|
Dead character worshipped the same diety as cleric casting spell.
Standard monetary cost or eqivalent.
Both these limitations can be over come by accepting missions in placement.
Final non-negotiable limitation....
Character must have a positive Con bonus at time of death. Also positive Con bonus is the number of times that raise dead or resurrection could be used on that character. After positive Con bonus raises used up only True Resurrection will work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Dead character worshipped the same diety as cleric casting spell."
That's a big middle finger to characters who don't worship a deity right there.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Dead character worshipped the same diety as cleric casting spell."
That's a big middle finger to characters who don't worship a deity right there.
Well if they are atheists in a fantasy world (where actual gods exist) that may be part of the negative aspects to not bowing down to or acknowledging a higher power.
If they worship a power that does not have a god (Nature), then it would make sense that cleric (or a very generous nature deity) would be allowed to raise them.
-
Maybe a balancing point if there are different faiths between the raising cleric and dead would be to place a Geas-like effect that the raised target must try to comply - and it should be something to benefit the faith/church of the casting cleric. Of course the target being compelled knows this and may or may not decide to come back under these conditions.
So no freedom for the godless? That is moronic. Why wouldn't a god of the alignment that is the same as the PC accept to raise him?
Nerul/Groteus is too busy chewing on them to spit them out.
Yeah... I wouldn't go with the religion thing. Not sure if the con thing is great either. Is there a particular reason your using either?
|
|
So no freedom for the godless? That is moronic. Why wouldn't a god of the alignment that is the same as the PC accept to raise him?Nerul/Groteus is too busy chewing on them to spit them out.
Yeah... I wouldn't go with the religion thing. Not sure if the con thing is great either. Is there a particular reason your using either?
I'm old school and find that raise dead is WAY to easy to come by making death as nothing. Also being old school I remember that raise dead wasnt a 100% spell, the hardiness of the character mattered because there was a resurrection survival roll to survive being brought back to live. This % roll was based off the characters Con.
I think the religion thing makes sense. I fyou dont believe in the gods why should they believe in you?
I also put this in...
"Both these limitations can be over come by accepting missions in placement."
Which was a less wordy way to say what Loren Pechtal said, of course its less clear then what he said.
This is from Raise Dead 1st ed.
"the resurrected person must make a special saving throw to survive the ordeal (see CHARACTER ABILITITIES. Constitution). Furthermore, the raised person is weak and helpless in any event, and he or she will need one full day of rest in bed for each day he or she was dead."
Also I'm no putting the Elf limitation on raise dead like in 1st ed. Elves could not be raised they had to be resurrected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So no freedom for the godless? That is moronic. Why wouldn't a god of the alignment that is the same as the PC accept to raise him?If the character doesnt believe in the gods why should the gods believe in him?
It's not about belief, it's about non-worship. The concept of belief in a world where the gods are demonstrably real doesn't apply. Belief implies there is no concrete proof they exist, but you're going on faith anyway.
An "athiest" in a world like this would not disbelieve in the gods unless he was an idiot. But he's not going to bow down before any particular one either.
What makes that god any better than the other 30 or so that makes him worthy of devoting your life to?
Alternatively, what's the point of worshiping one god when any of them could help you just as well?
Alternatively, what if there's no god you 100% align with? Why would you worship a particular one then?
That's 3 simple, valid alternatives for not worshiping a god in a world where they exist.
As well, the gods would have to be stupid to disbelieve in a human being who so obviously exists. Indeed, why would they care about him at all if he's not serving their purposes? And you could say that about 90% of the population.
I find it a bit more verisimilitude breaking that a god would specifically deny some random person resurrection than any other alternative. Why do they care? Their only direct stake in the Material Plane is what their Clerics do with the power they grant them, while they wage larger and more subtle wars on the Outer Planes and beyond.
Unless the person is just completely and totally contrary to what the Cleric's god is for, like a Cleric of Sarenrae raising a high level devotee of Rovagug (which would constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct IMO, not the god specifically shutting off power for this one act only), the god shouldn't give a damn one way or another. The person is likely to insignificant to care about.
If the person is likely to be to insignificant to be cared about, then why would the cleric ask their god to raise them at all?
Well, depending on your definition of significant, he could be paying a ridiculous amount of money to have the raise dead done by a good friend of his(likely that he earned through adventuring...), or he could be raised by his friend who does see him as a significant.
That said, your gods are pretty harsh imo, and its not very friendly to people who are prone to playing characters who don't do worship.
|
|
It seems to me from the post so far that people only read part of a post then rant about what they read without taking into account the rest of the original post.
I said that the limitations on religion and money could be waved in return for services. So I didnt close out the non-believers as completely as several post seem to indicate.
And MrSin if said non believer had someone who thought he was insignificant than obviously he was so insignificant was he?
I said that the limitations on religion and money could be waved in return for services. So I didnt close out the non-believers as completely as several post seem to indicate.
"Don't worry Jeff! We can rez you. We just have to go do some quest for a slave of god." Its still an extra hoop, and if you don't rez until after then its a middle finger to that player. Gosh forbid you can't even find a guy who worships the same god as you. Just adds complications.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So no freedom for the godless? That is moronic. Why wouldn't a god of the alignment that is the same as the PC accept to raise him?Nerul/Groteus is too busy chewing on them to spit them out.
Yeah... I wouldn't go with the religion thing. Not sure if the con thing is great either. Is there a particular reason your using either?
I'm old school and find that raise dead is WAY to easy to come by making death as nothing. Also being old school I remember that raise dead wasnt a 100% spell, the hardiness of the character mattered because there was a resurrection survival roll to survive being brought back to live. This % roll was based off the characters Con.
I think the religion thing makes sense. I fyou dont believe in the gods why should they believe in you?
I also put this in...
"Both these limitations can be over come by accepting missions in placement."Which was a less wordy way to say what Loren Pechtal said, of course its less clear then what he said.
This is from Raise Dead 1st ed.
"the resurrected person must make a special saving throw to survive the ordeal (see CHARACTER ABILITITIES. Constitution). Furthermore, the raised person is weak and helpless in any event, and he or she will need one full day of rest in bed for each day he or she was dead."Also I'm no putting the Elf limitation on raise dead like in 1st ed. Elves could not be raised they had to be resurrected.
Why not find some folks and play 1st ed? No sense in playing a game you don't want to or tricking someone into playing with you by telling them it's pathfinder when it's really your homebrew 1st ed clone.
What if the character casting raise dead doesn't worship a deity?
It seems to me from the post so far that people only read part of a post then rant about what they read without taking into account the rest of the original post.
It seems to me from the thread title that you wanted to know whether people think this was overboard.
They think it is.
Sadly, "advice" threads never seem to be that simple...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a more "constructive" note: Rules like "elves can't be raised" and "atheists pay extra" might make things closer to your idea of "old school", but the "WAY to easy to come by making death as nothing" issue is not going to be resolved. People will just play religious half-orcs instead.
It's like someone saying that reinstating THACO is the best way to solve the rules bloat problem, or that bringing back feudalism will do away with climate change.
Here's a solution, cribbed from 13th Age (modified for PF, feel free to modify more):
A cleric can only raise 4 people during their existence. A person can be raised 4 times total. When figuring out the effects of being raised, always use the total of the cleric or recipient that has more raises.
First time: The person is raised, no ill effects. Maybe an hour of rest and they're fine.
Second time: They come back at half hp and 1 negative level. The cleric takes 1 point of Wisdom damage. The negative level can be restored after one week with a Restoration.
Third time: They come back with 1/4 hp and 2 negative levels. The cleric takes 1d6 Wisdom damage. The negative levels can be restored once per week with a Restoration.
Fourth time: They come back with 1 hp, all ability scores take half their total in damage and 4 negative levels. The cleric takes 2d6 Wisdom damage. The negative levels can be restored once per week with a Restoration.
Additional attempts can be made, for each additional time raised increase the negative level by 2 (if the result is 0 HD the spell fails), and increase the Wisdom damage by 1d6. If the Wisdom damage reduces the Cleric to 0 or less, they aren't killed, but are permanently cut off from casting divine spells ever again or using abilities from any class that can cast divine spells.
Random NPC clerics are less likely to raise strangers unless they think the risk is worth it (cause if their friends are lying, it could ruin the cleric's ability to cast spells). If you find a cleric on his 4th raise, you're back, but it's a slow recovery. Resurrection and True Resurrection could treat the raising as one and two lower respectively for purposes of side effects. They still add to the total regardless though, making future raising's more difficult.
It also creates a potential situation where a PC cleric could decide to essentially sacrifice themselves (or their ability to communicate/serve their god) to bring back an important person.
It seems to me from the post so far that people only read part of a post then rant about what they read without taking into account the rest of the original post.
I said that the limitations on religion and money could be waved in return for services.
"Well, sorry about that, Tim. No point in your showing up next week, because the GM is being a ^%%* and won't let you play until we've gone and done and another adventure without you."
Yeah. I'd say this is a solution in search of a problem, except it's really a problem in search of another problem, so that they can get together and make lots of little problems.
How romantic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than a con limit.
One of my groups used to use a caster level check from the person casting the raise dead or resurrection.
The DC was based on how you died poison, massive damage, burned, disintegrated, disease, etc...
We had a whole table detailing it out. You didn't want to get disintegrated or eaten up by acid. That DC was very difficult to make even for a high level caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the fascinating things to me, is the idea that dystheism (which is really what we're looking at instead of atheism, as far as belief goes) is a valid choice as well.
Let's presume two things:
1) a god controls an aspect of reality
2) a mortal relies on the divine for boons
Presuming these two things are true... who wouldn't worship a deity other than the foolish? It is a foolish decision to make.
I might not like the fact that thunderstorms can occasionally disrupt my access to the internet, but I'm not going to whine about it, either to the power company, the storm, or anything else. If I find it distasteful, I'll do something about it, within my power. That's about it.
Demanding equal boons for making such a decision is akin to going, "No, I don't want modern medicine, but I want to heal just as well as those who have it."
I, for one, have no problem with it as a rule, and would enjoy playing in a game, though I don't know that I'd always enjoy playing under such a rule. It depends on the world and the buy-in I have for it from the get-go.
I said that the limitations on religion and money could be waved in return for services. So I didnt close out the non-believers as completely as several post seem to indicate."Don't worry Jeff! We can rez you. We just have to go do some quest for a slave of god." Its still an extra hoop, and if you don't rez until after then its a middle finger to that player. Gosh forbid you can't even find a guy who worships the same god as you. Just adds complications.
I'm curious why you would immediately jump to a slave god as the only one that would be able to raise you? Unless you're trying to make a quip about geas, in which case - wow, that's petty.
"Oh, I just owe my life and continued existence to you! Nope, I certainly won't do anything for you!"
... which, you know, is a decision they can make before they get raised.
What if the character casting raise dead doesn't worship a deity?
This is a valid point, but I think Jacob is probably (based on the wording) going to require a deity.
Or, in an interest of balance, perhaps only dystheistic clerics can raise dystheistic people.
It seems to me from the post so far that people only read part of a post then rant about what they read without taking into account the rest of the original post.
I said that the limitations on religion and money could be waved in return for services.
"Well, sorry about that, Tim. No point in your showing up next week, because the GM is being a ^%%* and won't let you play until we've gone and done and another adventure without you."
Yeah. I'd say this is a solution in search of a problem, except it's really a problem in search of another problem, so that they can get together and make lots of little problems.
How romantic.
This is... exactly what you quoted him as saying people seem to be doing.
I'm pretty sure, upon reading it, that he means the geas is on the raised. Thus,
Step 1) Get the guy raised
Step 2) Get the guy geased
Step 3) ???
Step 4) Profit!
I mean, seriously, guys, we can be better than this. Figure ways an idea could work (if any), suggest those, and then point out the problems and drawbacks with that area first instead of just telling the OP, "It can't ever work because this one thing doesn't mesh with all playstyles!" (which is actually pretty common in the Advice boards*), as the former usually works better than the latter when trying to get your point across.
Speaking of,
On a more "constructive" note: Rules like "elves can't be raised" and "atheists pay extra" might make things closer to your idea of "old school", but the "WAY to easy to come by making death as nothing" issue is not going to be resolved. People will just play religious half-orcs instead.
It's like someone saying that reinstating THACO is the best way to solve the rules bloat problem, or that bringing back feudalism will do away with climate change.
While I can see your point, these aren't comparable. In his case, he's merely adding requirements, not changing a suite of rules (or claiming non-sense). It's the difference of comparing adding in a new, minor sub-mechanic (his suggestion) to dropping a core mechanic for another non-compatible core mechanic (your two examples). Please don't conflate poor comparisons.
Further, he explicitly noted that he wasn't using the racial restriction. At least, that's my understanding of him writing "no" in there - I suppose he could have added an extraneous "no", but I find it more likely that he didn't add a "t" instead. Typing tends to work that way, I've found. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Sadly, "advice" threads never seem to be that simple...
I'm reasonably certain in this case, at least, it's because most who've commented on it have said something that (in plain-text, either intended or not) comes off as, "You're a bad person and should feel bad." instead of "Hey, that's an interesting idea; I don't like it, and it has these problems, but if you could tell us what you're going for**, perhaps we could help go that way together."
* Yes, I've done this, too. This doesn't make me a hypocrite - it makes me able to learn from my mistakes. And it is a mistake.
** MrSin asked this question, but his subsequent input has been... harsher than necessary, I think.
Anyway, to go over the points...
Dead character worshipped the same diety as cleric casting spell.
So, to understand, your reasoning here is:
1) the gods want their worshipers back in the world more than others-- -- this makes sense, as a deity generally wants their will done more than others; further, it's possible the reason it functions this way is exclusively due to the fact that gods in question only have access to their own worshipers. Follow-up question: how do you handle clerics without patrons? -- --
2) the gods (or their clerics) only take notice of "significant" people?
-- -- so what determines if a deity deems someone important? If the requirements are too high, there's no reason to use lower levels spells; if the requirements are too low, you're going to run into the potential problems of people feeling either too powerful or finding the game world strange -- --
Standard monetary cost or eqivalent.
This is merely a restriction on how regularly the effect can be requested, yes? If so, and if you maintain the constitution cost (see below), then I would find this superfluous. The money could be required for services rendered to the church - in other words, have a quest of approximately that expense for the church in question, regardless of the worshiper (waived or delayed in certain, extreme circumstances) that the raised entity would follow after-the-fact, but if the spell is limited by the person, I would find the coin-tax needless for most circumstances.
Both these limitations can be over come by accepting missions in placement.
Sounds very doable, actually. This, to me, is an excellent compromise. If you have a cost, have it able to be waived.
The one thing I would caution, however, is to have a way "out" for the church: thus, if it's important enough (and who can say if it's cosmically important?), the god simply waives the requirements because, in the end, this non-worshiper is doing his or her will by virtue of continuing with their own quest.
Could be interesting RP on its own.
Final non-negotiable limitation....
Character must have a positive Con bonus at time of death. Also positive Con bonus is the number of times that raise dead or resurrection could be used on that character. After positive Con bonus raises used up only True Resurrection will work.
This one is the most onerous, obviously, but also the most changing. The others are basically just flavor; this one puts a permanent cap on raise dead.
Just to be clear - true resurrection functions, regardless, yes?
If so, I'm curious as to why? What are you going for?
Possibilities to limit access to the ability to raise the dead include to limit the wealth, to limit the level, and/or to add requirements.
You seem to favor the last. Why is that? Purely for an old school flavor?
Are you looking at retooling the world at-large or just this one segment?
Are you thinking of implementing this as a general house rule or just for a one-off?
Do you know your players well, or are you thinking of (effectively) pick-up games or new players?
These questions can help us determine how to help you best.
Of course, you seem to have come to a reasonable conclusion anyway. That works. :)
One of the fascinating things to me, is the idea that dystheism (which is really what we're looking at instead of atheism, as far as belief goes) is a valid choice as well.
Let's presume two things:
1) a god controls an aspect of reality
2) a mortal relies on the divine for boons
Presuming these two things are true... who wouldn't worship a deity other than the foolish? It is a foolish decision to make.
The problem here is presuming that second one. If the only classes were Divine classes, that would be true. But there are other, equally valid paths to power.
Demanding equal boons for making such a decision is akin to going, "No, I don't want modern medicine, but I want to heal just as well as those who have it."
I don't think that's a valid comparison at all. This isn't refusing a boon, it's not aligning yourself with a creature that will expect something from you that you don't want to give.
It's more like wanting the benefits of modern medicine, but the only people who HAVE that modern medicine are feudal lords of some kind who are holding it ransom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard could do quite well in this situation. Don't want to deal with the horrors of clerical resurrection? Get it done by a wizard!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the fascinating things to me, is the idea that dystheism (which is really what we're looking at instead of atheism, as far as belief goes) is a valid choice as well.
Let's presume two things:
1) a god controls an aspect of reality
2) a mortal relies on the divine for boons
Presuming these two things are true... who wouldn't worship a deity other than the foolish? It is a foolish decision to make.
The problem here is presuming that second one. If the only classes were Divine classes, that would be true. But there are other, equally valid paths to power.
... but not to divine power, which is what this is actually about.
Further, I actually covered that:
I might not like the fact that thunderstorms can occasionally disrupt my access to the internet, but I'm not going to whine about it, either to the power company, the storm, or anything else. If I find it distasteful, I'll do something about it, within my power. That's about it.
Thus, "other paths to power" that you mentioned. There: now you've done something about it.
Demanding equal boons for making such a decision is akin to going, "No, I don't want modern medicine, but I want to heal just as well as those who have it."
I don't think that's a valid comparison at all. This isn't refusing a boon, it's not aligning yourself with a creature that will expect something from you that you don't want to give.
It's more like wanting the benefits of modern medicine, but the only people who HAVE that modern medicine are feudal lords of some kind who are holding it ransom.
No, it's a valid comparison.
Worship: "Do you want to worship a deity/reap the benefits thereof?"
Dystheist: "No - I only want to reap the benefits."
Worship: "But only deities grant divine power, and a deity only has access to the souls of his worshipers."
Dystheist: "I don't care. I want any deity at any time to raise me according to my will. After all, my will is more important than theirs."
Or, how about this interpretation:
Work: "Do you want to work for money/reap the benefits thereof?"
Notwork: "No - I only want to reap the benefits."
Work: "But only by working can you acquire funds, and only with money can you purchase things."
Notwork: "I don't care. I want any store at any time to give things to me according to my will. After all, my will is more important than theirs."
This is exactly what's going on.
It's not "holding something for ransom" unless you make it "holding something for ransom".
If you, as author, choose for the system to fail, of course it will fail.
If, on the other hand, you give valid reasoning, it can succeed. Don't just presume "FAIL!" and then rebuke.
To reiterate:
I mean, seriously, guys, we can be better than this. Figure ways an idea could work (if any), suggest those, and then point out the problems and drawbacks with that area first instead of just telling the OP, "It can't ever work because this one thing doesn't mesh with all playstyles!" (which is actually pretty common in the Advice boards*), as the former usually works better than the latter when trying to get your point across.
I want a friendly advice forum where, even if a style doesn't mesh with my own, I can give advice (including the fact that it doesn't mesh with my own) but not ascribe some sort of motives to the writer of said thread (on purpose or accidentally - the latter is likely to happen more often, though, with stronger phraseology, which I, too, engage in - it's a thing, alas).
Regardless,
A wizard could do quite well in this situation. Don't want to deal with the horrors of clerical resurrection? Get it done by a wizard!
... is exactly true. If there's some other mechanic at play... in which case, well, okay. That works, too. :)
I still don't think your comparisons are valid.
This is not a matter of working/not working in the slightest.
Person A has commodity B.
He requires Person C to bow down before him before he will provide Commodity B.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, an atheist in a setting where gods are real would be idiotic. A person who refuses to worship said powerful outsiders, however, is not.
So why discourage that style of play?
No one is discouraging it - just don't die. Or if you do die, have a God.
While playing a "I don't bow down to any man, or any God" has it's perks and freedom (like playing CN) there are sometimes drawbacks to that approach. This is one of them.
Keep in mind that this was placed in the wrong thread and should probably be in the houserules forum. This is a houserule, a very reasonable one I might add.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is discouraging it - just don't die. Or if you do die, have a God.Yes, an atheist in a setting where gods are real would be idiotic. A person who refuses to worship said powerful outsiders, however, is not.
So why discourage that style of play?
That sounds like incentive to me. Permadeath sounds pretty discouraging to me, and there really isn't an upside to it.
While playing a "I don't bow down to any man, or any God" has it's perks and freedom (like playing CN) there are sometimes drawbacks to that approach. This is one of them.
Most characters don't actually have to follow tenants or anything if they have a god. The biggest perk is probably the fact you get to roleplay who you want and make the character you want.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is discouraging it - just don't die. Or if you do die, have a God.Yes, an atheist in a setting where gods are real would be idiotic. A person who refuses to worship said powerful outsiders, however, is not.
So why discourage that style of play?That sounds like incentive to me. Permadeath sounds pretty discouraging to me, and there really isn't an upside to it.
While playing a "I don't bow down to any man, or any God" has it's perks and freedom (like playing CN) there are sometimes drawbacks to that approach. This is one of them......The biggest perk is probably the fact you get to roleplay who you want and make the character you want.
And that ends when the faithless PC (mechanically) runs out of juice.
So you get to do what you want (Cartman in my head) until you cannot do it anymore. No one is opposed to "roleplay who you want", if you go that route don't die and have some spare "free-from-Gods" characters as backups.
To me permadeath also sounds discouraging, luckily for us this is just a game.
I still don't think your comparisons are valid.
This is not a matter of working/not working in the slightest.
Person A has commodity B.
He requires Person C to bow down before him before he will provide Commodity B.
I'll elaborate on this now that I'm done watching Penny Dreadful.
It's not a matter of work. What he's suggesting is NOT just that servants of a god get raised (Clerics and Inquisitors and the like). It's not trading a service for payment, in other words, nor is it vice versa.
It's denying access to a certain service based on discrimination, essentially.
It's the equivalent of not being able to buy medicine unless you swear fealty to the medicine company, no matter the fact that you can pay just as well as the guy who does so and are for all intents and purposes are not affecting the company any more or less than the other person.
It's a poorly thought out penalty from a mechanical perspective, and really doesn't make any sense in-game unless you want your gods to be petty and spiteful (like the Greek pantheon), which really just makes them less interesting overall.
I still don't think your comparisons are valid.
This is not a matter of working/not working in the slightest.
Person A has commodity B.
He requires Person C to bow down before him before he will provide Commodity B.
I'll elaborate on this now that I'm done watching Penny Dreadful.
It's not a matter of work. What he's suggesting is NOT just that servants of a god get raised (Clerics and Inquisitors and the like). It's not trading a service for payment, in other words, nor is it vice versa.
It's denying access to a certain service based on discrimination, essentially.
It's the equivalent of not being able to buy medicine unless you swear fealty to the medicine company, no matter the fact that you can pay just as well as the guy who does so and are for all intents and purposes are not affecting the company any more or less than the other person.
It's a poorly thought out penalty from a mechanical perspective, and really doesn't make any sense in-game unless you want your gods to be petty and spiteful (like the Greek pantheon), which really just makes them less interesting overall.
Allow me the short rebuttal: nnnnnnnnnnnnnope.
Allow me the longer one: no, you're reading your own prejudice into it and coming away with a negative conclusion that is neither inherently implied nor inherent to the nature of the configuration.
To elaborate:
1) Why does a god have access to the soul of a worshiper that is not their own? Why would they? Certainly in Core Pathfinder there is, in fact, that exact dynamic going on, but that's hardly the only game assumption one could make in any given setting. Point in fact, as Auxmaulos pointed out, this is simply in the wrong area: it should be in House Rules. Given that this is, in fact, talking about House Rules, it's not a bad one, and plenty of potential in-character justification. Presuming that a god is arbitrarily denying service "just because" is fallacious.
2) This does not prevent a god from reaching out, claiming another soul, and putting them back down into the world. Why not? 1) They're gods, 2) it's a help to the players in such a set up. What, exactly, does a god have to do in order to make something like that happen? I dunno - lots of possible options represent themselves. Strike a bargain with the god of the dead (who may only represent a doorway, not, actually, the keeper of all the dead), strike a bargain with the character's patron deity (if any) or somehow sift through the souls of the Ungodly (which are probably all lumped together because, you know, they rejected the gods*). Any of those could have a cost for the deity in question. There are literally too many possibilities to list or even think of.
This isn't hard. You're automatically interpreting that "you must have a divine patron" is somehow the god going, "You know what? I hate all y'all." which, you know, is really not a well-thought-out argument, because, in the end, it's extremely one-sided in its interpretation.
Could that be the case? Sure. It could be. That would be a valid choice too. And you'd have every right to dislike the decision, in which case I'd recommend noting your discomfort (and the reasons for said discomfort), maybe give a few alternate suggestions, and move on, rather than utilizing accusatory language ascribing motives to the GM that they may not have (i.e. "giving the middle finger to..." etc.), as the latter is rude and very likely to have your point dismissed out of hand.
Is it necessarily? No. And if it's not the case, than your entire argument hinges on something that is, factually, incorrect.
That's why I'm arguing: see how something can work before knocking it. If you can't find a way, suggest how you see it (but note that it's how it appears to you, instead of saying, "This is what you're doing! Jerk!" which is how many of the posts here come off, intentionally or not**), and either way attempt to critique it as well as you can.
In this specific case, how it appears to most people is that the gods in question are some sort of weird miserly skinflint selfish gods.
I don't know why it appears that way, but, you know, it does***.
Thus, that opinion and argumentation is noted by the people who have noted it.
I suggest that it be dropped. Unless a new point is brought up, considering the OP has noted that he likes the 13th Age idea, I will probably drop the conversation in this thread - it's unlikely to change anyone's mind, and it's unlikely to be productive; much more likely to end in hurt feelings, it seems.
Thanks for the reasoned responses, though, even if I disagree! :D
* "WHAT?!?! If that god was any sort of good, they'd let good people in!" is actually a really silly argument, by the way. If the person in question has noted their resistance to being with the god in question, why would the god place the person where said person would be miserable anyway: i.e. into the god's eternal embrace. In this manner, the character's choice is actually more respected than bumping them up to that god's heaven... which, depending on your view/interpretation/world/etc, may, in fact, be an actual extension of the god themselves. Afterlife conversion may be possible or, based on the existential rules - which may or may not be crafted by any one of the gods in question (it's possible they simply inherited them from the precursors of the gods, or a non-good god created them, or they were drafted through multiple gods, both good and not, or something else altogether) - it may not be. Miserable afterlife or miserable afterlife surely sucks, but one of them respects the person's decision (whether or not that was a good decision), and the other one, as MrSin put it, treats them as if they were slaves to a slave god, regardless of their will.
** To be clear, I'm not saying that I'm better than anyone here. I know I'm not. Simply check my posting history - I've done the same thing myself on more than one occasion. Point in fact, I'm extremely biased in a great many areas. It comes with the territory of being me. But I - and we all - need to be able to set that aside as much as we can, try to see through a different perspective, and come away with an understanding (if not agreement) with that different perspective.
*** Real Life Example: if I give money to someone, I expect to be certain that it's utilized for purposes that I approve of. I'm not going to give cash away to someone who's consistently proven themselves incapable of spending it on good things.
"How many spare characters do you have?"
"50"
Shout out to anyone who gets the reference
Oh, and, of course, Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising.
EDIT: You may enjoy this thread. :)
The problem here is that whereas you continually look for ways to justify why someone MIGHT possibly do a thing, I'm working with the information I've been given. Which is that there are no other changes to the world besides this one.
So while a god MIGHT, in some alternate world, have to wheedle and connive to raise the dead, that is not the case in the world provided.
In fact, the god itself has no direct stake in the Raising at all in the world we're discussing. The god provides power, as a conduit. The Cleric (or whatever) utilizes said power. The god is not involved in any step of this process.
Now, if what he had said was "Clerics will generally not CHOOSE to raise people who aren't of their faith", we could have more of a discussion on it, and how to make that work, whether it's justified, etc.
As-is, what he has said is "My houserule is that Clerics are now INCAPABLE of raising people not of their own faith", with no reason given, followed by a discussion prompt of "What do you think of this houserule?"
And my answer was "I do not like it." and I gave reasons.
It is not my job when stating my opinion to provide possible justifications for the other person when none are given or asked for. I was asked for my opinion on the rule as it stands, not "How would you make this work" but "Does this work?"
|
Also I'm no putting the Elf limitation on raise dead like in 1st ed. Elves could not be raised they had to be resurrected.
I'm pretty sure that the bolded word is not meant to be 'no'.
I think it must be either 'not', or 'now'.
Trouble is, each makes the sentence mean the opposite of the other.
Are you going to bring back the rule which denies raise dead to elves?
As for the other thing, in stories people fulfil (or thwart) the best laid plans of gods with no idea that they are working for (or against) the interests of a particular god. So there is no absolute relationship between which god a person worships and how useful that god thinks that person is. The idea to reserve this magic to a god's own worshippers restricts the god's own choices, and it also takes away tools for the DM (who can still not allow a cleric from using it, on the god's and DM's whim).
There is also the fact of pantheism in Golarion, and almost all of our game worlds. People are expected to pay fealty to different gods at different times for different things, even if they have one god who they like the best.
Aphrodite is my personal favourite, but if I was to go on a sea voyage then I'd say a prayer to Poseidon. And if I needed raising Poseidon wouldn't hold it against me that I like Aphrodite more; he'd make his decision based on factors that are more important to him than my personal taste in gods.
I will not respond to the rest - I have said what I will, and I strongly disagree with your conclusions, but that is as it will be. As noted.
I do say that I find your particular intuition of metaphysics and power granted, and the effects therein to be... different from my own.
But I will respond to this! Mostly because I am, apparently, incapable of leaving a thread alone once I've touched it. WWWwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...
(Stupid addictive behaviors.)
It is not my job when stating my opinion to provide possible justifications for the other person when none are given or asked for. I was asked for my opinion on the rule as it stands, not "How would you make this work" but "Does this work?"
I never said it was your job.
Other things that are not your job:
1) being nice
2) saying hello
3) not punching people in the face (though this one might carry other legal limitations, naturally)
4) chatting about things on the internet
5) agreeing with me (or anyone)
6) disagreeing with me (or anyone)
7) too many to name
In other words, you (and I and anyone here) are not required to do anything of the sort.
It is, however, important for us all to gain the skill to do exactly these things I've listed (and the thing you've noted as "not your job"), whether or not it is any of our "job" because that makes society nice and pleasant and generally profitable. Thus my exhortations above.
A person's job(s) - that which is required of a person - is exclusively what is are. Anything else just makes them more pleasant to be around.
In this thread, however, many of the initial reactions in this thread do not generally come off as "I don't like it, and here's why" so much as "you're terrible and should feel bad for being terrible" which, I'm sure most would agree, is a pretty extreme reaction, and most likely to get anything you say ignored in short order.
Malachai's post is a bit better, above, in that it explains his personal problems (even if I don't agree with it for all paradigms). You, specifically, have been better subsequently, compared to the broad initial reactions in the thread for similar reasons.
My point has always been, "This is not ideal for all games, however, it can work, here are a few ways it can work, and if you use these, here are a couple of issues you might want to work out."
To further clarify, I like the idea for world-building, but probably not Golarion (and understandable presumed default), especially as-published. There are games that I would not want to apply this to. There are other games that I would.
As always, to each their own, but I request that we approach those things with better than (what even unintentionally comes off as), "you are t3h badnezz" which, I have to admit, I do succumb to on occasion myself - and probably come off as in this thread, to my own chagrin.
()
(())
While I can see your point, these aren't comparable. In his case, he's merely adding requirements, not changing a suite of rules (or claiming non-sense). It's the difference of comparing adding in a new, minor sub-mechanic (his suggestion) to dropping a core mechanic for another non-compatible core mechanic (your two examples). Please don't conflate poor comparisons.
No offense (really, your response is pretty well-reasoned), but I don't think you could see my point. :P
My point was that he's adding restrictions that don't solve the issue. He's conflating causation with correlation, or however it goes, by associating anything from 1E with a single trait from 1E, its low resurrection rate. Obscure limitations don't make resurrection rarer, they just make it harder to play a small subset of characters.
EDIT: I don't actually know if the atheism thing is from 1E (I don't think so), but you get my point, I think. These are not solutions, they're complications. Why not require the extra gold/quest of all characters? Why single out these small minorities?
It's like saying, "I'm gonna stop climate change in the US!" and just telling latinos they can't drive gas-powered cars anymore. Boom. A tiny subset is now annoyed with you, and nothing else has changed.
Fair enough. :)
EDIT: to be clear, you kind of glossed over my full response, but... it's not really worth going into. It's a non-communication based off of pre-ordained responses, and, you know, I'll just agree to disagree. I did see your point, I just don't think it's as directly compatible as you noted. But then again, you probably do, which, in the end, is fine.
Personally, if I wanted to limit resurrection, I'd just say each attempt requires a dangerous quest. During the quest, the spirit of the deceased PC might be able to help out, or the player could just play someone else (like the cleric who's been hired to raise him, perhaps).
Any long-term penalties or arbitrary bannings just turn into chores and/or annoyances. "Oh, I'm dead again, time for the Constitution tax. *sigh*"
|
|
Hows this.....
Raise Dead
Dead person worships same deity as cleric casting raise spell. Normal fee can be reduce by as much as 100% depending.
Dead person doesn't worship same deity but of same alignment. Normal fee, but can be reduced by up to 80% depending.
Dead person not of same alignment. Normal fee with possible reductions depending.
Dead person not of opposing alignment. Normal fee.
Dead person of opposing alignment. Increased fee up to as much as 100% increase depending.
Dead person worships opposing deity. Not going to happen, unless a REALLY good reason can be argued. X5 fee if done.
All fees can be negotiated on what form said fees will be paid. If missions are undertaken, Dead person can be raised before or after depending.
At character creation characters con ability score will be the number of times said character can be brought back to life. Inherent bonuses to con ability will increase raise number.
True Resurrection always works.
Instead of worships the same god, how about the resurrected character may not deviate from the alignment of the resurrecting character's deity by more than one or two steps?
|
|
Instead of worships the same god, how about the resurrected character may not deviate from the alignment of the resurrecting character's deity by more than one or two steps?
That would fall under this one I believe....
'Dead person not of same alignment. Normal fee with possible reductions depending.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That works a lot better than just a flat "Nope" IMO and could more easily be fluffed as general policy of the church in question rather than the gods' involvement.
Hows this.....
Raise Dead
Dead person worships same deity as cleric casting raise spell. Normal fee can be reduce by as much as 100% depending.
Dead person doesn't worship same deity but of same alignment. Normal fee, but can be reduced by up to 80% depending.
Dead person not of same alignment. Normal fee with possible reductions depending.
Dead person not of opposing alignment. Normal fee.
Dead person of opposing alignment. Increased fee up to as much as 100% increase depending.
Dead person worships opposing deity. Not going to happen, unless a REALLY good reason can be argued. X5 fee if done.All fees can be negotiated on what form said fees will be paid. If missions are undertaken, Dead person can be raised before or after depending.
At character creation characters con ability score will be the number of times said character can be brought back to life. Inherent bonuses to con ability will increase raise number.
True Resurrection always works.
Still a problem in search of a problem.
