhere in the module which allows me to relate it to a much bigger picture in incoporate it.
There is no predetermined outcome of anything, essentially the circumstances are set up and the campaign plays out as it will. I guess in ways, it could be compared to Dragonlance in regards that there is an overall big picture which lasts from 1st level until the group ends. If the characters essentially fail to change the ways mortals worship the gods then all the judgments will pass and it sets up a new campaign for the future with new characters. If they succeed (which I hope they do) then they go out as heroes.
Oops.....edited my post and screwed it up somehow. Don't know how to delete the first one. My apologize everyone. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I think that exemplar gods are kind of dubious in the first place. But if you are going to have them for the sake of artwork and background fluff in published adventures, at least have the decency to create a pantheon from scratch.
People who already know the names of these gods are going to go "wtf?", while all the new players WotC is going to summon up with 4e aren't going to recognize the names anyway.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'd have prefered they just created a bunch of new gods.
I'm guessing part of the 4e design philosophy is to "raid" all the "coolness" from every edition and place it in 4e to hope for "super coolness" by association. Not working for me here. _________________ GVD
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
.
