should gods have dogma's ?

should each god come with a set of rules and comandments.

some should be obvius a god of light like pelor mihgt  have a comandment like :
Though shalt slay the undead whenever you have the opertunity to do so.

but some would be more focused one every day life a god of the see might have the folowing comandment:
though shalt only eat the meat of the creatures that live in the sea or the birds that fly above it.

each god entry would come with at least 5 comandments
Sure.  D&D gods are all fluff anyway.  If we don't like the dogma, it's easy enough to ignore or change it.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Agreed.  Each deity should have tenants; basic premises that followers (try to) observe and adhere to.  I don't know if they should venture into heroic descriptions, unless those tenants are used solely for clerics and paladins (et al), such as slaying undead, as not every follower would be capable of slaying undead.  "Those that walk the earth after their last breath has been taken shall be considered the unholy, and are no longer my children.  Do unto them what is in your power, but never call them kindred."

Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

Yes... I would like to use them for the deities voices (divine casters).

However, I would let the common man/adventurer be more pragmatic. They would pray when it fits them, i.e. to the deity of war before a battle, or to the deity of luck before entering a dungeon. Most would be polyteistic and would not be able to live up the high ideals of the dogmas. 

Since they do not follow the dogma, they do not enjoy the constant blessings of their deity, and is subject to the good will of the deity at the moment. I.e... a long devoted cleric of the Sea Godess could beg her for a change in the wind, and she would listen and turn the winds according to the spell... A normal sailor could pray to the Sea Godess as well... but he would have little guarantee for a safe voyage beyond the DMs/Sea Godess whim.


The Character Initiative


Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations.
Every time the system is limited we lose options.
Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game.
As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table.
Dare to say no to abusers.
Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.




I think their should be Paladin Codes for use with paladins instead of lawful alignment restrictions. I was actually against this at one point, but I prefer it to alignment restrictions. It should give good codes to use that are just restrictive enough to challenge players and are easy enough to remove or modify as needed.

I think this should be an optional module, not a forced one.

As far as for dogmas for everyone ... just make it fluff, but yeah, it should be there.
Sure. Something along the lines of 2E's Legends & Lore would be sweet. Give us a book with a hundred gods, their avatars, and specialty priests. I'd buy that.
Sure. Something along the lines of 2E's Legends & Lore would be sweet. Give us a book with a hundred gods, their avatars, and specialty priests. I'd buy that.

Yeah, my personal favorite was Forgotten Realms Faiths and Pantheons.  Loved that book.  I derived so much campaign material out of it, even though I never used it in the FR world.

Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

Sure. Something along the lines of 2E's Legends & Lore would be sweet. Give us a book with a hundred gods, their avatars, and specialty priests. I'd buy that.


I remember the AD&D 2e Legends & Lore book.  Of course, that's also because that was the first place I ever saw boobies (thank you Bast ).  Seriously though, I thought it was a very good book.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

all reactions seem positive so far so lets have a bit of fun.
so what could be comentments set by the difrent gods?

a necromantic god
you shall not destroy un controled undead, they are a recource in this world for the ones powerfull enough to controll them.

 
all reactions seem positive so far so lets have a bit of fun.
so what could be comentments set by the difrent gods?

a necromantic god
you shall not destroy un controled undead, they are a recource in this world for the ones powerfull enough to controll them.


It really depends on the deity and their take on things.  You brought up a necromantic deity.  Let's explore a few angles.

Necromantic Deity #1
"I am a god of life, not death.  Believe in me, and follow my ways, and I will raise you up from the grave to everlasting life."

Necromantic Deity #2
"Do not fear death.  For life is suffering, fear, and misery.  Death will free you from your mortal frailties."

Necromantic Deity #3
"The living owe a debt to those who have fallen before them.  Treat the dead always with respect, and do not abuse them as servants."

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Vecna

Thou shalt not issue knowledge to any that does not pay with knowledge.
The meek shall be herded and spent.

Rogue/Assassin God

A brave and glorious front shall evail naught but a blade in the back. 

Nature God 

Thou shalt not seek reigns to the cycle of living things. 
Necromantic Deity #4
"That brief moment of time between life and death is my domain.  They thought this a safe place for me.  They could not foresee that I would find a method to extend this sliver of time to an eternity."

Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

For I am the ruler of all that lies between. I am neither here nor there. I do not exist though I always have. Every dying autumn leaf bares my seal and every tender green seed. I will always walk through the mists of nothingness although I never will again. The sun dies each dusk at my behest as does the moon. Soon you will come to see me in an exact light though you could not comprehend. I am eternity.
Sure. Something along the lines of 2E's Legends & Lore would be sweet. Give us a book with a hundred gods, their avatars, and specialty priests. I'd buy that.



Me too.  I loved Legends and Lore, and also the 3e Deity books that listed Gods, Dogmas, Avatars and prestige classes.
When it comes to religions, I have always contended DOGMA > alignment.

A simple list for the faithful of actions that are Required, Encouraged, Discouraged, and Forbidden goes much farther than alignment. Especially when trying to reconcile why a Chaotic Nuetral War God believes battle is a thing of rules and honour and that his followers must conduct themselves by a strict code of behaviour.

As for Divinities favouring necromancy, I always had a warm fuzzy for Evening Glory, the Goddess of Eternal Love. Don't let death divide you from those you cherish. Throw off the oppressive and cruel yoke of nature so that you may spend all eternity basking in each other's affection. Love never dies.

Another God might see that chance and circumstance are not fair, and that undeath is the just and propper answer to a person dying before their time, allowing them to finish what they were fated to, or avenge themselves. 
Such a divinity might require his followers to seek justice for the wrongfully slain, encourage them to raise those who were cut down before their time, discourage them from conflict with specific classes of undead (revenants , for example), and forbid them from allowing a crime to go unpunished. 
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
On the one hand, dogmas can be a fun thing upon which to hinge a character.  On the other hand, every cleric/paladin I've ever seen in practice did a fine enough job of furthering her god's ethos.  On the Athach's third hand, dogmas are not necessarily appropriate for all gods.

All in all, fine enough if they are included, but it will not bother me in the least if they are not.
What would be the dogma of a strength god like Kord? "Thou shalt eat healthy and stay fit for thy own sake?" 

How you break the dogma of a god of trickery?

It looks like some D&D gods have more dogmas than others. (Disclaimer I haven't read many of the fluff books)
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
Some real life gods (not making a religious statement, I'm just comparing to the varied religions humans have) have more dogma than others. I don't see a reason that they should all have a certain amount.

Heck I had a Cleric that followed the goddess of wine. Basically, drink, make sure others drink, but not so much to kill yourself because then you have to stop drinking.

I spent alot of gold at taverns buying everyone drinks.
What would be the dogma of a strength god like Kord? "Thou shalt eat healthy and stay fit for thy own sake?" 

How you break the dogma of a god of trickery?

It looks like some D&D gods have more dogmas than others. (Disclaimer I haven't read many of the fluff books)



From the 4e entry for Kord (easiest access through OC:

He gives few commands:
* Be strong, but do not use your strength for wanton destruction.
* Be brave and scorn cowardice in any form.
* Prove your might in battle to win glory and renown.

That sounds a bit like a dogma to me.
From the 4e entry for Kord (easiest access through OC:
He gives few commands:
* Be strong, but do not use your strength for wanton destruction.
* Be brave and scorn cowardice in any form.
* Prove your might in battle to win glory and renown.
That sounds a bit like a dogma to me.


I agree. Thank you for the reference.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
I think they should have dogma, that they can replace alignment, and there are ways to use it to make divine classes more flavorful. Rather then reposting (I wrote it out as best I could elsewhere) you can click the link in my sig to see the thread. 
1 square =1 yard = 1 meter. "Fits all playstyles" the obvious choice Orzel is the mayor of Ranger-town. Favored enemies for Rangers
58033128 wrote:
Seems like community isn't going to give up calling mapless "Theatre of the Mind".  In the interest of equal pretentiousness, I'd like to start a motion to refer to map combat as "Tableau Vivant".  


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Dogmas are cool, but they should not be considered required, since not all gods have them (for example, the gods in the Sovreign Host of Eberron operate in the assumption that as long as you remember to pray every now and then, you are good to go).

For the same reason, dogmas should not have an impact on the mechanics. It's never fun when a DM lay his arbitrary divine vengeance on a cleric by stripping him of all his powers  in the middle of a fight because he did attack the necromancer BEFORE his undead minions (yes, it happened).
For the same reason, dogmas should not have an impact on the mechanics. It's never fun when a DM lay his arbitrary divine vengeance on a cleric by stripping him of all his powers  in the middle of a fight because he did attack the necromancer BEFORE his undead minions (yes, it happened).

That's a DM issue, not a rules issue.

Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

For the same reason, dogmas should not have an impact on the mechanics. It's never fun when a DM lay his arbitrary divine vengeance on a cleric by stripping him of all his powers  in the middle of a fight because he did attack the necromancer BEFORE his undead minions (yes, it happened).

That's a DM issue, not a rules issue.



It's for the most part a rule issue. The poor guy read what the rules said and acted accordingly to how he did understand them (it did not help that the rules for stripping powers were/are written horribly).

As a general rule, I prefer to think that the rules are at a fault because they are flawed and/or badly written before I'm starting to accuse real people of being cretins.
For the same reason, dogmas should not have an impact on the mechanics. It's never fun when a DM lay his arbitrary divine vengeance on a cleric by stripping him of all his powers  in the middle of a fight because he did attack the necromancer BEFORE his undead minions (yes, it happened).

That's a DM issue, not a rules issue.



It's for the most part a rule issue. The poor guy read what the rules said and acted accordingly to how he did understand them (it did not help that the rules for stripping powers were/are written horribly).

As a general rule, I prefer to think that the rules are at a fault because they are flawed and/or badly written before I'm starting to accuse real people of being cretins.

Oh, okay, then your definition of arbitrary is different than mine (and most other people).

Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

Oh, okay, then your definition of arbitrary is different than mine (and most other people).



Maybe arbitrary was not the perfect choice fo word... I intended arbitrary not in the negative sense of "Maliciously chosing the worst possible outcome for others", but rather as "Having to make a judgement call that may or may not be considered acceptable by the others, but the rules leave you with no other choice".

Maybe he war really a bad person (they exist!), but more often than not I see well-intentioned but misguided DMs rather than actively horrible DMs.
Oh, okay, then your definition of arbitrary is different than mine (and most other people).



Maybe arbitrary was not the perfect choice fo word... I intended arbitrary not in the negative sense of "Maliciously chosing the worst possible outcome for others", but rather as "Having to make a judgement call that may or may not be considered acceptable by the others, but the rules leave you with no other choice".



The DM always has a choice.  Misunderstandings of the rules happen to all of the rules.  If the DM doesn't understand a rule, it's generally not the fault of the rule, but of the DM.  Dogmas are exceptionally easy to understand.  If your DM messed up a dogma, then I'm inclined to think that the fault was with him.  Alignments on the other hand are very easy to misunderstand and pretty much everyone alive understands and misunderstands them at the same time.  So if he messed up an alignment call, then I would blame the rules.


Some real life gods (not making a religious statement, I'm just comparing to the varied religions humans have) have more dogma than others. I don't see a reason that they should all have a certain amount.


It's not about them all having a certain amount.  Some will have more than others.  It's just about coming up with a bare minimum, so the fluff writers know the minimum they have to do for each deity.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

For the same reason, dogmas should not have an impact on the mechanics. It's never fun when a DM lay his arbitrary divine vengeance on a cleric by stripping him of all his powers  in the middle of a fight because he did attack the necromancer BEFORE his undead minions (yes, it happened).

That's a DM issue, not a rules issue.



You're absolutely sure of that?

I'm not. The way it worked in previous editions the gods ideals and the dogmas as a concept were a few lines of broad generalizations. If one of those for the cleric said "destroy all undead" well then the DM has some room.

However the specifics don't really matter most likely yes it was a DM problem, but not simply a problem DM. There's a big difference.

Which is actually why I'd be in favor of dogmas. DETAILED dogmas. Not the paltry exploitable few line blurbs from previous editions which give no actual information on what any thing means.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

For the same reason, dogmas should not have an impact on the mechanics. It's never fun when a DM lay his arbitrary divine vengeance on a cleric by stripping him of all his powers  in the middle of a fight because he did attack the necromancer BEFORE his undead minions (yes, it happened).

That's a DM issue, not a rules issue.



You're absolutely sure of that?

Yes.  He said it right there.  ^

He has since retracted the words used.  I'm still not convinced it wasn't entirely the DM, though.  The dogmas were pretty clear in the past, even if they were broad generalizations.  The example above is rather specific.  I would need to see the dogma before I changed my stance.

Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Default module =/= Core mechanic.

What would be the dogma of a strength god like Kord? "Thou shalt eat healthy and stay fit for thy own sake?" 

How you break the dogma of a god of trickery?

It looks like some D&D gods have more dogmas than others. (Disclaimer I haven't read many of the fluff books)



Fight someone openly and fairly.
Speak the truth. 
I think they need defined holidays
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I think they need defined holidays



Thats awesome, I can never tell whether you're being serious or not.
Should gods have dogma?

Yes, a resounding yes.

Tie it into a module for direct mechanical benefit, to replace or supliment alignment.

In 4e sentient magic items had a special concordance rule. If you obeyed the 'dogma' of an item you moved up in concordance score and gained a greater mechanical benefit, went against 'dogma' your concordance dropped and so your benefit gained from owning the item was lessened.


A similar (optional) rule for 5e would work well:




Corellon, Neutral Good Elven God of Magic


Concordance (resets to 0 at the end of every level):





  • You are of Neutral Alignment: +1 when you level up

  • You are of Good Alignment: +1 when you level up

  • >>> (if you are Neutral Good you gain +3)

  • You are of Evil Alignment: -2 when you level up

  • >>> (if you are Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil you lose -4)

  • You are an Elf but not a High Elf: +1 when you level up

  • You are a High Elf (Eladrin): +2 when you level up

  • You cast an arcane ritual: +1 per occourance

  • You learn an arcane spell: +2 per occourance

  • You use brawn over brains to solve a problem: -1d4 per occourance

  • You needlessly harm an elf: -1 per occourance

  • You contribute your level x 10 in gold pieces to your local temple: +1d8 per occourance

  • You actively worship a god that is not Corellon: -1d4 per occourance

  • You actively worship Corellon: +1d4 per occourance


Benefits:


-12 or less, must worship Corellon:


At the start of each day roll a D6, on a roll of 5 or 6 you have a penalty of -2 to all rolls involving divine or arcane magic, on a roll of 3 or 4 you suffer nightmares sent by Corellon and can memorise one less daily spell than usual, on a roll of 1 or 2 you gain +1 to any roll that is part of an attempt to redeem yourself in the eyes of Corellon.

+4 or more, must worship Corellon



Gain +2 to ritual casting or spell identification rolls, a 1 point bonus to damage resistance against spells, and are in the favour of the local temple of Corellon if any such exists and they will give you reasonable minor aid if needed.

+8 or more, must worship Corellon



As per +4 but with the additional benefits: you gain +2 to any rolls to heal a fellow Corellon worshiper, and gain an extra use of a memorized daily arcane spell each day. The local temple will tend any wounds your party has between adventures.

+12 or more, must worship Corellon and be above 10th level


As per +8 but with additional benefits: once per level if you die the local temple of Corellon will make reasonable efforts to resurect you and may decide not to demand recompence. Your whole party gains +2 damage against foes that use dispel magic or who are immune to magic.

+24 or more, must worship Corellon



As per +12 and the local temple will gladly give your party any simple supplies or aid that they need even if party members do not worship Corellon

+30 or more, need not worship Corellon


As per +12 (or +24 if you worship Corellon), and you receive dreams sent by Corellon to guide you.
Should gods have dogma?

Yes, a resounding yes.

Tie it into a module for direct mechanical benefit, to replace or supliment alignment.

In 4e sentient magic items had a special concordance rule. If you obeyed the 'dogma' of an item you moved up in concordance score and gained a greater mechanical benefit, went against 'dogma' your concordance dropped and so your benefit gained from owning the item was lessened.


A similar (optional) rule for 5e would work well:




Corellon, Neutral Good Elven God of Magic


Concordance (resets to 0 at the end of every level):





  • You are of Neutral Alignment: +1 when you level up

  • You are of Good Alignment: +1 when you level up

  • >>> (if you are Neutral Good you gain +3)

  • You are of Evil Alignment: -2 when you level up

  • >>> (if you are Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil you lose -4)

  • You are an Elf but not a High Elf: +1 when you level up

  • You are a High Elf (Eladrin): +2 when you level up

  • You cast an arcane ritual: +1 per occourance

  • You learn an arcane spell: +2 per occourance

  • You use brawn over brains to solve a problem: -1d4 per occourance

  • You needlessly harm an elf: -1 per occourance

  • You contribute your level x 10 in gold pieces to your local temple: +1d8 per occourance

  • You actively worship a god that is not Corellon: -1d4 per occourance

  • You actively worship Corellon: +1d4 per occourance


Benefits:


-12 or less, must worship Corellon:


At the start of each day roll a D6, on a roll of 5 or 6 you have a penalty of -2 to all rolls involving divine or arcane magic, on a roll of 3 or 4 you suffer nightmares sent by Corellon and can memorise one less daily spell than usual, on a roll of 1 or 2 you gain +1 to any roll that is part of an attempt to redeem yourself in the eyes of Corellon.

+4 or more, must worship Corellon



Gain +2 to ritual casting or spell identification rolls, a 1 point bonus to damage resistance against spells, and are in the favour of the local temple of Corellon if any such exists and they will give you reasonable minor aid if needed.

+8 or more, must worship Corellon



As per +4 but with the additional benefits: you gain +2 to any rolls to heal a fellow Corellon worshiper, and gain an extra use of a memorized daily arcane spell each day. The local temple will tend any wounds your party has between adventures.

+12 or more, must worship Corellon and be above 10th level


As per +8 but with additional benefits: once per level if you die the local temple of Corellon will make reasonable efforts to resurect you and may decide not to demand recompence. Your whole party gains +2 damage against foes that use dispel magic or who are immune to magic.

+24 or more, must worship Corellon



As per +12 and the local temple will gladly give your party any simple supplies or aid that they need even if party members do not worship Corellon

+30 or more, need not worship Corellon


As per +12 (or +24 if you worship Corellon), and you receive dreams sent by Corellon to guide you.



That would be cool. It would eliminate the exploitation of jerk DM's and eliminate any confusion. It seems to me to solve the problems of mechanical alignment.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

For the same reason, dogmas should not have an impact on the mechanics. It's never fun when a DM lay his arbitrary divine vengeance on a cleric by stripping him of all his powers  in the middle of a fight because he did attack the necromancer BEFORE his undead minions (yes, it happened).

That's a DM issue, not a rules issue.



It's for the most part a rule issue. The poor guy read what the rules said and acted accordingly to how he did understand them (it did not help that the rules for stripping powers were/are written horribly).

As a general rule, I prefer to think that the rules are at a fault because they are flawed and/or badly written before I'm starting to accuse real people of being cretins.

I'd call that a DM issue as well.  Attacking the necromancer makes even more sense considering he's the guy that was raising undead in the first place.  I'm sure the DM wasn't being malicious, but if that's the way he reads rules he has no business running a game.

People who misunderstand rules like the stripping of powers or alignment restriction penalties are fairly common.  I'm not sure what can be done about them though.  Those mechanics need to be in the game.  Every edition that I've ever read explicitly states not to use them in that manner, but for some reason people want to use them at the drop of a hat anyway.  The only way around problems like that are to make sure those people are never the ones running the game.
The problem with having alignment based stripping rules is that alignment is not universally agreed upon. Good and Evil may not be subjective, or they might, I'm not saying either way, however, human interpretation of good and evil are subjective. One person's righteous martyrdom is another person's cowardly mass murder. One person's act of compassion is another person's encouragement of evil. One person's execution is another person's murder.
So long as there are hard objective mechanics tied to a subjective alignment system, there will be misunderstanding and percieved missuse. If one is lucky it will stop there rather than becoming a full on fight over "Good and Evil" that derails the whole game.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Should gods have dogma?
Yes, a resounding yes. Tie it into a module for direct mechanical benefit, to replace or supliment alignment.

In 4e sentient magic items had a special concordance rule. If you obeyed the 'dogma' of an item you moved up in concordance score and gained a greater mechanical benefit, went against 'dogma' your concordance dropped and so your benefit gained from owning the item was lessened.

A similar (optional) rule for 5e would work well:


Corellon, Neutral Good Elven God of Magic

Concordance (resets to 0 at the end of every level):



  • You are of Neutral Alignment: +1 when you level up

  • You are of Good Alignment: +1 when you level up

  • >>> (if you are Neutral Good you gain +3)

  • You are of Evil Alignment: -2 when you level up

  • >>> (if you are Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil you lose -4)

  • You are an Elf but not a High Elf: +1 when you level up

  • You are a High Elf (Eladrin): +2 when you level up

  • You cast an arcane ritual: +1 per occourance

  • You learn an arcane spell: +2 per occourance

  • You use brawn over brains to solve a problem: -1d4 per occourance

  • You needlessly harm an elf: -1 per occourance

  • You contribute your level x 10 in gold pieces to your local temple: +1d8 per occourance

  • You actively worship a god that is not Corellon: -1d4 per occourance

  • You actively worship Corellon: +1d4 per occourance


Benefits:


-12 or less, must worship Corellon:


At the start of each day roll a D6, on a roll of 5 or 6 you have a penalty of -2 to all rolls involving divine or arcane magic, on a roll of 3 or 4 you suffer nightmares sent by Corellon and can memorise one less daily spell than usual, on a roll of 1 or 2 you gain +1 to any roll that is part of an attempt to redeem yourself in the eyes of Corellon.

+4 or more, must worship Corellon



Gain +2 to ritual casting or spell identification rolls, a 1 point bonus to damage resistance against spells, and are in the favour of the local temple of Corellon if any such exists and they will give you reasonable minor aid if needed.

+8 or more, must worship Corellon



As per +4 but with the additional benefits: you gain +2 to any rolls to heal a fellow Corellon worshiper, and gain an extra use of a memorized daily arcane spell each day. The local temple will tend any wounds your party has between adventures.

+12 or more, must worship Corellon and be above 10th level


As per +8 but with additional benefits: once per level if you die the local temple of Corellon will make reasonable efforts to resurect you and may decide not to demand recompence. Your whole party gains +2 damage against foes that use dispel magic or who are immune to magic.

+24 or more, must worship Corellon


As per +12 and the local temple will gladly give your party any simple supplies or aid that they need even if party members do not worship Corellon

+30 or more, need not worship Corellon


As per +12 (or +24 if you worship Corellon), and you receive dreams sent by Corellon to guide you.



Very cool. I would enjoy something along these lines for Divine classes. Thank you for the well thought out contribution. I will add this to my sig.
1 square =1 yard = 1 meter. "Fits all playstyles" the obvious choice Orzel is the mayor of Ranger-town. Favored enemies for Rangers
58033128 wrote:
Seems like community isn't going to give up calling mapless "Theatre of the Mind".  In the interest of equal pretentiousness, I'd like to start a motion to refer to map combat as "Tableau Vivant".  


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

I think they need defined holidays



Thats awesome, I can never tell whether you're being serious or not.



RuneQuest had Calendars and religious holidays tied in to them, we are talking about world flavor, D&D was fairly generic in its origins but has well gone beyond that so for religions I think they should go for it. I do use sarcasm a bit much, a touch of restraint might not hurt 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

The problem with having alignment based stripping rules is that alignment is not universally agreed upon. Good and Evil may not be subjective, or they might, I'm not saying either way, however, human interpretation of good and evil are subjective. One person's righteous martyrdom is another person's cowardly mass murder. One person's act of compassion is another person's encouragement of evil. One person's execution is another person's murder.
So long as there are hard objective mechanics tied to a subjective alignment system, there will be misunderstanding and percieved missuse. If one is lucky it will stop there rather than becoming a full on fight over "Good and Evil" that derails the whole game.



This. I don't really care who was right at the time, though I assume that nobody really wanted to ruin the game of the others, they just did what they thinked the rules wanted them to do. As it happens, the rules were not really that good.

How to solve the problem? Just cut the whole "stripping powers" thing. If the DM wants to "punish" a character, he has to do that in-game with an npc or similar. This is infinitely more interesting an creates real ethical dilemmas than simply waiting for an holy thunder that punish who isn't in the right.