71 réponses à ce sujet

[Ykhare]

Giantevilhead wrote...

Mysstic1 wrote...

That argument works equally well for the good gods, though. Every time someone resists evil or protects someone in a nation controlled by a good god, the good god gains power. An evil nation can remain entrenched in evil if the Wall came down, but good nations aren't at a particular disadvantage either. Their gods gain power when they resist encroachments by the evil nations.

No it doesn't. Gods require faith and actions attributed to them to gain power. That means good gods aren't going to get anything from good people who do good things just because they're nice. Without the wall, there are going to be more and more good people doing good for the sake of good rather than in the name of a good god. That won't happen with evil gods since they'll just force their followers devote all their evil deeds to them.

There's no need for attribution actually.

That's why gods have porfolios (though I personnally preferred the older design with "spheres of influence" and relevant spell granted accordingly), and make such a big fuss of grabbing them from forgotten/slain other gods. Anything that falls within a porfolio, bolsters its holder. So an individual promoting, say, strife, would effectively be bolstering Bane even if he isn't a Banite, or is an isolated or undercover Banite claiming to be acting for another purpose palatable to his current allies... unless he made sure to look totally innocent and let others get the spotlight
It's strife, and it empowers Bane wherever it comes from.

[Giantevilhead]

Mysstic1 wrote...

I don't think that's a correct distinction. You say that good deeds that aren't done specifically in order to attribute it to a good god "don't count"? Well, that would apply even moreso to evil. How many evil people out there are doing evil deeds solely because it's to the advantage of some evil deity out there, instead of because it's advantageous for they, themselves?

No, disregarding a minority of religious fanatics, most evil people do evil things because of what's in it for them. If you're going to indict the forces of good for being altruistic, you have to indict the forces of evil for being selfish.

Either both sides only empower their gods due to followers doing things primarily for the sake of the gods... in which case there's only a small minority of empowering faithful on either side... or both sides empower their gods when they do things for their own personal reasons, but pay "lip service" to the relevant deities. In the latter case, there are plenty of followers empowering both sides, they're just doing it for their own reasons. Either way, there's no distinctive advantage for either side.

You should read through the Powers of Faerun sourcebook sometime if you have access to it. It delves into the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings of the relationship between faithful believers and godly beings. It's a fascinating, mutually interdependent state of being. The gods aren't the "boss" of the mortals as much as they think, or as much as they want mortals to think, anyway. It's definitely a two-way street. Just ask Lathander, who's well on his way to transforming into Amaunator, about how much influence mortal belief has over the gods.

Except I didn't say that it doesn't count. I said that it doesn't bolster the power of the god.

Also, did you miss the part about evil deities being able to more directly manipulate people? Good deities cannot order their followers to force people to worship them. Evil deities have no problem doing that. If a good person is doing something just because they're good, then a cleric or paladin of Tyr or Ilmater or some other good god can't force that good person to worship the good god. If an evil person is doing something bad because they're just evil then followers of an evil god like Bane or Talos can recruit the person by force. That makes a huge difference.

As for the relationship between gods and mortals being a two way street, that's exactly my point. That's why the wall of the faithless exists. Since the gods depend on the faith of mortals, they need to give mortals incentives for worshiping them. The wall is a very good incentive. If the wall is torn down then evil gods will be able to make or find some kind of replacement while good gods cannot.

Ykhare wrote...

Giantevilhead wrote...

Mysstic1 wrote...

That
argument works equally well for the good gods, though. Every time
someone resists evil or protects someone in a nation controlled by a
good god, the good god gains power. An evil nation can remain
entrenched in evil if the Wall came down, but good nations aren't at a
particular disadvantage either. Their gods gain power when they resist
encroachments by the evil nations.

No it doesn't. Gods
require faith and actions attributed to them to gain power. That means
good gods aren't going to get anything from good people who do good
things just because they're nice. Without the wall, there are going to
be more and more good people doing good for the sake of good rather than
in the name of a good god. That won't happen with evil gods since
they'll just force their followers devote all their evil deeds to them.

There's no need for attribution actually.

That's why
gods have porfolios (though I personnally preferred the older design
with "spheres of influence" and relevant spell granted accordingly), and
make such a big fuss of grabbing them from forgotten/slain other gods.
Anything that falls within a porfolio, bolsters its holder. So an
individual promoting, say, strife, would effectively be bolstering Bane
even if he isn't a Banite, or is an isolated or undercover Banite
claiming to be acting for another purpose palatable to his current
allies... unless he made sure to look totally innocent and let others
get the spotlight [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/bandit.png[/smilie]
It's strife, and it empowers Bane wherever it comes from.

That's not how portfolios work. A god's portfolio(s) is simply their area of expertise. They can sense and are more adept at manipulating events that fall under their portfolio. There are also have many limitations. For one, they're limited to their own pantheon. Bane may have the portfolio of strife but only in areas where he has influence, he has no power over someone promoting strife in Shou Long.

Modifié par Giantevilhead, 22 juillet 2011 - 10:32 .

[Mysstic1]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

If an evil person does something for personal gain, he's not doing it for his god, so it doesn't count. Just like it doesn't count when a good person does something just because "it's the right thing to do".

You said an evil god can force people to worship him/her, but that's just not the case. If a person is forced to pray to a god, then they're either doing it for personal gain, or to avoid personal harm. The motivation is still completely selfish, not an act of faith. They're just paying lip service. You can force someone to go through the motions if you want, but in the end their intent is purely one of self-preservation, not actual faith in the diety. Their prayers aren't worth the sound waves they're uttered with.

Your personal opinion that evil is more powerful than good colors your viewpoint. In canon D&D the two forces are written as fairly equivalent. I don't let my own personal opinion that good is more powerful than evil cloud my take on the matter, when discussing what's what in Faerun. I suggest you read the Powers of Faerun sourcebook. I think that Ykhare's take on how faith and portfolios work is more in line with that source material than yours is.

[Giantevilhead]

Mysstic1 wrote...

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

If an evil person does something for personal gain, he's not doing it for his god, so it doesn't count. Just like it doesn't count when a good person does something just because "it's the right thing to do".

You said an evil god can force people to worship him/her, but that's just not the case. If a person is forced to pray to a god, then they're either doing it for personal gain, or to avoid personal harm. The motivation is still completely selfish, not an act of faith. They're just paying lip service. You can force someone to go through the motions if you want, but in the end their intent is purely one of self-preservation, not actual faith in the diety. Their prayers aren't worth the sound waves they're uttered with.

Your personal opinion that evil is more powerful than good colors your viewpoint. In canon D&D the two forces are written as fairly equivalent. I don't let my own personal opinion that good is more powerful than evil cloud my take on the matter, when discussing what's what in Faerun. I suggest you read the Powers of Faerun sourcebook. I think that Ykhare's take on how faith and portfolios work is more in line with that source material than yours is.

I don't think you understand the rules of the Forgotten Realms and Dungeons and Dragons. It doesn't matter if the person is worshipping the evil god for personal gains. The evil god still gains power. That's the way D&D works. Look it up in Deities and Demigods or Faiths and Pantheons. Specifically, look at page 16 of Deities and Demigods under the "Fear" subsection of "Why Mortals Worship Deities." It doesn't matter if a mortal worships a god just so the god doesn't smite him down, the god still gains power from the mortal's prayers, no matter how hollow or meaningless they may seem. In fact, that's exactly how the wall works. People are essentially forced to pray to gods under the threat of the destruction of their soul after they die. Do you really think that the people who are only worshipping gods because they don't want to end up in the wall of the faithless have a ton of faith in their deity? But that doesn't make a difference. The deity still gains power from their worshipper, regardless of why they pray. That's why the gods don't want the wall to be torn down.

Heck, they even talk about how gods gain power in Mask of the Betrayer. There's this little piece of dialogue from Myrkul:
"A god does not easily die... he lives in the fears of him, which linger on... in the doubts that he is truly gone... and in the suffering of those whose lives he brought to grief.
Every anguish that you sow, you unknowingly dedicate to me. Every mortal who cowers or cringes at your name... they are also cringing at mine.
With every such pain, the embers of my soul burn a little brighter than before."

Any evil god can unleash an equally malevolent horror as a contingency plan if the wall were to be torn down. Good gods on the other hand have no such way of gaining power.

Modifié par Giantevilhead, 24 juillet 2011 - 09:10 .

[Mysstic1]

You site how things work in older D&D manuals that are not setting specific. I was siting source material that is much newer, and was written specifically for Faerun. They either retconned how faith works in the newer edition, or they specifically wrote it to be different for Faerun. We all know that godly things already worked differently in Faerun than other places, even before Power of Faerun came out.

Your quote from MotB supports Ykhare's take on the matter just as much as yours.
"Every anguish that you sow, you unknowingly dedicate to me. Every mortal who cowers or cringes at your name... they are also cringing at mine."

"Every" anguish? "Every" mortal who cowers? Surely there are people who've been killed or terrorized by former Spirit Eaters that were not aware of the Spirit Eater's origins, or that he was associated with Myrkul. If their anguish and terror fed Myrkul without them even being aware of Myrkul, then that lends itself to Ykhare's position. It's activities that are in line with someone's portfolio that matter, even if they're done without invoking the god, or even if the person doing the activity is unaware that the god even exists.

But let's assume that your "lip service" argument is valid, and create a reductio ad absurdem argument for it. Let's say we have a major, bustling city ruled by a good ruler. The good ruler wants to increase the worship of all the good gods, so he posts people at all of the gates of the city... one person for each good god in existence. Each person chants all day long. They chant, "If you support (god x) with your worship, then walk through these gates." They chant this within earshot of everyone coming in or out of the gate. Most everyone is just going about their business and don't care one whit about what these loonies are saying, but they hear it and keep moving anyway because they've got business to take care of.

By your argument, each person walking in or out of the city is empowering all of the good gods of Faerun, by paying lip service to them without actually meaning it. In a huge city like Waterdeep, that's a lot of "worshippers". That's a huge windfall of faith for every single good god in Faerun. And the good guys didn't even have to terrorize anyone to get it!

So no, even under your premises, I don't see the good gods under any particular disadvantage in terms of faith. And they certainly don't need to resort to using the evil of the Wall to get their faith fix.

[Giantevilhead]

Mysstic1 wrote...

You site how things work in older
D&D manuals that are not setting specific. I was siting source
material that is much newer, and was written specifically for Faerun.
They either retconned how faith works in the newer edition, or they
specifically wrote it to be different for Faerun. We all know that
godly things already worked differently in Faerun than other places,
even before Power of Faerun came out.

I'm citing things that are in the SRD, they're official and canon. I'm also citing what was said in the game.

As for Power of Faerun, it doesn't say anything about how deities gain power. All it talks about is how to use deities in high level adventures.

Your quote from MotB supports Ykhare's take on the matter just as much as yours.
"Every
anguish that you sow, you unknowingly dedicate to me. Every mortal who
cowers or cringes at your name... they are also cringing at mine."

"Every"
anguish? "Every" mortal who cowers? Surely there are people who've
been killed or terrorized by former Spirit Eaters that were not aware of
the Spirit Eater's origins, or that he was associated with Myrkul. If
their anguish and terror fed Myrkul without them even being aware of
Myrkul, then that lends itself to Ykhare's position. It's activities
that are in line with someone's portfolio that matter, even if they're
done without invoking the god, or even if the person doing the activity
is unaware that the god even exists.

Except anguish and fear are not under Myrkul's portfolio. In fact, Myrkul has no portfolio because he's a dead god. If gods gain power from their portfolio then the Spirit Eater would instead be empowering Bane (fear and hatred), Cyric (deception, lies, murder), Gargauth (cruelty), Garagos (destruction and slaughter), and Shar (forgetfulness, dark, and loss).

The reason why the Spirit Eater empowers Myrkul is because it's Myrkul's creation. When people cower in fear of the Spirit Eater, they are cowering in fear of something Myrkul did. How is that the same as Bane gaining power just because someone's causing strife? If Bane didn't do anything to make the person cause strife, why would he gain power? Bane may have the portfolio of strife but he didn't invent the concept of strife so he's not going to be empowered by someone causing strife unless he also had some hand in it.

But
let's assume that your "lip service" argument is valid, and create a
reductio ad absurdem argument for it. Let's say we have a major,
bustling city ruled by a good ruler. The good ruler wants to increase
the worship of all the good gods, so he posts people at all of the gates
of the city... one person for each good god in existence. Each person
chants all day long. They chant, "If you support (god x) with your
worship, then walk through these gates." They chant this within earshot
of everyone coming in or out of the gate. Most everyone is just going
about their business and don't care one whit about what these loonies
are saying, but they hear it and keep moving anyway because they've got
business to take care of.

By your argument, each person walking
in or out of the city is empowering all of the good gods of Faerun, by
paying lip service to them without actually meaning it. In a huge city
like Waterdeep, that's a lot of "worshippers". That's a huge windfall
of faith for every single good god in Faerun. And the good guys didn't
even have to terrorize anyone to get it!

So no, even under your
premises, I don't see the good gods under any particular disadvantage in
terms of faith. And they certainly don't need to resort to using the
evil of the Wall to get their faith fix.

Did you actually play the game?

It's not my argument. It's what they actually say in the game. That's what Kelemvor's priest in Mulsantir says. Kelemvor even said that he once tried to judge the faithless by their deeds and that led to mortals drifting from their gods.

The gods require faith, it doesn't matter if that faith isn't genuine. However, the power gods gain is proportional to the amount of effort mortals devote to their worship. A worshiper who only prays once a day will empower a god far less than worshiper who prays 10 times a day.

What you propose might give the god a tiny bit of power, but it's going to be a drop in the bucket compared to an evil city that forces people to get on their knees and pray for 4 hours a day under the threat of violence.

Modifié par Giantevilhead, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:46 .

[Seagloom]

Giantevilhead wrote...

The reason why the Spirit Eater empowers Myrkul is because it's Myrkul's creation. When people cower in fear of the Spirit Eater, they are cowering in fear of something Myrkul did. How is that the same as Bane gaining power just because someone's causing strife? If Bane didn't do anything to make the person cause strife, why would he gain power? Bane may have the portfolio of strife but he didn't invent the concept of strife so he's not going to be empowered by someone causing strife unless he also had some hand in it.

This is actually false according to the edition MotB was made under. Gods do gain in power when their portfolio's influence spreads. Keep in mind that CRPGs are not always P&P accurate. I have seen *many* glaring lore inaccuracies in every D&D game BioWare and Obsidian had a hand in so far. There is nothing wrong with deciding to follow the game's internal logic instead of caring what tabletop books or novels state on the subject, but those materials still have the last word on what is technically canon.

For example, Myrkul's remaining essence should be bound in the crown of horns by the time MotB takes place. KC meeting him in the Vault should never have occurred were MotB lore accurate.

That lengthy digression aside, a god gains in power whenever their portfolios are promoted in the world. Cyric is not interested in spreading lies and assassins killing people solely for his amusement. He demands it of his followers because it directly expands the sway of his portfolio in the Realms.

When the Simbul wanted to finally destroy the Red Wizards of Thay once and for all, Mystra forbade it because their magocracy promoted magic. Mystra wanted the Red Wizards merrily passing on magical knowledge, crafting magical items, and yes, even waging campaigns of war--as long as it somehow spread the use of magic in the Realms. Keep in mind the Red Wizards of Thay are godless by choice. Their only faith is in magic. Kossuth's church has a foothold in Thay, but his faith is not popular among the Red Wizards. Mystra has no good reason to spare Thayans if your reasoning was true.

Even if there is no specific passage about this sort of thing in "Faiths and Pantheons" or "Player's Guide to Faerun", there are years of novels, and stories within 2e Forgotten Realms modules, to back up the idea gods do benefit from promoting their portfolio. If the specific aspect of mortal existence they govern erodes in relevance, they become less relevant as well.

All that said, this still results in the occasional issue of bad internal logic. For example, Sharess having governance over lust yet remaining a demigod. She should be much more powerful considering the importance of sex in mortal life. Ah well, nitpick.

Modifié par Seagloom, 26 juillet 2011 - 09:46 .

[Giantevilhead]

Seagloom wrote...

Giantevilhead wrote...

The reason why the Spirit Eater empowers Myrkul is because it's Myrkul's creation. When people cower in fear of the Spirit Eater, they are cowering in fear of something Myrkul did. How is that the same as Bane gaining power just because someone's causing strife? If Bane didn't do anything to make the person cause strife, why would he gain power? Bane may have the portfolio of strife but he didn't invent the concept of strife so he's not going to be empowered by someone causing strife unless he also had some hand in it.

This is actually false according to the edition MotB was made under. Gods do gain in power when their portfolio's influence spreads. Keep in mind that CRPGs are not always P&P accurate. I have seen *many* glaring lore inaccuracies in every D&D game BioWare and Obsidian had a hand in so far. There is nothing wrong with deciding to follow the game's internal logic instead of caring what tabletop books or novels state on the subject, but those materials still have the last word on what is technically canon.

For example, Myrkul's remaining essence should be bound in the crown of horns by the time MotB takes place. KC meeting him in the Vault should never have occurred were MotB lore accurate.

That lengthy digression aside, a god gains in power whenever their portfolios are promoted in the world. Cyric is not interested in spreading lies and assassins killing people solely for his amusement. He demands it of his followers because it directly expands the sway of his portfolio in the Realms.

When the Simbul wanted to finally destroy the Red Wizards of Thay once and for all, Mystra forbade it because their magocracy promoted magic. Mystra wanted the Red Wizards merrily passing on magical knowledge, crafting magical items, and yes, even waging campaigns of war--as long as it somehow spread the use of magic in the Realms. Keep in mind the Red Wizards of Thay are godless by choice. Their only faith is in magic. Kossuth's church has a foothold in Thay, but his faith is not popular among the Red Wizards. Mystra has no good reason to spare Thayans if your reasoning was true.

Even if there is no specific passage about this sort of thing in "Faiths and Pantheons" or "Player's Guide to Faerun", there are years of novels, and stories within 2e Forgotten Realms modules, to back up the idea gods do benefit from promoting their portfolio. If the specific aspect of mortal existence they govern erodes in relevance, they become less relevant as well.

All that said, this still results in the occasional issue of bad internal logic. For example, Sharess having governance over lust yet remaining a demigod. She should be much more powerful considering the importance of sex in mortal life. Ah well, nitpick.

But D&D lore isn't exactly free of plot holes.

In terms of the relationship between gods and their portfolio, much of that is due to Ao's decree that gods have a responsibility to promote their portfolio. If a god fails in their responsibility to promote their portfolio then Ao will take it away and give it to another god. Whether or not the gods actually gain power from their portfolio is questionable since different gods are always doing stuff that intrude upon the portfolios of other gods. Heck, if gods gained power from their portfolio then Kozah/Talos/Gruumsh should be most powerful god due to all the massive cataclysmic events that have wracked Faerun over the ages.

Modifié par Giantevilhead, 27 juillet 2011 - 03:12 .

[Seagloom]

I doubt it. Since mass destruction was historically almost always wrought through magic, Mystra would still be on top. Talos's followers also tend towards short lifespans. One reason he is a lower tier greater god is his worshiper pool is unstable.

In any case, yes there are plot holes in lore. I pointed out one myself with Sharess. However, I think tabletop trumps a CRPG when conversation moves outside information that CRPG makes available to the player. Obsidian presents a narrow, biased, and non-canonical version of the Forgotten Realms to promote their story.

As for gods encroaching on their rival's portfolios, that is par for the course. In some cases it cannot be helped. For example, every deity utilizes magic; so in an indirect way they all supported Mystra's dominion over the Weave. The only goddess to avoid this was Shar with her Shadow Weave. Unsurprisingly, she instantly replaced Cyric as Mystra's number one enemy as a result.

Unavoidable encroachment aside, some deities purposefully encroach on a rival's portfolio in a bid to usurp it. Talos tried just that in 2e by assuming a false identity and attempting to steal destructive magic from Mystra. I.e.; evocation spells and the like. Mystra immediately took steps to shut him down.

Also consider that worship dovetails off portfolio promotion. If a missionary priest of Deneir enters an impoverished district to teach local illiterate commoners how to read, he not only proliferates Deneir's portfolio but also has a good chance of bringing him new worshipers. They may not all choose Deneir as a patron, but they are more likely to pray to him and invoke his name.

It is probably true portfolios do not provide a deity with a direct boost to power, but they are clearly beneficial since many gods grasp for any portfolio they can find, steal, or loot.

[Mysstic1]

Different core books get written at different times by different people with different philosophies on how faith works. Add to that the different novel authors and computer programmers with their own take on things, and you get a whole lot of inconsistency. People can argue a lot of different things as logically inconsistent, because of the inconsistent nature of the body of work being cited. That means a person has to step back and see if something logically makes sense, whether or not a bit of canon here or there supports it or not.

Ask yourself, does it logically make sense for a diety to gain power from the "faith" of a person who isn't actually faithful to them? Come on! Saying faith = lip service is just ridiculous.

[Seagloom]

Considering the False, who pay lip service, get a lesser punishment than the Faithless? Yes. Almost. It may not be equivalent in value to true faith, but it is still preferable.

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 juillet 2011 - 09:42 .

[Mysstic1]

False-ness may not innately be worth more than lip service in terms of providing "faith energy", or whatever you want to call it. The reason it gets a lesser punishment is that if everyone around a person says that they have faith in something, whether they do or not, it makes that person more likely to jump on the perceived bandwagon and have actual faithfulness.

So being False wouldn't provide any greater rewards to the gods on its own, it just increases the "faith harvest" from other people in general.

What a racket. Not only does the system support coercive force to obtain an outcome, through the Wall, but it also promotes lies and deception over truthfulness, since being False is better than being Faithless. No good gods should support that crap. The Book of Exalted Deeds is pretty clear that, according to D&D concepts of goodness, the ends don't justify the means.

[Seagloom]

To elaborate a wee bit:

The False are punished on a separate scale depending on their crimes, or lack thereof, in life. A soul declared False who was a good person will receive a slap on the wrist. They might act as a tour guide for visiting Baatezu, watch for intruders in Kelemvor's city, or take up tasks suitable to a household servant.

If a soul committed atrocities in life and is declared False, Kelemvor sees they are punished severely. As the FRCS puts it: "Others are punished in ways that would surprise the cruelest demon." Part of Kelemvor's pact with the Baatezu is he allows them to torture the worst of the False as much as they please. Whatever fate a False soul earns endures for eternity.

I suppose some would see the Wall of the Faithless as a pleasant alternative to a neverending existence in what amounts to Hell. Still, for those who are not total scumbags, being declared False is perceived as a lighter punishment.

Modifié par Seagloom, 29 juillet 2011 - 12:24 .

[Dorateen]

Mysstic1 wrote...


What a racket. Not only does the system support coercive force to obtain an outcome, through the Wall

The Wall is not a vehicle for coercive force, it is a consequence for choices made.

Aye, imagine that, choices have consequences.

Silly humans.

Harumph!

[I_Raps]

"This gun to your temple - it's not coercive at all. It's your choice and your choice alone as to whether I pull the trigger."

[Giantevilhead]

Seagloom wrote...

I doubt it. Since mass destruction was historically almost always wrought through magic, Mystra would still be on top. Talos's followers also tend towards short lifespans. One reason he is a lower tier greater god is his worshiper pool is unstable.

In any case, yes there are plot holes in lore. I pointed out one myself with Sharess. However, I think tabletop trumps a CRPG when conversation moves outside information that CRPG makes available to the player. Obsidian presents a narrow, biased, and non-canonical version of the Forgotten Realms to promote their story.

As for gods encroaching on their rival's portfolios, that is par for the course. In some cases it cannot be helped. For example, every deity utilizes magic; so in an indirect way they all supported Mystra's dominion over the Weave. The only goddess to avoid this was Shar with her Shadow Weave. Unsurprisingly, she instantly replaced Cyric as Mystra's number one enemy as a result.

Unavoidable encroachment aside, some deities purposefully encroach on a rival's portfolio in a bid to usurp it. Talos tried just that in 2e by assuming a false identity and attempting to steal destructive magic from Mystra. I.e.; evocation spells and the like. Mystra immediately took steps to shut him down.

Also consider that worship dovetails off portfolio promotion. If a missionary priest of Deneir enters an impoverished district to teach local illiterate commoners how to read, he not only proliferates Deneir's portfolio but also has a good chance of bringing him new worshipers. They may not all choose Deneir as a patron, but they are more likely to pray to him and invoke his name.

It is probably true portfolios do not provide a deity with a direct boost to power, but they are clearly beneficial since many gods grasp for any portfolio they can find, steal, or loot.

Talos was a Greater Deity with a divine rank of 16 so he was a pretty powerful god. Regardless of the fact that all the destruction was caused by magic, Talos has destruction as a portfolio so if he gained power from it then people who are affected by destruction should give him power.

As for portfolios, they grant powers beyond just the devotion of mortals. Gods have portfolio sense, where they're able to detect actions involving their portfolio, even events into the future for intermediate and greater deities. Bhaal was able to use his portfolio sense to see his own death. Actions involving their portfolio can be performed as free actions. They can create magical items related to their portfolios. There are tons of reasons for gods to want portfolios even if they gain no power from mortals.

Mysstic1 wrote...

Different core books get written at
different times by different people with different philosophies on how
faith works. Add to that the different novel authors and computer
programmers with their own take on things, and you get a whole lot of
inconsistency. People can argue a lot of different things as logically
inconsistent, because of the inconsistent nature of the body of work
being cited. That means a person has to step back and see if something
logically makes sense, whether or not a bit of canon here or there
supports it or not.

Ask yourself, does it logically make sense
for a diety to gain power from the "faith" of a person who isn't
actually faithful to them? Come on! Saying faith = lip service is just
ridiculous.

First of all, it's magic, which doesn't have to be logical.

Second, Ao wrote the rules and Ao is a big jerk who likes to screw with everyone. It was Ao who decided that the existence of gods depended on their worshipers, regardless of whether or not their faith is true.

Third, Ao answers to an even higher power, the Dungeon Master, who is also a jerk, because the Dungeon Master can't run campaigns if the worlds they create are all happy go lucky paradises without conflict.

[Seagloom]

Pretty powerful, but on the low end of greater deities. Divine rank 16 is the bare minimum to qualify for that status. I do not argue he gained nothing from those events. Only that Mystra would have gained more from them than Talos did.

To be honest, I usually do not bring mechanics into these conversations much as they are worthless from a story telling perspective. You never see something like portfolio sense play a part in canon. It was mentioned once, in "Faiths & Pantheons", and was never relevant again. Considering 4e eschews those mechanics in their entirety, I suppose WotC finally saw the pointlessness of giving deities precise powers.

Still, even taking that into consideration there is a whole previous edition where portfolio sense did not exist in any form whatsoever, and deities still strove to expand their collections of portfolios by any means possible. What are these tons of reasons a god would want portfolios other than to expand their worshiper base? I can see taking a portfolio that dovetails under aspects of mortal existence they already govern, but I assume you have several other things in mind.

As for Ao, yeah... he is a total douchebag. Worst introduction into the setting *ever*--especially considering how his inaction or meddling is always summed up as him being too inscrutable to fathom his cosmic design. Bleh. I have to accept his existence as part of canon, but Ao does not exist in any Forgotten Realms game I run.

[I_Raps]

Seagloom wrote...

Bleh. I have to accept his existence as part of canon, but Ao does not exist in any Forgotten Realms game I run.

But... have you no dwarves?

"Ao, Ao,
it's off to work we go."

[Seagloom]

I have dwarves. I like dwarves! Elves on the other hand...

[Giantevilhead]

Seagloom wrote...

Pretty powerful, but on the low end of greater deities. Divine rank 16 is the bare minimum to qualify for that status. I do not argue he gained nothing from those events. Only that Mystra would have gained more from them than Talos did.

To be honest, I usually do not bring mechanics into these conversations much as they are worthless from a story telling perspective. You never see something like portfolio sense play a part in canon. It was mentioned once, in "Faiths & Pantheons", and was never relevant again. Considering 4e eschews those mechanics in their entirety, I suppose WotC finally saw the pointlessness of giving deities precise powers.

Still, even taking that into consideration there is a whole previous edition where portfolio sense did not exist in any form whatsoever, and deities still strove to expand their collections of portfolios by any means possible. What are these tons of reasons a god would want portfolios other than to expand their worshiper base? I can see taking a portfolio that dovetails under aspects of mortal existence they already govern, but I assume you have several other things in mind.

As for Ao, yeah... he is a total douchebag. Worst introduction into the setting *ever*--especially considering how his inaction or meddling is always summed up as him being too inscrutable to fathom his cosmic design. Bleh. I have to accept his existence as part of canon, but Ao does not exist in any Forgotten Realms game I run.

Portfolios expand a god's power and knowledge. As I mentioned before, Bhaal forsaw his own death due to his portfolio and Baldur's Gate was based on 2E AD&D.

[Louisdeer]

I have an additional opinion of the wall.

The wall is not only a fear source of Gods/ a eternal punishment nature law to faithless people

It is also an agreement between Gods.

Look, there are so many faithless souls that is enough to build such a huge wall.

If there is a God who is able to convert those souls under its banner, then the God will gain supreme powers among all the gods. Sadly, the very existence of this wall proved that no God has used such power yet.

There comes two possibilities:

There really is a God has such super influence. And therefore, other Gods will clearly prevent this God from doing so. And then there comes the Wall of faithless. Gods need to deal with those souls before other gods "Robbed" those power contained in the faithless ones. They build this wall so that none of the Gods is able to reap the benefit.

Second possibility is:
There is no Gods have such power. Still those God faces the same problem. How to dealt with those faithless souls? Without a heaven, where should those souls go? It is like a huge numbers of people has no job. The society will be in chaotic...Every god will be damaged.

Here, suppose there is no one can cover those people, they will go rogue and damage everyone. If there is one who can cover them, then this one will be prevent from doing so. Therefore, the best idea is to ...contain those faithless one. There comes Gods of death, also a Gods of NOTHING.

Why would a God of Death Punish those faithless one? There is no benefit and no reasons except all other gods forced him to do it. As toward this question, Kelevmor said Gods have their own laws. In that case, clearly a god of death is forced to do so. And a God of death such as Mykul would enjoy to do it. what a pathetic one!

In conclusion,

this wall is also a tie between gods. Lets say all gods are playing in a same game, and neither one of them want to see others have advantages because of the faithless.

This tie is said to be a law, but i doubt it personally.

Therefore, to deal with faithless, it is the very "Job" of gods of deaths. It is the duty of Gods of death. And such wall is part of the job.

The faithless ones become of a threat to religions is only based on such kind of perception.

Pathetic!!! However there will be a ending to this, soon or later.

Mykul's curse is just a beginning. He claimed Akachi out law because his pathetic law is based nothing but agreement. Mykul is afraid of this "law" will be rewritten that's why he must make a example of it. Akachi the one who is not smart enough become the victim. And so are we afterward.

When we start to argue if this wall is the nature law itself and why would so many gods approval this wall, we fell into the trap of Mykul already. The existence of this wall is the mark of a problem that Gods did not solve.

This wall is nothing but a con structure of "No Better Plan".

And Gods of the death knows all what their jobs are and has no alternative plans to deal with the faithless one.

[Mr Ordinary]

Louisdeer wrote...

I have an additional opinion of the wall.

The wall is not only a fear source of Gods/ a eternal punishment nature law to faithless people

It is also an agreement between Gods.

Look, there are so many faithless souls that is enough to build such a huge wall.

If there is a God who is able to convert those souls under its banner, then the God will gain supreme powers among all the gods. Sadly, the very existence of this wall proved that no God has used such power yet.

It's an interesting suggestion, but it's also a logical paradox. If the Faithless were to have a god to worship, they would no longer be Faithless.

***SPOILER***

MotB does hint about such a situation, however. Kaelyn is already part-divine and the end-game narration (providing you take the choices down the path to this end) does tell that the Faithless (among others) do start praying to her. Perhaps she is on her way to becoming a deity embodying Justice, or even usurp Ilmater's portfolio of Mercy?

[NoirAuteur]

I don't buy that mortals would turn away from the gods if the Wall didn't exist. We're not talking about absentee landlords like the Judeo-Christian God, we're talking about deities that take a direct hand in the lives of mortals.

I don't know the FR deities that well, but a farmer would still pray to Chauntea (I think?) pretty regularly for a good crop, just as an assassin would ask Cyric (is he still around?) for favor, and the like.

In other words, nothing would change.

By the by, Raistlin Majere's ECL when he challenged Takhisis was 28, so there's really no reason the PC, by the end of  "Mask..." couldn't at least give Kelemvor a respectable go of it, but for plot armor.

At any rate, building up the Betrayer's Crusade and the idea that the PC is going to have to make a choice regarding the Wall, only to have Kelemvor go "LOL no" at the end is, quite honestly, terrible writing. I don't care whose fault it is - WotC, or Obsidian, or both.

edit: And the prospect of going a few rounds with a god is the only thing that really felt at all "epic" about this supposedly epic campaign. Without that, it just feels like a regular adventure with really overpowered gnolls. Oh, I suppose the chat with Myrkul on the Astral Plane hovered on the edge of epic.

Defending Crossroad Keep felt more epic than anything in MotB. But I digress.

Modifié par NoirAuteur, 13 décembre 2011 - 09:26 .

[Dorateen]

NoirAuteur wrote...

 We're not talking about absentee landlords like the Judeo-Christian God.

You might want to educate yourself about theology before you make such a colossally ignorant statement, which is very likely in violation of this forums Terms of Service reagrding discussions of real-world religions. Obviously, you are not a Believer, but you might have noticed there is this huge holiday coming up this month, celebrated world-wide, about the Judeo-Christian God coming down to earth to dwell among Men. This kind of makes your whole "absentee landlord" remark not only offensive, but demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the faith.

Again, you are obviously not a Believer (which makes it quite peculiar why you would rage against a God you don't believe in and yet make up terms that don't even apply to the religion's doctrine) so perhaps it's best you not go into such territory.

Harumph! 

[NoirAuteur]

Umm, wow. I wasn't raging against anything except the poor writing in the game.

You also entirely missed the point. So, get over yourself and your self-righteous indignation.