|
I really think we need to abandon the concept of Alignment for Immortals. They need to be all about their Domains.
Bob the Almighty: Domains (War, Good) - basically he is devoted to The good aspects of War (Probably battlefield Medicine). His Clerics should be devoted to Batttlefield Medicine despite the fact that they get around like Warhammer 40,000 Blood Adeptus Weirdos in Plate Armour and Chainswords...
I really think we need to abandon the concept of Alignment for Immortals. They need to be all about their Domains.
Bob the Almighty: Domains (War, Good) - basically he is devoted to The good aspects of War (Probably battlefield Medicine). His Clerics should be devoted to Batttlefield Medicine despite the fact that they get around like Warhammer 40,000 Blood Adeptus Weirdos in Plate Armour and Chainswords...
Any further reasoning for this? What are the pros and cons?
How will clerics determine if they channel positive or negative energy (or will it always be their choice)?
Would you still restrict cleric alignments? (Could an evil cleric be a Priest of Bob, even though he has a Good domain?)
Can you please provide an example without an aligned domain?
I think it's sometimes hard to assign an alignment to a god, but it also provides some useful traits as well:
- Helps figure out how a god may or may not punish those who have failed the god's purposes--will the fallen individual be sent to trial, burnt on the spot, etc. Alignment is first and foremost a roleplaying tool, and that can extend to be a tool to help a GM roleplay the gods.
- Alignment helps you figure out what planes your god's demiplane might be attached to
- Related, helps you figure out what kind of Outsiders your god might send to help/clerics might summon (it's an odd god that might equally send a marilith as they would a solar -- although even then, that's arguably just a neutral god sending the right tool for the job)
I like more flawed type deities so I just add an uncertainty factor. The stated alignment is just the facet of the deity that is most dominant.
Example:
Deity X is LG.
This means most of the time Deity X acts in a LG manner but emotions and weaknesses can cause Deity X to act in more varied ways (LN or NG). Sometimes extreme things might happen and Deity X acts in unusual ways (CG, N, LE).
Rarely Deity X completely loses it and acts entirely out of character (NE, CE and CN).
Eventually Deity X would always drift back to it's 'anchor' alignment (LG).
I don't really like the idea of relegating alignment to a god's domains.
Some good gods can be worshipped by evil characters because the evil character wants in on the domain and the deity isn't concerned in alignment issues enough to say no to delicious god elevating worship.
If a god named Varisha controlled the domains of Death, Chutney and Good - and BTW, death chutney is really good - well now it seems to me that evil characters would be excluded from jumping aboard the Varisha express. I'm thinking that just because a god is good doesn't mean they're going on and on about the virtuous splendor and meaningfulness of goodness enough to commit a precious domain slot to the Good domain. If Good is one of the domains... that sucker is high on goodness. I doubt you could meet the god without a lecture on good manners or a simply divine foot massage,
"How's that feel? Is this weird for you?"
I like keeping alignment's relevance loose and moldable to each god's druthers.
|
On topic; the main problem I've had with specific alignment listings for immortals, is due to the way the old Great Wheel cosmology split them up.
All the LG gods live here, all the LN gods live here, these planes in between are where LG(with N tendencies) can go hang with those of LN(with G tendencies), ...etc.
I want my gods separated by pantheon, not alignment.
Good riddance to the Great Wheel, I say. Or at least, good riddance to the Great Wheel forcing the living arrangements of the deities.
The trouble with this arrangement, is that it limits the interaction between legendary pantheonic playmates, and is subject to the whim of a game designer, who allocates the alignments to the gods, in-game.
A god like Zeus, is a hard one to pin down. He's very much a 'do as I say, not as I do', heavy-handed, interfering dictator. Is he Lawful, because of his diktats, or Chaotic, because of his actions? Good? Evil?
Like Batman, different tales can be quoted, to spread him all over the alignment graph, when really, he's above such human concerns.
While internet fanboys can argue back and forth what AL Zeus should be, whatever they eventually decide upon, one thing should not change: he should always be top of the heap on Mount Olympus.
Mount Olympus, Gladsheim, etc should all be separate demiplanes, leading into the aligned planes most favoured by the pantheon.
You know, if anything, I'd almost say that Immortals would be more likely to have an alignment than mortals. I'm not saying I'd make the change, but here's how this thought process goes:
Mortals live relatively short lives, they have biologically influenced emotions, and aren't prone to seeing the "big picture." Any given mortal isn't automatically even going to see if this action or that will have a profound effect on Order (in the cosmic sense) or Evil (in the cosmic sense), they can just guess at the way things might affect the big picture.
Immortals are more likely to see that if X dies, it will be for the greater good of the universe, no matter how sad, for example. They understand that if Artifact X is unearthed, it can be used to fight a great manifestation of Chaos, even though the mortals that have found it think that it should remained hidden to maintain the status quo.
Again, I'm not saying I'd fully implement in my game, just saying that I'd lean towards this interpretation more than saying that immortals don't align morally or ethically.
To go along with this, I'd probably rule that only Outsiders and Undead (and maybe things with the extraplanar subtype) are "aligned," and for this kind of set up, I wouldn't even bother giving anything an alignment, just giving them an alignment subtype. A demon would have the Chaos and Evil subtypes, while Protean would have the Chaos subtype.
Beings that get divine power (and under the current rules have an aura) would have the subtype of the source of their power (so an evil priest would have the Evil subtype). That means that for smiting, spells, etc, an cleric of Asmodeus or Rovagug would "count," but not a particularly nasty cleric of Gorum, for example.
In this example, alignments exist in the universe, and they do drive the big picture, but its really, really hard for anything that can't take the long view or is intrinsically connected to the big picture by virtue of their patron or their overarching source of power.
Also, this allows for Zeus or Odin to do some things that seem questionable, because they either know those acts won't affect the Big Picture of the universe, or because it does affect the big picture in a way that mortal perspective can't quite figure out.
Not to rip on 4E, but one of the first things I found "wrong" with the game was when I was writing up a homebrewed pantheon for a proposed 4E campaign and found that I did not have the alignment language to describe the deity. I just point this out as an example of actual experience of going without the "nine box" alignment system.
If I say that a deity is "Lawful Good", right there with just two words, I have communicated a lot of information about the deity that players need to know to understand where the deity fits in this world, and whether or not this deity would be a fitting patron for their character, and what is expected if a player plays a cleric of this deity. I can then elaborate on this as desired.
Now as for the criticisms brought up in the original post.
1) In 1st Edition, the write-up for a deity included a field "Worshipper's Alignment", which indicated the alignment of the deity's worshippers. So a Lawful Good deity might only accept lawful good worshippers and clerics. another Lawful Good deity might accept any alignment, but only dwarves. Another LG deity might accept anybody who was not chaotic evil.
Third Edition simplified this to a rule that clerics had to be no more than one step away from the deity's alignment. That simplifies things, but going back to the more detailed way would allow for lawful good clerics of a lawful evil deity of death.
You might want to have Worshipper's Alignment and Cleric's Alignment as separate fields, in that a deity might require closer adherence to doctrine for his clerics, while anybody could worship him. In my own homebrew, I take this model: a worshipper of a deity could be any alignment, although the clerics have to fall in line.
Another option might be to just allow a cleric to be any alignment, regardless of the alignment of her patron deity. This could cause issues if a lawful good cleric has a chaotic evil deity, but why not?
2) The Great Wheel: In 1st Edition, there were examples of deities living on planes where you would not expect them on the basis of alignment. I imagine that would be like an ultraliberal living in an extremely "red" state in the U.S., or an ultraconservative in an extremely "blue" state.
(Actually, you don't have to be "ultraliberal" or "ultraconservative". I've found that just being a regular "liberal" or "conservative" in an "ultraliberal" or "ultraconservative" area can be .... interesting.)
For example, Loki has two homes, one in Gladsheim and one in Hades, neither of which matches his chaotic evil alignment. (Although I always thought Loki got a bad rap, and would set his alignment at chaotic neutral. Oh well.) Heimdall and Tyr are Lawful Good, and yet they also reside in Chaotic Good Gladsheim.
I do remember the 2nd edition deities books for the Forgotten Realms, which were wonderful, and to tie in with the discussion here, they did have a separate line for worshipers alignments.
Corellon, in the Forgotten Realms, was listed as having lawful good clerics, for example, and the CN Tempus, god of war, had listed under his clerics "any alignment."
Not to mention that the NE Mask, god of thieves and intrigue had Neutral clerics serving him. In fact, even though he wasn't "legal" by 3.5 terms, I'm thinking one of those guys got pretty popular for a while . . .
Immortals not having alignment makes alignment overall a bit pointless, in many respects they are what makes the alignments what they are.
I kind of agree with the alignment subtypes mentioned by KnightErrant, I considered this as well, and thus largely eliminating alignment.
regarding the 4E alignments it is fairly easy to fit in alignments, there is 2 grades of good and 2 grades of evil and a neutral alignment.
Lawful acts tend towards good a bit and chaotic tends towards evil, which is really not that hard to translate from 3rd edition.
How often I haven't heard on this forum : "that is chaotic, not evil !"
this was in regard of disrespecting people and acts of desecration, though I would reply it is both. In 4E there is not that powerful of a distinction.
|
|
I really think we need to abandon the concept of Alignment for Immortals. They need to be all about their Domains.
Bob the Almighty: Domains (War, Good) - basically he is devoted to The good aspects of War (Probably battlefield Medicine). His Clerics should be devoted to Batttlefield Medicine despite the fact that they get around like Warhammer 40,000 Blood Adeptus Weirdos in Plate Armour and Chainswords...
Would you still restrict cleric alignments? (Could an evil cleric be a Priest of Bob, even though he has a Good domain?)
Sure, evil clerics could be followers of BOB. Here is BOB THE ALMIGHTY, God of Battlefield Medicine (War and Good). Certainly you would think such an Evil Cleric would be hard pressed at the disadvantage of picking up spells of the Good domain...but think about the idea that the Good Domain is meerly not in conflict with the Good Alignment. So a Lawful Good Cleric could Use Good Healing and not be in conflict with his God, Even a Lawful Evil Cleric Devoted to Battlefield Medicine may draw on the Good Domain - in that it is merely not in conflict with Good. While a Chaotic Evil Priest might be more along the lines of a Serial Killer and not the Sort to qualify - why would a god care about the affairs of Mortal Men unless his/her domains required it of them.
While Bob, God of Battlefield Medicine is tolerant of Clerics of pretty much any Alignment - Paladins of Sara, Goddess of Law and Justice (Law and Good) would be into exterminating or expelling undesirables. Even the majority of the Followers of Bob could be deemed a threat to the new Order.
Basically the Idea is to treat the God as a member of a Pantheon. No matter your alignment you would venrate all the Gods of your Pantheon, even though you may be focused as a Priest of Bob. The only reason you would consider a CE cleric as an outcast unaceptable to BOB, is if your Civilization is into expelling undesirables from your civilization. Then Good would have nothing to do with Evil, Lawful nothing to do with Chaotic. There would be alignment checks at the city gate and clerics policing the streets.
Most Civilizations are tolerant of a mix of clerical groups and their alignments.
I want my gods separated by pantheon, not alignment.
Good riddance to the Great Wheel, I say. Or at least, good riddance to the Great Wheel forcing the living arrangements of the deities.The trouble with this arrangement, is that it limits the interaction between legendary pantheonic playmates, and is subject to the whim of a game designer, who allocates the alignments to the gods, in-game.
Absolutely. Gods in a particular cultural pantheon disallowed the court intrigue that comes with proximity don't feel much like the mythology they were meant to represent.
Any, and all bad rap that Loki has is well deserved. He's the redheaded step child deity a reason, he's a douchebag!
Any, and all bad rap that Loki has is well deserved. He's the redheaded step child deity a reason, he's a douchebag!
Dude gave me fifty cents at a pay phone once when I ran out of change. His big strokes are definitely pretty foul though. Why I heard he created the town of Reno itself so people could shoot other people just to watch theme die.
|
May not be 'quite' on topic but here's a thought. KnightErrantJr might be able to remember this. After the 'Avatar Trilogy' for Forgotten Realms, the gods including the mortals who ascended during the Time of Troubles and it's aftermath (Mystra and Kelemvor in particular come to mind)seemed to have trouble seeing or considering events and other beings outside of how they related to their portfolios. It's like their divine responsibilities filtered how they perceived things and limited their thought processes.
I'm fairly certain that gods have alignments, just like mortals do, but just like mortals, some gods are not very "in" to their alignments. Fred the god of Fishing and Drinking may be Chaotic Good but that's because he's a nice guy who doesn't want to be restricted by anyone's rules and is happy to accept anyone's worship so long as they enjoy the same things he enjoys, Fishing and Drinking. Hell, he'll even accept teetotalers who fish and drunkards who don't like seafood so long as they don't get in the way or try to harsh anyone else's buzz. Contrawise, there's Pam, Goddess of the Knowledge of Good and Evil who quite reasonably has Good, Evil, and Knowledge in her portfolio, and while she accepts worshippers of any alignment, she demands that her clerics have actually done both good and evil deeds so they know what they're talking about and moreover that they max out at least one Knowledge skill aside from religion, and she's a hell of a lot more likely to listen to prayers from lay worshippers who fit these requirements as well. And depending on what week it is, Pam may be detecting as an Evil goddess, as a Good goddess, or as a Neutral one. This may even be predictable if she's a lunar goddess as well, and if its the dark of the moon, people know to lock up their pets because the worshippers of Pam will be sure to kick them as part of their ritual devotions. And there may even be some cosmology where Fred and Pam are dating, or husband and wife, or more likely have one of those "it's complicated" relationships.
|
|
I'm fairly certain that gods have alignments, just like mortals do, but just like mortals, some gods are not very "in" to their alignments. Fred the god of Fishing and Drinking may be Chaotic Good but that's because he's a nice guy who doesn't want to be restricted by anyone's rules and is happy to accept anyone's worship so long as they enjoy the same things he enjoys, Fishing and Drinking. Hell, he'll even accept teetotalers who fish and drunkards who don't like seafood so long as they don't get in the way or try to harsh anyone else's buzz. Contrawise, there's Pam, Goddess of the Knowledge of Good and Evil who quite reasonably has Good, Evil, and Knowledge in her portfolio, and while she accepts worshippers of any alignment, she demands that her clerics have actually done both good and evil deeds so they know what they're talking about and moreover that they max out at least one Knowledge skill aside from religion, and she's a hell of a lot more likely to listen to prayers from lay worshippers who fit these requirements as well. And depending on what week it is, Pam may be detecting as an Evil goddess, as a Good goddess, or as a Neutral one. This may even be predictable if she's a lunar goddess as well, and if its the dark of the moon, people know to lock up their pets because the worshippers of Pam will be sure to kick them as part of their ritual devotions. And there may even be some cosmology where Fred and Pam are dating, or husband and wife, or more likely have one of those "it's complicated" relationships.
Fred, God of Fishing and Drinking is going to be in a surly mood after Sara, Goddess of Law and Justice puts up a No Fishing or Drinking Sign.
Fred, God of Fishing and Drinking is going to be in a surly mood after Sara, Goddess of Law and Justice puts up a No Fishing or Drinking Sign.
That's why he's dating Pam, Goddess of the Moon, despite her being more than a little bipolar. Lot more fun than Sara the Killjoy.