Actually Owly he got punished because he was told to do something different than hit it (which was what he was told to do before) what he had been told to do was (i believe no bible handy) to speak to it. He thought that would never work so he hit it.
His doubt was what got him punished.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't listen to the naysayers, Nearyn. I seem to recall that something exactly like this happened to Moses in the desert. He struck a stone with his staff, and water poured forth so the Israelites could drink. Because HE took credit for it, God punished him.
You have precedent.
It is of course a different God entirely, if not the complete total opposite, the GM's interpretation is valid though I think as a GM you should pick your battles, this is entirely too minor, divine intervention should not become common place.
Don't listen to the naysayers, Nearyn. I seem to recall that something exactly like this happened to Moses in the desert. He struck a stone with his staff, and water poured forth so the Israelites could drink. Because HE took credit for it, God punished him.
You have precedent.
That was completely different. At no point did the inquisitor claim HE would be the one doing anything. He clearly say that Asmodeus will be the one granting him the power to turn invisible.
Also, the real life religions are a soup of contradictions and have completely different priorities, personalities and M.O. depending on the writer, and the time in his life. God has been vengeful, merciful, downright spiteful, a trickster, buddying it up with Satan with friendly wagers and then turning 180.
Just like as Muhammad went from gentle, open-minded and peace-loving in his life, to brutal, close-minded and power-hungry, so did his messages from Allah.
None of the Golarion gods, except Nethys, are anywhere near as bi-polar as the real world ones.
Inquisitor of a Lawful Evil god acting...well, lawful and a bit full of himself and he gets nailed for it? Sounds like a bad GM call to me.
Inquisitor of a Lawful Evil god acting...well, lawful and a bit full of himself and he gets nailed for it? Sounds like a bad GM call to me.
However evil or lawful the god may be does not give them right to lord over their deity. The alignment of the god might have very little to do with it, a priest that thinks he can command his god is most likely not in the god's good graces for long.
No heed to the real religion warning?
Well, this going to end badly.
I am done with that single comment. I have neither the intention nor the time to spend arguing the matter beyond presenting the comparison in empirical evidence (PFwiki entries vs the various RL holy texts).
The only remaining argument would be that while fantasy faiths are often BASED on real world faiths, they do not translate, as the fantasy faiths have tangible evidence of their unquestionable existence, while real world religions are bound to faith alone. So the basis for comparison is close to nonexistent.
Inquisitor of a Lawful Evil god acting...well, lawful and a bit full of himself and he gets nailed for it? Sounds like a bad GM call to me.However evil or lawful the god may be does not give them right to lord over their deity. The alignment of the god might have very little to do with it, a priest that thinks he can command his god is most likely not in the god's good graces for long.
I don't think that was the case. I am assuming the inquisitor was assuming his deity would look out for him, not become his pet deity.
Things like this do make the oracle look like a better class though. :)
Inquisitor of a Lawful Evil god acting...well, lawful and a bit full of himself and he gets nailed for it? Sounds like a bad GM call to me.However evil or lawful the god may be does not give them right to lord over their deity. The alignment of the god might have very little to do with it, a priest that thinks he can command his god is most likely not in the god's good graces for long.I don't think that was the case. I am assuming the inquisitor was assuming his deity would look out for him, not become his pet deity.
Things like this do make the oracle look like a better class though. :)
I agree, but that was the issue for the GM I assume though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is just the type of reason why I dislike the GM fiat strip powers issue some classes have. Divine casters, paladins, and witches can all lose pretty much all their powers that matter at the GMs whim. Some GMs show restraint and only inflict these powers when the player is being creatively stupid (like attacking with their spellbook as improvised weapon, sacrificing people despite being cleric of god of love and sunshine, making their familiar make touch attacks, ect). When it branches out into low level subjective/minor issues...
Having the power to strip a character of his powers is a one of those "with great power, great responsibility" things. Its also been so overdone its pretty much "bad GM" territory to make it a plot point rather than an in game warning for bad RP that is fixable. In this case it wasn't even a plot point, and the RP was actually appropriate for the god in question.
This is coming from a "forever GM" kinda guy who rarely plays but runs games week after week for 5 years straight. I've had to rehabilitate players into being able to safely play divine characters because of other bad GMs. Nobody likes playing crappy fighters without feats, or rogues without class abilities/sneak attack (clerics and rogues have same progression, 3/4 BAB), or wizards without spells. Its honestly the same thing as character death for many people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alrighty then, that was alot of non-answers. A big thank you to Cranewings, Joegoat, Owly, and Remco Sommeling, for their suggestions.
The rest of you, thanks for at least posting.
I'll try my question again, worded differently, then I'll take time to present my personal view of the situation and my reasoning for my decisionmaking.
First the question:
I want the inquisitor to come up with a way to appease his diety himself. In case he does not, I have decided to poke him a bit, offering him ways to do it.
----------------------------------------------------------
WHAT do you guys and girls think could be a flavourful, entertaining way the inquisitor could regain his god's favour? I do not require him to perform great acts of faith, to make up for a minor slight. Rather I would love for you to suggest me... in lack of better words, a more 'casual' (MORE casual, not A casual) way you could see this done.
----------------------------------------------------------
Now then, reasoning time.
The reason for why I decided to EXTEND the CAST TIME on (not REVOKE) his divine spells, is as follows:
I percieve divine magic as prayer. You live a lifestyle devoted to a specific diety, you pray in the mornings, you adhere to the dogma, and if the god in question is pleased, it may decide to listen to your prayers. I dislike the trend I see from some DM's, where divine magic is treated as arcane magic without spellfailure. These powers do not belong to the caster, they are not a mark of his personal power or experience with weaving the aethyr. What they are, is a mark of how devoted he has been to his diety, and how pleased the diety in question is with him.
I do not percieve divine magic as something simple, where you call a hotline at 3 in the morning and order your spells for the day. Your ability to call down a flamestrike is not the result of some devil in a suit, 3 rungs up the ladder, who decided on a whim to stamp your permission-slip. Your ability to call down that flamestrike is as a result of your praying, and that prayer is heard, considered and answered by the big man, himself. That is why you pray in the morning! that is why your character is on his knees, kissing his holy symbol going:
"Oh great lord of darkness! King of hell and master of souls! Enslaver of fools and ruler of fire! I beseech thee great Asmodeus, of great and terrible power! I beseech thee! Give unto me the abilty to smite the heathen, in your name! Give unto me wisdom, that I shall find my way, in absence of trail or stars! Give unto me your holy flame, that I can scour the land in your glory! Give unto me the tongue of the serpent, that I may beguile the fools, who shy from your glory! I beg of thee, great and powerful master: Hear the prayer of your faithful servant, and give me the privilege and honour, to carry thy torch to those who would deny your splendor!" and so on and so forth.
You do this, so that when those 3 ignorant goons step out of the woodwork, demanding your money, you can act with the fury of the hells, and show them their folly, for daring to cross the path of one who walks with Asmodeus.
Now if your diety is displeased with you, for whatever reason, it can decide not to answer your prayer. If sufficiently ticked off, it may even punish you for daring to call upon it, until you've made ammends. It may not even TELL you, that you've offended it, but simply cut you off, and throw you away. The story of a certain cleric of Sune Firehair, who had his face cut, comes to mind.
THIS is divine magic. Or to put it more diplomatically. THIS is divine magic in MY games.
So when someone says divine intervention should be rare in a game with a divine caster, I reject that position. I reject it vehemently. There is already divine intervention going on every time the divine caster opens his mouth and brandishes his holy symbol! What the gods can give, they can take away and I feel it is a poor DM, who does not impress upon his players, the magnitude, the scope, of the power of the gods.
I have not and will not ever, let my players cast a raise dead spell and say "Okay Mary, your character is back from the dead, adventure on!" HELL NO! I will demand some serious roleplay from not just the cleric, but every member of the party. I will have them make all the preparations, buy the materials, form a chanting circle on a sunday, and then have the cleric player roleplay the scene. I'll have the player's concience transported before his god and have him beg and growel, because what he is asking, is for that god to personally breathe life back into the body of someone who is already dead. To bestow life on a mortal. The gods are very much a part of any game in which one of my players play a divine caster, because it adds to the world. Because of this however, the onus is on me to provide some dimension and personality to these gods. To make them appear as they have been written, and this will, of course, be very much an interpretative matter.
So then why does Asmodeus feel slighted? Well first off, let us establish that Asmodeus has not turned his back on the character, alright? To those of you making strawman arguments, please stop, you're making yourself look bad.
The reason the Inquisitor got a slap with the reverence-stick, was not because he was being tactical, nor because he wanted to be a team-player. I applaud the party's decision to improve their teamwork and I'm sure I'll have plenty of chance to reward them if they start working in a well-coordinated fashion.
The reason was, exactly as cranewing described, that the Inquisitor assumed he would rise in power. There is nothing wrong with ambition, or pride, especially not in Asmodeus eyes, but it is NOT as simple as the god applauding prideful behavior. Asmodeus portfolio is pride, it seems quite feasible that he, himself, is an extremely, incomprehensibly prideful being. Now when some Inquisitor believes he will gain favour with his god, SUPER! When said inquisitor voices this belief, in the face of non-believers, and casually remarks that he'll be able to turn invisbile in no time, not only does he diminish the majesty of Asmodeus, but he neglected to add the fact that this was even BECAUSE of Asmodeus. Asmodeus was not given ANY credit.
Now I know, as does Asmodeus, that this was not INTENDED to be a slight, but he is being punished for it anyway, because he voiced his opinion that, soon he'd be able to become invisible. Not that soon mighty Asmodeus would see his devotion and in turn, reward him powers beyond the scope of any potion. If you assume for a moment, the most prideful being you could POSSIBLY imagine, and then realize that Asmodeus is infinitely more prideful than that, I think you yourself would agree that being taken for granted, openly so, in the face on non-believers, could possibly slight the God of hell.
And in this case, Asmodeus has decided that since the Inquisitor made it SOUND like the miracles of Asmodeus was being taken for granted, the Inquisitor should pray harder, implore Asmodeus even more (extended casting time) before any prayers would be answered. Until such a time that he can make amends, which brings us back to the question up top.
This got long-winded but I hold out hope that this will clear up my position a bit and that we could... you know... get focus back to the question. Because I do so love the creativity of some of you guys, which is why I posted in the Advice board.
Thanks in advance.
-Nearyn
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should always state any house rules or "out of the norm" play tendenices up front. Other than that we will assume the norm and react accordingly.
With that said I can't conceive of the concept of having to watch everything I to that extent as a character. The player can not read the GM's mind. If I the player say something that will get me in trouble, and there is no black and white rule for it, then the GM should correct me.
Relevant to the question-->I guess I would pray to Asmodeus for forgiveness and ask him what I must to do regain my powers so that I might better serve him. Of course Asmodeus might know I care more about getting my power back than serving him the but the flattery will be appreciated, hopefully. It would also serve to give me something that I know will work instead of jumping through hoops. As for what you should require the player to do, I don't know. I would not have used the word "miracle" in the context of daily spells.
I guess proving my worth by surviving without the spells might work.
PS:I guess if your players are used to being in your games they might have known they were about to get themselves in trouble. In that case allowing the character to lose his temper was good RP.
edit:changed "my" to "by"
@Wraithstrike
Thanks for the suggestions! I was thinking that flattery would be a viable option too.
I have stated to my players from the get go, that in terms of mechanics I play by the book, but that I feel free to add any element for flavour reasons. If they get too confused they may ask and I shall explain what I can (since some of it may be plot relevant).
My players know I try to keep the game alive and flowing. I am the kind of GM who tries to say everything I can in-character as long it doesn't take up too much time. I narrate the combat and describe the spells.
I hope this relieves your valid concern :)
-Nearyn
@ 8 red wizards
You are certainly unpleasant.
I can tell the two of us are not gonna be friends, if this is your usual self^^
1:I got a page full of non-answers, since I was not asking for people's opinion on what I did, but what they thought would be a nice way to appease Asmodeus.
2:I am so sorry my interpretation of a god, as a being whose power and motivations are well beyond the scope of any mortal to fully comprehend, doesn't fit with yours. /Thickestpossiblelayersofsarcasm
3: I like how you're generalising ALL evil characters, flatly stating their motivations and how they percieve their dieties. What an absolutely darling way to completely and utterly destroy the most interesting characters in fantasy. Good job. Though I hope you don't mind if I completely disregard your opinion.
You jumped on these boards to say look what I did to my player guys, because you thought you were gonna get a pat on the back and a victory lap. Once again I say this you need to apologize to your player and reward him for your mistake.
Wow.... just wow. Arrogant doesn't even begin to describe this statement. Assuming on my motivations and telling me what I NEED to do?! I find you quite insufferable, do you know that?
Please refrain from posting that kind of opinionated, intentionally hurtful drivel in my threads from now on. That would be very appreciated.
I don't think I'll be using your suggestions, but I thank you for posting them anyway, despite what I had to read through to get to them.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greetings to all on this board :D
Hi there.
I would like to introduce myself to you guys befor I start writing a whole lot, but I am the person who is playing Lorastine (the Rogue) on Nearyn's team and as you can read from what he wrote I was an active part of the session last time.
I would just like to say that no Nearyn didn't at all get upset with the Inquisitor's choise of word or how he acted the whole sequence out infront of him, as a GM.
Now Nearyn is an all honesty a really fair GM. If he thinks we are about to do something horribly wrong he often looks at us very sayingly and asks us if we REALLY do want to undfold our actions.
Not only that, he is also a person who loves to get the input from others on how he ran his session each time, and that is why he turn to you amazing guys here on the Paizo froum, to gaine knowledge and to become a better GM, by asking for your guys input and comments :)
@8 red wizards
as a player at nearyn's table I had to make an account if only to respond to this.
I would go ahead and say you clearly don't know Nearyn and that you are making unfair assumptions.
He didn't get the least bit upset with the Inquisitor during the session, I should know I was playing the rogue.
And to say that he is only posting here to get a pat on the shoulder is just stupid.
As said before he more than often post in here because he knows that alot of the people in here can actually come with creative suggestions and he really appreciate it because it helps him to become a better GM and to make the stories much more vivid, colcorful, dynamic and alive.
I am saddened by your behavior.
And I am stading up for him since I find himto be a great GM (and player) who has a huge interest in his players, the world we play in and to make sure we get the best experiense trough the story. we've been RPG buddies for almost 10 years now and even after 10 years you learn something new every day :)
(sorry if I've made some horrible miss-spellings and so)
Perhaps this will help.
Thanks alot, but I have already read and reread both that and the chapter of the campaignsetting that discusses Asmodeus. Still, the gesture is very much appreciated :)
Thank you
-Nearyn
I'm not seeing anything for asmodeus to object to either. Giving your minion...party members the proper tools they need to do their jobs keeps you alive.
Oh ffs......
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ....
-READ- THE POSTS -BEFORE- YOU POST.
I have NOT stripped anyone of their powers, so please for the love of all that is good and decent, can we stop it again with the Strawman arguments?!
THANK YOU!
Now I have just now (in no small part due to bad research of mine) learned that there is a difference between how Inquisitors and Clerics cast. Since these two types of characters interact differently with the same diety, I am willing to accept that it is likely that my call was not entirely fair. I had had Asmodeus react as I believe he would have reacted to a cleric.
Agree or disagree all you want, but that is not why I made this thread.
So if anyone is still interested in posting ideas, go right ahead, I would love the input.
-Nearyn
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I simply do not see how Asmodeus would 'punish' his worshipper, especially Reduce the power of a Worshipper.
The OP is running a 'different' Asmodeus than Ive ran or seen ran, and its HIS world, so therefore he can make changes/alterations to things as he see's fit to suit his needs.
The OP is running a 'different' Asmodeus than Ive ran or seen ran, and its HIS world, so therefore he can make changes/alterations to things as he see's fit to suit his needs.
THANK. YOU! :)
@ blackbloodtroll
Actually I had no idea I was running him 'differently', as I have never seen Asmodeus or his followers played in any game at all. I mere read all I could about him and ran him as I thought he should be. As an immensely prideful god of all devils.
I wish I had known that my interpretation differed, then, as you said, I could have avoided alot of the unnecessary posting.
Your apology is totally accepted, but I don't think you have any reason to apologize. Nevertheless the gesture is what matters. Thank you.
Also I love the idea :)
Well case in point if you come onto a company's messageboard and mention A Cleric set in that companys campaign setting is praying to/worshipping a god from said setting most people are going to assume it is the setting specific version.
Could you rephrase that?
|
Yeah really not seeing why asmodeus would be punishing this follower.
To clarify this point the reason I dont think it makes any sense (even with regards to being an alterd version of Asmodieus) Is that you mention the guy is chelexian a nation whose slogan is (Quoted I believe from the Cheliax book) Hell serves Cheliax so if this guy is being punished for taking Asmodius for granted why hasent this country been punished as well?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Burn a pentagram into the door of an opposing god's cleric? Help a lawful evil government official in his next power play? Trick a good official into doing something tyrannical? Help a cleric of Asmodeus bring a devil into the world by subsidizing the price of the planar ally spell, then help said devil attain a position of power in the mortal realm?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I think it should be pretty clear by now that the argument against his interpretation of Asmodeus is pretty moot by now (looking at you, 8 red wizards). Nearyn's Golarion is not your Golarion, which is not my Golarion, which is not even the devs' Golarion. To argue any differently is to defeat the purpose of... well, Golarion.
|
|
Your Asmodeus is different.
It is cool, don't worry about it.
Other posters are working off a different version of Asmodeus than you.
That is the source of all your unwanted posts.
It is hard to make suggestions for proper worship of a version of a god we are all not familiar with.
Maybe you should explain your version to get more helpful advice in this matter.
@8 red wizards
as a player at nearyn's table I had to make an account if only to respond to this.
I would go ahead and say you clearly don't know Nearyn and that you are making unfair assumptions.
He didn't get the least bit upset with the Inquisitor during the session, I should know I was playing the rogue.
And to say that he is only posting here to get a pat on the shoulder is just stupid.
As said before he more than often post in here because he knows that alot of the people in here can actually come with creative suggestions and he really appreciate it because it helps him to become a better GM and to make the stories much more vivid, colcorful, dynamic and alive.
I am saddened by your behavior.
And I am stading up for him since I find himto be a great GM (and player) who has a huge interest in his players, the world we play in and to make sure we get the best experiense trough the story. we've been RPG buddies for almost 10 years now and even after 10 years you learn something new every day :)(sorry if I've made some horrible miss-spellings and so)
There is no good creative suggestion when the DM screws the player on a Whim, and saying that inquisitor was to prideful so I should strip his powers is what a bad DM does.
If a lawful good paladin said "MY GOD WILL GIVE ME THE POWER TO SMITE YOU!!!" would you strip his powers for boasting about his god giving him smite evil to smite an evil guy. Essentially that is the exact samething the Paladin is boasting about a power that his god either will give him or has giving him. It was a bad call and while I understand the DM is your friend which is how it should be. Your DM was very wrong in this case, and shows his inexperience.
Also if you could actually get the Inquisitor player to post on these boards saying he totally agrees with his DM's call to strip his powers for saying a quick line of pride in what his DM will give him eventually. Pride being his Deity portfolio. Than I would drop my jaw in shock...
I'm not agreeing not disagreeing with what he did to the Inquisitor, that's not at ALL what my post was about.
It was about you treating Nearyn like an utter idiot and downing him alot and instead of just downing him you should instead give him a break and keep it all clean :)Nearyn is just trying to get alot of you to re-read the post so you might get a better understand of what he did, instead of just going with the first assumption of him being a bad GM on account of ONE mistake he may or may NOT have commited, just saying :)
I know that alot of his posts can make one go TL;DR (I've playes board MMO's with him so I should know, haha)
But I think alot of what people read get's lost in translation due to his posts being a wall of text for the most part.
Hell I've even miss-read some of his posts as well at times, but I i rea-read them again I often see what he actually ment.
I Don't know if you will take my words it, or just go with your own thoughts about Nearyn, but again I think you should give him a break and be a little nicer :)
(again sorry for miss-spellings)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play the role of Navictar Baradin, inquisitor of Asmodeus, and to be honest, I didn't even notice the whole "Asmodeus has frowny face" part when it happened, mainly because the characters were in...
...at the time and there'd been some indication that servants of Norgorber were at work. Navictar chakled it down to the...difficulties in communication being because of Norgorber's presence. One of the other players did mention that Asmodeus might be a tad pissed off for some reason but I was sure it was because of Father Skinsaw's presence. Until Navictar discovers otherwise, he'll continue to believe that to be the case.
That said, I've talked to my GM Naeryn about it and told him I don't have a problem with it. I don't agree 100% with the decision based on the information I've been given but I respect it because it's Naeryn's game and because it'll lead to some potentially interesting roleplaying later as Navictar seeks to discover the cause of his god's displeasure by consulting with a senior member of the priesthood.
At the end of the day, though, I consider inquisitors' use of divine magic and the practices they go through to get it to be different from that of clerics. As I see it, there are no real rules in-game for what an inquisitor must do to get access to his powers, other than zealous devotion to the faith (and even that is not an actual prerequisite, as evidenced by Salim Ghadafar who is surely an inquisitor himself).
The way Navictar approaches his faith and his (un)holy duties is defined as such:
1) He prays and meditates in the evening. This process involves self-scarification during which he gathers the blood in a bronze cup (his chest is filled with tiny runes and symbols significant to the faith, cut by himself).
2) He reads passages from the abridged version of the Asmodean Monograph he carries with him.
3) He smites the enemies of the faith (as determined by Navictar).
4) He prays in the morning before undertaking the day's challenges.
These four parts combine to become Navictar's continued quest to understand the mysteries of Asmodeus and the Asmodean philosophies (ie learning new spells and class features). For instance, when it comes to the invisibility spell, learning that spell is a lengthy process that really started the minute Navictar accepted his unholy responsibilities and is one of the many mysteries Navictar is constantly trying to learn. So he knows he has the potential to learn how to cast the spell through continued intensive prayer and meditation, through study of the holy text, and through the application of Asmodeus's wrath against his enemies. Naturally he also knows that Asmodeus will take all those powers away from him if Navictar is no longer deemed an asset to the Archfiend.
As for letting nonbelievers in on his potential powers, Navictar currently sees his companions as resources (as opposed to friends) to be used to further his deity's cause and to destroy the enemies of the faith. Just as he is an asset that Asmodeus can use as he desires, so too are Navictar's companions assets the inquisitor can use as he sees fit. This includes using them as allies and, as allies, coordinating your efforts is a requirement if they are to win the day. So if you have to reveal some of your powers, so be it.
All this is how I see it and how I've approached my roleplaying of a Lawful Neutral inquisitor of Asmodeus (an admittedly challenging role considering the alignment).
I have to say, though, that to me this isn't a big deal. If Navictar had "fallen" as an inquisitor I might have asked a question or two of the GM. As it were, Navictar will have a bit of difficulty casting spells until he figures out what's going on and to be honest, I hope Naeryn will stick with his initial decision so that I can do some interesting roleplaying and explore a bit more of Asmodeus's presence on Golarion as Navictar interacts with other members of the faith.
If we ignore 8 Red Wizards comments, we can all move on.
^ this, all my love, hahaha :'D
I agree with 8 Red Wizards.
The OP should state his houserules and fluff changes up front, that would save us some misunderstandings.
I am unsure which houserules and fluff-changes you speak of.
I think ImperatorK is referring to the denial (in the first combat where he had no spells) and then alteration (requiring a full-round action to cast a cantrip) of class abilities based off a perceived insult to the god who allows an entire nation (Cheliax) of clerics and diabolist believe he's their slave and still grants them powers to rule.
Cheliax's unofficial motto is "Hell Serves Cheliax", not the other way around, and their official state endorsed god IS Asmodeus.
It seems somewhat strange that he'll let an entire nation believe they're his master but then he flips out and punishes a lone inquisitor for boasting that he will "soon have the ability to turn invisible". It's well within his purview to be arbitrary like that, but it makes him look like a deranged mad dictator instead of a master of tyranny.
Just sayin'
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to chime in here with my two coppers, for what they're worth.
There are some really useful suggestions here as to how to handle this. That being said I wouldn't do anything that would suggest humiliation (like walking over hot coals and the like). Mostly because I would think that a side "quest" like this needs to be awesome and entertaining on all sides to be worth the extra time devoted to it.
How about strengthening a temple's presence in the area they're in? It could be something as simple as defending it from an attack, but it could also grow into replacing a cleric who's not doing his duty properly and the cleric obviously doesn't want that.
I would also like to give a big thumbs up to your gaming group for posting here. That's some really classy stuff. You have a good group and they obviously have a good GM. Best of luck!
Oh ffs......
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ....
-READ- THE POSTS -BEFORE- YOU POST.
I have NOT stripped anyone of their powers, so please for the love of all that is good and decent, can we stop it again with the Strawman arguments?!
A PC Inquisitor is meant to use his powers in combat, without combat powers he might as well be a terrible fighter with UMD out of combat. Its not a strawman argument that you effectively striped a class of its powers.
The reason for the hostility towards this stripping of power is its old, tired, uncreative, and unnecessarily frustrating. Many people on here have suffered under arbitrary GMs that RP abuse divine casters/paladins, assassinate followers/animal companions, murder familiars (even witch familiars, and that class is half useless without it since its their spellbook), steal spellbooks, ect. The Meta choice in a campaign with arbitrary GMs is to play a spontaneous caster that doesn't require approval of gods and uses no spellbook, or a monk who doesn't require weapons.
They also didn't agree with your interpretation of how Asmodesous works, as it runs contrary to much of fluff of his church. If you run it differently, fine, but that isn't how I would say most people here interpret him. IMHO I've always felt that gods acting like 2 year olds who steal candy or throw tantrums if they don't get what they wanted rather boring, but it has precedence considering the behavior of the Greek pantheon...
I think ImperatorK is referring to the denial (in the first combat where he had no spells) and then alteration (requiring a full-round action to cast a cantrip) of class abilities based off a perceived insult to the god who allows an entire nation (Cheliax) of clerics and diabolist believe he's their slave and still grants them powers to rule.
Cheliax's unofficial motto is "Hell Serves Cheliax".
Just sayin'
If that is the case, then he is correct in assuming house-rules, though I still don't see the fluffchanges.
He is incorrect in saying that I had not mentioned them though, as it says in the opening post, exactly what I had done (extended the duration of his casting to a full round action).
So yes, the OP should inform of house-rules and fluff-changes(he is aware of, mind you), and I did. Unless one doesn't read the opening post, in which case I imagine the following posts could confuse people, as they have.
I would also like to give a big thumbs up to your gaming group for posting here. That's some really classy stuff. You have a good group and they obviously have a good GM. Best of luck!
Thanks alot mate. I like your suggestions and the creative input of some of the posters here gives me alot of material to entertain my players. They definitely deserve the praise, and I appreciate the compliment to my gamemastering ^^
EDIT: Also, so I don't post 3 times in a row I'll add my response to notabot here.
@notabot
A PC inquisitor can definitely use his powers in combat, and the class is written to provide a good base for doing just that. Stating that he is -supposed- to do so, however, contradicts my idea of characterdifferentiation. I don't object to the idea of an Inquisitor who acts like an investigator and shys away from combat, preferring to let the long arm of the law handle the actual capture of the enemy.
So yes, it IS a strawman argument, since the inquisitor has not been stripped of his powers by any stretch. He merely has to make more of an effort in order for Asmodeus to grant his boon. This is not detrimental to the character unless the DM only uses optimized encounters without rhyme or reason, that only exist as some kind of arbitrary combat. While I am guilty of doing random encounters once in a while, I don't usually set my players up for combat without purpose. And an inquisitor (or any character of class or race) that finds its ability to defend itself diminished, be it spells or simply a lack of healing items, should pick it's fight more carefully, until it's back to full strength.
Now... I may come across as a bit aggressive myself and that is actually not fair to those of you who meant no harm, but when I have to read through 50+ posts of non-answers and suffer different levels of bile while doing so, I get a bit defensive.
I understand that some of you may have had poor GM's who sees every possible weakness as a big red bullseye for him to hit as hard as possible, and I can understand that repeated exposure to these things can prompt spontaneous, hostile reactions.
That being said, I don't believe that's a grown-ups excuse for not reading the post properly and making assumptions to the worst, without consulting with the person you're responding to. To be fair, many responses have been very mature, but there have been those select few that have had NOTHING to do with the thread and some that have antagonized me, without reason.
So thanks for being levelheaded.
In regards to the fluff... I don't see it. I keep reading over the pathfinder wiki article and the campaignsetting, but I don't see anything to support the claim that the church of Asmodeus treat their diety with anything but the highest respect. Lawful evil, and a portfolio that includes contracts, tyranny and pride seems to me, to imply a certain amount of respect for hierachy. While the motto of Cheliax may be "hell serves Cheliax", I see it more as a threat to enemies than I see it as an assertion of rank, over the lords of hell. I don't believe you would actually see ANY diabolist, even queen Abrodail II herself, say "Asmodeus?! PFFF that wanker serves ME! And if he doesn't let me have my daily miracle, Abrodail is gonna have to smack a b*&~&" without her eyes spontaneously catching on fire. Again, my interpretation, but the point is, I don't see where my interpretation veers off from the idea as presented in the setting.
I really want to know this, so please post any link you have that support this claim.
For the record, I didn't think you were a bad GM. I just didn't want you to fall into the same pitfalls I've had to deal with (see my story on the previous page).
That said, I still think this is a small slight and I feel like you've done enough. I'd honestly save the atonement for something much more offensive to the church. Atonements should be for much greater breaches of the ecclesiarchy. Consider what happened to the inquisitor as a warning from Asmodeus to not be prideful and let it be from there. Kind of like Asmodeus showing the worshiper "Hey! You might think you're big stuff but remember, I'M the one giving you the power and I'M the one calling the shots."
Your GM is a jerk, and an idiot.This move would tell me to never play a divine caster while you DM because I would be afraid you'd try to grasp for ways to undermine my character.Indeed. This reminds me of a game that caused me to stop playing divine characters. I had a paladin with a group that was taking on a devil worshiping cleric. We defeated him and foiled his plan and the cleric begged and pleaded for mercy. I obliged and though I did restrain him so he could be sent to the kingdom's judicial system, I did not harm him and in fact, I tended his wounds.
However, the skies opened up and an angel came down before me and with quite a bit of disdain, told me my god disapproved of showing evil mercy and stripped me of all of my powers. Mind you, I have shown mercy to all evil doers we had come across and my cohort was even an ex-demon worshiper I turned to good. My god (Pelor) also preached mercy. Needless to say, I was displeased. Worse still was the fact that now, the angel wanted to put my paladin on trial, penalty of death for allowing a diabolist to live. So, my paladin was taken to heaven and tried and sent to Hell to, as my GM so eloquently put it, "fraternize with the devils I love so much".
I don't play paladins anymore because of this. Don't make the same mistake.
Luckily, this was a long time ago when I was in high school. 2001 I think? Unfortunately I didn't have much of the social graces back then that I do now and instead built a barbarian that killed every NPC we came across out of spite.
Wasn't a good thing to do... but it did feel good :)
@Odraude
You are completely correct, it was a very minor slight and I wouldn't dream of holding it over the player's head like it was a very serious matter. However the characters reaction to this could prompt some great development, giving the player the opportunity to really express his character. That is what I want and why I grab some of these opportunities.
I hope you never have to suffer a GM who uses your class features as a weapon against you. Though action should have consequences, it's not fun to feel that your character's code of conduct, the thing that is supposed to make him strong, is just percieved as a weakness to be exploited by your GM.
Cheers mate :)