So, about priests...

[Scottfree6000]

would godless priest be a wizard?

[Nonek]

From the limited descriptions we have of Wizards it seems to me that the two are at almost diametrically opposite alignments, a Priest relies on faith and belief, a Wizard uses the scientific methods of cause and effect that are gathered in his grimoires to alter the world to his liking. At least that's my take on the Wizard, he uses metaphysical tools to manipulate reality, and these are his spells. The Priest meanwhile calls upon his beliefs, strengthened by ritual, dogma and tradition rather than observed phenomena.

[Fashion Mage]

^That. I think it's worth mentioning that beliefs don't necessarily equate to "deities".

 

Okay, but let's call them Wizards instead.

 

Sure, as long as you completely ignore the fact that wizards derive their power from logic.

 

 

I never warmed up to that concept and I never allowed that option when I was the DM back in my tabletop D&D days. It always struck me that the player was trying to enjoy the usefulness of clerical powers without having to earn them by towing the line of a specific deity (adhering to religious doctrine, making offerings/sacrifices, proselytizing, etc.). Such liberalities cannot be allowed if the cleric class is to have any meaning and be anything other than a sorceror with a different spell list and better hit dice.

 

You realize that one can have a religion without a god right? As seen in the examples I provided earlier (Buddhism and holy priests)? The view on clerics is so narrow-minded it isn't even funny.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Fashion Mage

[Micamo]

I never warmed up to that concept and I never allowed that option when I was the DM back in my tabletop D&D days. It always struck me that the player was trying to enjoy the usefulness of clerical powers without having to earn them by towing the line of a specific deity (adhering to religious doctrine, making offerings/sacrifices, proselytizing, etc.). Such liberalities cannot be allowed if the cleric class is to have any meaning and be anything other than a sorceror with a different spell list and better hit dice.

 

My problem with this mindset is that a cleric's faith in-game either never actually matters besides being roleplaying flavor, or the DM goes overboard and it makes the cleric class completely unplayable. (Whoops, you stepped on a spider without reciting the Three Prayers of Ethallion to send its soul to the afterlife? You lose all your powers forever.) The idea itself that clerics have to bow and scrape before a deity who can arbitrarily take away their powers at any moment is even setting specific: On Eberron, for example, every cleric is an ideocleric in practical terms (people in Eberron can invent, and subsequently become clerics of, new religions).

 

Really, the issue of "What's the exact in-world difference between different spellcaster types?" is a question of worldbuilding, not mechanics.

 

 

As far as Project Eternity is concerned, Obsidian, if my cleric character ever loses their powers because I made a wrong dialogue choice, I will never forgive you.

[rjshae]

Okay, but let's call them Wizards instead.

 

Sure, as long as you completely ignore the fact that wizards derive their power from logic.

 

That's really not as big a leap as you seem to think.

[Fashion Mage]

 That's really not as big a leap as you seem to think.

 

Also ignoring that wizards can't channel positive energy for no reason, it's about a big a leap as to any other caster class. In Project Eternity, literally the only thing seperating a wizard and priest in function is how they use their souls, this is a similar case for D&D as well.

 

Druids derive their power from nature, Clerics derive their power from deities (or their philosophy and beliefs, unless you know, you break the rules to not allow clerics to do that), Sorcerers just have innate magical power, Bards are similar to sorcerers (but they perform instead for some reason), Wizards derive their power from logic.

So according to you, wizards, sorcerers, bards, druids, and whatever else I missed that doesn't have a deity are basically the same things. So yes, it is a big a leap as I think. One's source of power in D&D dictates one's magical abilities, so logic =/= belief. It makes a huge difference.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Fashion Mage

[rjshae]

 

 That's really not as big a leap as you seem to think.

 

Also ignoring that wizards can't channel positive energy for no reason, it's about a big a leap as to any other caster class. In Project Eternity, literally the only thing seperating a wizard and priest in function is how they use their souls, this is a similar case for D&D as well.

 

Druids derive their power from nature, Clerics derive their power from deities (or their philosophy and beliefs, unless you know, you break the rules to not allow clerics to do that), Sorcerers just have innate magical power, Bards are similar to sorcerers (but they perform instead for some reason), Wizards derive their power from logic.

So according to you, wizards, sorcerers, bards, druids, and whatever else I missed that doesn't have a deity are basically the same things. So yes, it is a big a leap as I think. One's source of power in D&D dictates one's magical abilities, so logic =/= belief. It makes a huge difference.

 

Ah, another reducio ad absurdum argument. I made no statement about how magic works; merely implying that tying magic to logic is unnecessary and possibly absurd. You are wrapping yourself around the axle with your own assumptions.

[Fashion Mage]

Ah, another reducio ad absurdum argument. I made no statement about how magic works; merely implying that tying magic to logic is unnecessary and possibly absurd. You are wrapping yourself around the axle with your own assumptions.

 

I don't really know what you're going on about. You accused a deityless cleric of being the same thing as a wizard, and then I listed the differences and lore between the two. Wizards use logic to cast magic, clerics don't, it's as simple as that. Once again, it makes a huge difference.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Fashion Mage

[rjshae]

 

Ah, another reducio ad absurdum argument. I made no statement about how magic works; merely implying that tying magic to logic is unnecessary and possibly absurd. You are wrapping yourself around the axle with your own assumptions.

 

I don't really know what you're going on about. You accused a deityless cleric of being the same thing as a wizard, and then I listed the differences and lore between the two. Wizards use logic to cast magic, clerics don't, it's as simple as that. Once again, it makes a huge difference.

 

Wizards perhaps use some type of mysterious pattern to cast spells. Is that logical? Perhaps it uses a supernatural metaphysics that has a mysterious logic to it, but we don't know that. Ergo, your axiom is unprovable and your argument is baseless. You discuss this by making assumptions about my thought patterns and using absurd extremes when even your own statements are not grounded in reality. A huge difference? No, this is just silly.

[Fashion Mage]

Wizards perhaps use some type of mysterious pattern to cast spells. Is that logical? Perhaps it uses a supernatural metaphysics that has a mysterious logic to it, but we don't know that. Ergo, your axiom is unprovable and your argument is baseless. You discuss this by making assumptions about my thought patterns and using absurd extremes when even your own statements are not grounded in reality. A huge difference? No, this is just silly.

 

Okay, replace all instances of "logic" in my argument with "mysterious patterns/mysterious logic/supernatural metaphysics/etc", it's still not the same thing as how clerics/priests get their power.

 

[edit: *replace all instances of the word "logic", for those who would misunderstand]

Edited May 30, 2013 by Fashion Mage

[rjshae]

 

Wizards perhaps use some type of mysterious pattern to cast spells. Is that logical? Perhaps it uses a supernatural metaphysics that has a mysterious logic to it, but we don't know that. Ergo, your axiom is unprovable and your argument is baseless. You discuss this by making assumptions about my thought patterns and using absurd extremes when even your own statements are not grounded in reality. A huge difference? No, this is just silly.

 

Okay, replace all instances of "logic" in my argument with "mysterious patterns/mysterious logic/supernatural metaphysics/etc", it's still not the same thing as how clerics/priests get their power.

 

Sorry, I can't help you.

[Failion]

It would be cool to see in game religion correlate with real world religions back in the day. Run into a band of radical religious zealots that demand that you convert to their faith or they kill you. Say if you convert your god ceases giving you power instead you get this new mysterious gods powers but now you have new enemies. And have to convert npc to your faith or kill them to appease this new evil god and not lose your powers. Basically It would be fun  gameplay and roleplaying starting a priest in one faith and shifting to another.

[Nonek]

 

I never warmed up to that concept and I never allowed that option when I was the DM back in my tabletop D&D days. It always struck me that the player was trying to enjoy the usefulness of clerical powers without having to earn them by towing the line of a specific deity (adhering to religious doctrine, making offerings/sacrifices, proselytizing, etc.). Such liberalities cannot be allowed if the cleric class is to have any meaning and be anything other than a sorceror with a different spell list and better hit dice.

 

My problem with this mindset is that a cleric's faith in-game either never actually matters besides being roleplaying flavor, or the DM goes overboard and it makes the cleric class completely unplayable. (Whoops, you stepped on a spider without reciting the Three Prayers of Ethallion to send its soul to the afterlife? You lose all your powers forever.) The idea itself that clerics have to bow and scrape before a deity who can arbitrarily take away their powers at any moment is even setting specific: On Eberron, for example, every cleric is an ideocleric in practical terms (people in Eberron can invent, and subsequently become clerics of, new religions).

 

Really, the issue of "What's the exact in-world difference between different spellcaster types?" is a question of worldbuilding, not mechanics.

 

 

As far as Project Eternity is concerned, Obsidian, if my cleric character ever loses their powers because I made a wrong dialogue choice, I will never forgive you.

 

 

Personally i'm on the exact opposite side of the fence, I want deep and meaningful choices and consequences, where if I choose to spurn my gods law and disdain his teachings I expect to be cast down for it. Obviously this shouldn't be a small thing, it should be a momentous decision and have both foreshadowing and warnings, but I don't want the game to totally ignore the faith and church I belong to. More reactivity is always better.

 

Now the interesting thing for me is what of those others who have fallen? In church lore they will have been cast down into the pits of hell to writhe in the fires of their own villainy, but in reality there has to be a fair number of failed clerics. Is there an enemy god to their faith, who welcomes fallen clerics? Is their a pariah deity like Woedicca, who accepts the cast outs and the disenfranchised? Or do the clerics seek answers beyond their deity, and realise that their faith is enough, that they need not tradition, stricture and dogma, and how will their old faith respond to such dangerous individuals.

 

Enemies of the faith, might be an interesting role to assume, and perhaps if enough followers start listening to that prophets ideas then a new faith and its instigator might be born. A new kind of church, pioneering a new method of belief, which in a few centuries will be the dominant religion and have become what it arose to challenge.

[Tsuga C]

My problem with this mindset is that... *snip*

...you either enjoyed roleplaying your cleric only when it suited your immediate needs and/or your DM was a nitwit with no sense of proportionality with regards to faith and religious practice.

 

 

As far as Project Eternity is concerned, Obsidian, if my cleric character ever loses their powers because I made a wrong dialogue choice, I will never forgive you.

If you repeatedly defy the will of your patron deity during important encounters and reject the overall spiritual ethos of said deity via your routine dialogue choices, you'll well and truly deserve to lose your powers. Choose your patron deity wisely. Too often players reveal via their gameplay that what they want is the best of both worlds (e.g. selecting a deity with the portfolio of Good, Sun, Healing, and Charity to campaign in a definably Good locale plagued with a rising tide of undead and then turning right around and behaving as rapacious and self-interested as the average sociopath). P:E is touted to revolve around roleplaying, so play the clerical role as would a true believer or find a different class to play that doesn't concern itself overly much with matters of faith. You'll be doing yourself (and your DM in a tabletop session) a huge favor.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Tsuga C

[bonarbill]

 

If you repeatedly defy the will of your patron deity during important encounters and reject the overall spiritual ethos of said deity via your routine dialogue choices, you'll well and truly deserve to lose your powers. Choose your patron deity wisely. Too often players reveal via their gameplay that what they want is the best of both worlds (e.g. selecting a deity with the portfolio of Good, Sun, Healing, and Charity to campaign in a definably Good locale plagued with a rising tide of undead and then turning right around and behaving as rapacious and self-interested as the average sociopath). P:E is touted to revolve around roleplaying, so play the clerical role as would a true believer or find a different class to play that doesn't concern itself overly much with matters of faith. You'll be doing yourself (and your DM in a tabletop session) a huge favor.

 

 

Thankfully this crap doesn't exist in videogames that have clerics.  That can stay in tabletop for all I care.

Edited May 31, 2013 by bonarbill

[Lephys]

Thankfully this crap doesn't exist in videogames that have clerics.  That can stay in tabletop for all I care.

 

 

We don't yet know what all does and does not exist in P:E.

[cleric Nemir]

 

If you repeatedly defy the will of your patron deity during important encounters and reject the overall spiritual ethos of said deity via your routine dialogue choices, you'll well and truly deserve to lose your powers. Choose your patron deity wisely. Too often players reveal via their gameplay that what they want is the best of both worlds (e.g. selecting a deity with the portfolio of Good, Sun, Healing, and Charity to campaign in a definably Good locale plagued with a rising tide of undead and then turning right around and behaving as rapacious and self-interested as the average sociopath). 

 

 

^This.   All I want - the priest & deity connection that is very limiting on the priest,since that is what being a bloody priest is.

 

Do I blame misinterpreting english for liking Micamo's post? No. I do like it 'cause it's an energetic opinion that made me lol. But also made me remember how many times I actually reloaded when the choices I can make are done terribly and narrow compared to how they could be done. So I wanna see some heavy focus on each class special dialogue options and I want them done good.

Edited June 1, 2013 by cleric Nemir

[Micamo]

Personally i'm on the exact opposite side of the fence, I want deep and meaningful choices and consequences, where if I choose to spurn my gods law and disdain his teachings I expect to be cast down for it. Obviously this shouldn't be a small thing, it should be a momentous decision and have both foreshadowing and warnings, but I don't want the game to totally ignore the faith and church I belong to. More reactivity is always better.

 

Now the interesting thing for me is what of those others who have fallen? In church lore they will have been cast down into the pits of hell to writhe in the fires of their own villainy, but in reality there has to be a fair number of failed clerics. Is there an enemy god to their faith, who welcomes fallen clerics? Is their a pariah deity like Woedicca, who accepts the cast outs and the disenfranchised? Or do the clerics seek answers beyond their deity, and realise that their faith is enough, that they need not tradition, stricture and dogma, and how will their old faith respond to such dangerous individuals.

 

Enemies of the faith, might be an interesting role to assume, and perhaps if enough followers start listening to that prophets ideas then a new faith and its instigator might be born. A new kind of church, pioneering a new method of belief, which in a few centuries will be the dominant religion and have become what it arose to challenge.

If you repeatedly defy the will of your patron deity during important encounters and reject the overall spiritual ethos of said deity via your routine dialogue choices, you'll well and truly deserve to lose your powers. Choose your patron deity wisely. Too often players reveal via their gameplay that what they want is the best of both worlds (e.g. selecting a deity with the portfolio of Good, Sun, Healing, and Charity to campaign in a definably Good locale plagued with a rising tide of undead and then turning right around and behaving as rapacious and self-interested as the average sociopath). P:E is touted to revolve around roleplaying, so play the clerical role as would a true believer or find a different class to play that doesn't concern itself overly much with matters of faith. You'll be doing yourself (and your DM in a tabletop session) a huge favor.

Well, let me make something clear: I'm perfectly fine with different stuff happening story-wise with regard to a priest PC who defies their faith. I completely agree that there's a lot of interesting stuff that could be done with that, and it's a direction I think Project Eternity should explore.

 

What I'm against, strictly, is this consequence being felt mechanically in the form of "You are now a walking bag of meat capable of accomplishing nothing but wasting space in the party." In D&D a Cleric who gets rejected by their god gets reduced to an Aristocrat with fewer skill points, a worse class skill list, worse proficiencies, and a better fortitude save. As a player, if you get stuck with this your best option is to just retire that character and roll up a new one. And since you probably won't be able to do that in Eternity it means you'll be stuck with that forever. Reload an earlier save. (Have fun with that in Ironman mode!)

 

This is not having "deep and meaningful" consequences for your actions. This is having a great big "NO" painted over a portion of your presented options (potentially, a very large portion). It doesn't encourage roleplaying, it restricts it.

 

Plus, not to mention this type of heavy-handed approach locks out several interesting character archetypes, depending on how restrictive you are. For example once I played a cleric who received her powers against her will, and she hates her patron diety. So she sets out to try to kill him, not realizing this will set her on the path the god intended for her (unfortunately the game fell apart before it could be finished due to out-of-game issues). It's a cool concept I had a lot of fun with, and I'd like to maybe be able to try to play something similar to her in Eternity, if I wanted. Carte-blanche shutting it out because it's "not roleplaying" would be pretty bone-headed.

[Prometheus]

What I'm against, strictly, is this consequence being felt mechanically in the form of "You are now a walking bag of meat capable of accomplishing nothing but wasting space in the party." In D&D a Cleric who gets rejected by their god gets reduced to an Aristocrat with fewer skill points, a worse class skill list, worse proficiencies, and a better fortitude save. As a player, if you get stuck with this your best option is to just retire that character and roll up a new one. And since you probably won't be able to do that in Eternity it means you'll be stuck with that forever. Reload an earlier save. (Have fun with that in Ironman mode!)

I'm also against making your character useless if you go against your faith, but there should be consequences. Maybe there could be followers/creatures of your god that will hunt you if you go against your faith. Or you must make a quest for your god. Or you could loose spells associated with your faith and gain new spells. Or you can't interact anymore with the church of your god.

[Nonek]

 

Personally i'm on the exact opposite side of the fence, I want deep and meaningful choices and consequences, where if I choose to spurn my gods law and disdain his teachings I expect to be cast down for it. Obviously this shouldn't be a small thing, it should be a momentous decision and have both foreshadowing and warnings, but I don't want the game to totally ignore the faith and church I belong to. More reactivity is always better.

 

Now the interesting thing for me is what of those others who have fallen? In church lore they will have been cast down into the pits of hell to writhe in the fires of their own villainy, but in reality there has to be a fair number of failed clerics. Is there an enemy god to their faith, who welcomes fallen clerics? Is their a pariah deity like Woedicca, who accepts the cast outs and the disenfranchised? Or do the clerics seek answers beyond their deity, and realise that their faith is enough, that they need not tradition, stricture and dogma, and how will their old faith respond to such dangerous individuals.

 

Enemies of the faith, might be an interesting role to assume, and perhaps if enough followers start listening to that prophets ideas then a new faith and its instigator might be born. A new kind of church, pioneering a new method of belief, which in a few centuries will be the dominant religion and have become what it arose to challenge.

If you repeatedly defy the will of your patron deity during important encounters and reject the overall spiritual ethos of said deity via your routine dialogue choices, you'll well and truly deserve to lose your powers. Choose your patron deity wisely. Too often players reveal via their gameplay that what they want is the best of both worlds (e.g. selecting a deity with the portfolio of Good, Sun, Healing, and Charity to campaign in a definably Good locale plagued with a rising tide of undead and then turning right around and behaving as rapacious and self-interested as the average sociopath). P:E is touted to revolve around roleplaying, so play the clerical role as would a true believer or find a different class to play that doesn't concern itself overly much with matters of faith. You'll be doing yourself (and your DM in a tabletop session) a huge favor.

Well, let me make something clear: I'm perfectly fine with different stuff happening story-wise with regard to a priest PC who defies their faith. I completely agree that there's a lot of interesting stuff that could be done with that, and it's a direction I think Project Eternity should explore.

 

What I'm against, strictly, is this consequence being felt mechanically in the form of "You are now a walking bag of meat capable of accomplishing nothing but wasting space in the party." In D&D a Cleric who gets rejected by their god gets reduced to an Aristocrat with fewer skill points, a worse class skill list, worse proficiencies, and a better fortitude save. As a player, if you get stuck with this your best option is to just retire that character and roll up a new one. And since you probably won't be able to do that in Eternity it means you'll be stuck with that forever. Reload an earlier save. (Have fun with that in Ironman mode!)

 

This is not having "deep and meaningful" consequences for your actions. This is having a great big "NO" painted over a portion of your presented options (potentially, a very large portion). It doesn't encourage roleplaying, it restricts it.

 

Plus, not to mention this type of heavy-handed approach locks out several interesting character archetypes, depending on how restrictive you are. For example once I played a cleric who received her powers against her will, and she hates her patron diety. So she sets out to try to kill him, not realizing this will set her on the path the god intended for her (unfortunately the game fell apart before it could be finished due to out-of-game issues). It's a cool concept I had a lot of fun with, and I'd like to maybe be able to try to play something similar to her in Eternity, if I wanted. Carte-blanche shutting it out because it's "not roleplaying" would be pretty bone-headed.

 

 

To be honest only an extremely poor GM or player would create such a situation as demonstrated in your second paragraph, but to lose your powers for a while and be cast adrift sounds positively thrilling to me. It's basically the story of the Exile from the Sith Lords where, as Kreia rightly points out, a true grasp of the binary nature of the conflict wracking that setting is gained. A good GM will give you a hard time for abandoning your faith, and then slowly introduce powers befitting the new role you are embracing. If you can just flit around with no consequences to your every action, never challenged by the game or your own choices, that makes for a dull character and a reactivity free setting.

 

It's also why I for one am glad Obsidian are not using D&D, but still I expect if you choose to shackle yourself to a gods will, there will be consequences for trying to break those chains. I don't want to play the usual armed and armoured generic healbot, with no faith or religion except for what's agreeable to modern sensibilities. I'd like to play Kaelyn the Dove or Kreia, casting aside their roles through principles and suffering indignities because of it, but enduring and thus becoming strong.

 

After all if the game is apathetic to your actions then we all suffer, because apathy is death.

[Lephys]

I just want to point out just how much room there is between "no consequences" and "you are now a kitten."

[Somna]

As blasphemous as it is, they could always have a favor meter for Priests.

 

On the low end of the meter? Your deity granted abilities aren't as effective.

 

At the pinnacle of the meter? Get a boost to your ability effectiveness.

[Eiphel]

I just want to point out just how much room there is between "no consequences" and "you are now a kitten."

Wait wait clerics can turn into kittens now?

[Somna]

 

I just want to point out just how much room there is between "no consequences" and "you are now a kitten."

Wait wait clerics can turn into kittens now?

 

He means in terms of how effective they could be.

[Eiphel]

 

 

I just want to point out just how much room there is between "no consequences" and "you are now a kitten."

Wait wait clerics can turn into kittens now?

 

He means in terms of how effective they could be.

 

(I knew that.)