But perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is that this system is a compromise between DMs who think they should be final arbiter of when a character falls, and players who think they should have that power. It sets up a framework within which a DM can be certain he is being fair, while allowing the player to tell their character's story.I actually fall in the camp of wanting a little more DM power over characters (not much more). I don't think a player is solely responsible for his own character's story any more than I think the DM is solely responsible for the campaign story. Everyone at the table tells everyone's story cooperatively. While I think that this system allows for players to be in control of their character's destiny, I also think that if the individual concordance rules (or religious dogma) are sufficiently well defined the DM can craft truly maddening conundrums for the player to face, perhaps forcing them, or tricking them into falling.Would you have anything to add that would make the system more relevant to conflict resolution?
Kalex the Omen
OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!
Please join our forums!
Concerning Player Rules BiasKalex_the_Omen wrote:Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it. Concerning "Default" RulesKalex_the_Omen wrote:The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
Would you have anything to add that would make the system more relevant to conflict resolution?
I actually fall in the camp of wanting a little more DM power over characters (not much more)....While I think that this system allows for players to be in control of their character's destiny, I also think that if the individual concordance rules (or religious dogma) are sufficiently well defined the DM can craft truly maddening conundrums for the player to face, perhaps forcing them, or tricking them into falling.
making them choose between the deity's dogma and their personal needs, wants, and principles.
In one of my 4e campaigns, I had a Lawful Good Paladin of Pelor, and a Good aligned dwarven of Moradin conspire, and then murder their own patron and steal his wealth. Neither players saw this as conflicting with their alignment, okay, I'm sure they did, but they didn't care because there wasn't anything in the book that said they couldn't murder someone and still be the good aligned. I'm all for the concordence system. If players don't want to face ethical dilemma, be held to a higher standard conduct, and follow their deity's dogma, then they should play a rogue, or an evil Paladin.
Either ditch alignments and divine PC's altogether or have a code of conduct for them to aspire to.
making them choose between the deity's dogma and their personal needs, wants, and principles.
Isn't this the most common religious theme ever? The testing of ones faith, through sacrifice.
Remember this is a public forum where people express their opinions assume there is a “In my humble opinion” in front of every post especially mine.
Things you should check out because they are cool, like bow-ties and fezzes.
https://app.roll20.net/home Roll20 great free virtual table top so you can play with old friends who are far away.
http://donjon.bin.sh/ Donjon has random treasure, maps, pick pocket results, etc.. for every edition of D&D.
Very good idea, as long as any character can be on the path why should only clerics and paladins benifit from faith. Any character can have a strong connection to a diety from fighter to rogue.
Very good idea, as long as any character can be on the path why should only clerics and paladins benifit from faith. Any character can have a strong connection to a diety from fighter to rogue.Except that there is generally not a mechanical benefit for being devout unless you are a divine character class.
Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairnessReflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character)
See Pendragon for a game where anyone might gain benefits from faith.. and different faiths confer different benefits.
I think the goal of this system is to try to find a balance between player and DM control of the character's relationship with his church (or other organization) and his god.
I hear a lot of people I suspect are mainly players saying things like, "a player should tell their character's story." And to the extent that they control his reactions this is true, but I believe this has evolved to a dangerous level where these players view the DM as merely a facilitator of their fun and nothing more. I have had players around my own table who I would describe this way.You may know the type. They show up at the table with nothing but their character and their own drinks and snacks. They sit back while everyone else helps to set up, and then during play say things like, "but that is what my character would do," when ruining you plot, or disagreeing with the rest of the party. I had at least one player over the years who additionally had mapped out his character's entire progression in a plot vacuum, and was pissed when my campaign messed up his hard work. These same kinds of players often will not play any alignment or code of ethics that they choose.
The truth is that part of the DMs job is to challenge the players and their characters. To the extent that a DM must be prepared and willing to accept a player's input or outright mangling of their campaign story arc, players must be prepared and willing to accept the character changing plot devices that a DM may throw at them.
If you choose a class that comes with an alignment restriction, or code that would signify to me that you want to be bound by those rules, otherwise you would pick something else.
Furthermore your character doesn't develop in a vacuum. There are NPCs in the form of enemies, friends, associates, superiors and gods who he must interact with, and those are entirely the purview of the DM. If I choose to have a powerful NPC within the character's church decide to make life for the character a living hell, that is up to me to decide and the player to react to. The player continues to tell his character's story within the framework I set up.
However an alignment system, or one of concordance to codify a framework for the relationship I describe in the first sentence of this post is not at fault.
One of the potential transgressions you gave for your own system was that Pelorites could not cast spells with the Darkness keyword, which doesn't make sense at all to me. AFAIK Pelor is all about goodness and compassion, and opposes evil and undead. I've never heard or read anything that Pelor is an enemy of the lack-of-light. It would make more sense that Pelor would punish casting spells with the Evil or Undead keywords, assuming such keywords will exist in the next edition.
One of the potential transgressions you gave for your own system was that Pelorites could not cast spells with the Darkness keyword, which doesn't make sense at all to me. AFAIK Pelor is all about goodness and compassion, and opposes evil and undead. I've never heard or read anything that Pelor is an enemy of the lack-of-light. It would make more sense that Pelor would punish casting spells with the Evil or Undead keywords, assuming such keywords will exist in the next edition.Pelor is god of the Sun, and Light as well as good and strength. It makes perfect sense for him to be opposed to the creation of magical darkness for many reasons. First and foremost is that darkness is the lack of light as you pointed out. Second evil often uses darkness to obscure its activities and growth. I can easily see Pelor's dogma having restrictions against darkness as I believe Lathander's church did in earlier editions of the game.
You don't have to personally agree with the tenets of the imaginary religion. As long as it is well written and clear you can play a character who personally agrees with the tenets of the imaginary religion.
So...any constructive comments?
Still, I think it would work best as an add-on rather than as part of the core rules, mostly for the same reasons Skeptical Clown gave a few posts up.
Well, I actually think that a system like this works great if it's being used for organizations instead of alignment. That makes it much easier to apply equally to every character--anyone might want to be part of a church or guild. I think that would probably invite less ambiguity about the mechanism of raising and lowering your concordance too, because the strictures would be based on an organization's goals, rather than on abstract (and kind of fuzzy) cosmological principles. So there's not much to object to.
[Edit: Duplicate post]
Great idea as an option. I never played D20 Star Wars. I curious, as it may provide input to discussion, How did they handle "falling from light into dark side"?
As for the Divine Concordance. How is that really any difference from a point system? For example. Every player has good/evil points and law/chaos points (or just one or the other depending on the DM). Then as you do good action you gain good points/loose evil points, as you do bad you loose good points/gain evil point. Same with the law/chaos axis (if you use it).You could even give benifits for having over 20 good points if you deity is good, for example.Divine Concordance does the same thing but with teirs of good/bad instead of points. And with actions that make you more 'in step' or more 'out of step'. How many actions does it take to move up or down a teir?In short the base Idea is good, but if you going for a system the rewards being like your deity I believe that there are better systems that remove some of the ambiguity.
there was an alignment table in 1e DragonLance that looked just like what you are describing for Faith Based Classes with their Gods. The trouble is some gods are all about Alignment, rather than just themselves, so you are going to have to face alignment cross overs with this effect.
You could classify powers as something like favored, lesser, greater, and proxy, and start by snipping the upper ones and working your way down to the lower ones every so many point increments. If you had four categories and 5 points each, you might lose a spell level for every 2 points you lost.You could even have divine boons or promises that represent a buffer of say 1 - 5 points or whatever where the character can wander slightly because they recently accomplished something super important and difficult. It might also be possible to garner Boons from other deities and change allegiances when you acrew enough points (say 20) to have a secondary chart. In some pantheons this wouldn't even create serious conflict - my hindu friends have all sorts of statues in their house representing different deities and have lengthy prayers to multiple gods.
Alright, I do love this idea. If it was kept simple, it could definitely be an optional module in the core rules. If it was highly detailed, it would warrant its own book. I would choose the latter because I am of the mindset that if you are going to do something, do it right and be thorough.The way I could see this working is that while any character can choose any deity to worship, there are classes that are more attuned to specific deities. If the character follows the tenets of the deity, they move up the scale, and they receive divine favor and/or abilities. Those classes that align can move farther up the scale. All classes have their limits, however, except priests.Or if you wanted to get really detailed (my preference), there is a generic scale for all classes which do not align and a unique scale for each class that does align. This would allow the granted powers and abilities to be flavored for the class.Like I said, do it right and be thorough. Another thing that I like about this is that it could potentially allow for a very diverse party. We don't absolutely need a priest in the party if the barbarian is highly religious towards a deity which healing is granted as an ability. Sure, a priest would be a better solution across the board, but a party could handle a lot of situations without one.Taking it to another level, you could eliminate the priest class entirely, and each deity would have a class that is considered a priest of that class, should that character follow the tenets of the deity. In essence, a holy (or unholy) version of their class.I most certainly can see this mechanic work in other facets of the game: organizations, government affiliation, and just about any faction in general.
I like some of this. Perhaps instead of powers or class abilities higher concordance granted boons, and below a par level of concordance the character took on curses. All of their powers and class abilities remained untouched until they reached the "Ex-class" stage and then all benefits of the class are lost.What do people think of this?
Not sure if I like the idea of god swapping even within a pantheon such as the hindu. The idea of most of the classes when this would apply is that they are singularly devoted to a single being who grants them divine powers. I'm not entirely opposed though. Maybe someone could come up with some concrete examples of how this could work.
Then you could use the mechanic I described above to increase the number of Channel Divinity uses. Or even start the day with no Channel Divinity uses and require the player to perform certain tasks to gain them . War Cleric? Participate in a battle. Sun Cleric? Spend an hour in the Sun or Cast a Light Spell in the Darkness.
As long as the system remains simply a measure of one's association with the ousider factions it shouldn't turn into a problem.
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius