Gods, Clerics, and Faking it. A request for Source

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
I've had someone ask me recently if, and where, there is a rule that dictates a character cannot 'lie' about their faith, except in certain circumstances. I hadn't actually heard about this rule before, but the person who asked me said they know it exists, they just can't find it or the source it came from.

The reason I'm looking for this rule and its source is this DM has a PC who is a cleric of Gargauth, but is pretending instead to be a cleric of Siamorphe. They tried telling them they couldn't do this, but the player has demanded a reference to show why. I had a look in the 2002 Faiths and Pantheons book, but couldn't find anything there that said such...


I suppose the real questions to answer, is can a cleric lie about their faith and not have their real god say "No, you can't have powers", with exceptions of dirty rotten liar gods like Cyric?
I've had someone ask me recently if, and where, there is a rule that dictates a character cannot 'lie' about their faith, except in certain circumstances. I hadn't actually heard about this rule before, but the person who asked me said they know it exists, they just can't find it or the source it came from.

The reason I'm looking for this rule and its source is this DM has a PC who is a cleric of Gargauth, but is pretending instead to be a cleric of Siamorphe. They tried telling them they couldn't do this, but the player has demanded a reference to show why. I had a look in the 2002 Faiths and Pantheons book, but couldn't find anything there that said such...


I suppose the real questions to answer, is can a cleric lie about their faith and not have their real god say "No, you can't have powers", with exceptions of dirty rotten liar gods like Cyric?

I'm not aware of any rule saying a cleric can't pass himself off as a cleric of another deity.

Gargauth seems like the sort who would love to infiltrate other churches to undermine them, so it would make sense that he would instruct an agent of his to pose as a cleric of a less terror-inspiring deity to avoid notice. Besides, a DM can reject any rule he doesn't like (whether he should or not is a different story), so if your DM says it is fine, then it is fine.

My Sig
Reality is but the sum total of all illusions. Proud Hand of Karsus, now and forever Mess with one Hand, mess with 'em all I am Blue/Green
I am Blue/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
"just do what LM the lord of magical might does, and you'll be fine" - sfdragon, 10/12/09
Board Snippets
147048523 wrote:
"I don't like X, they should remove it." "I like X, they should keep it." "They should replace X with Y." "Anybody that likes X is dumb. Y is better." "Why don't they include both X and Y." "Yeah, everybody can be happy then!" "But I don't like X, they should remove it." "X really needs to be replaced with Y." "But they can include both X and Y." "But I don't like X, they need to remove it." "Remove X, I don't like it." Repeat. Obstinance?
56790678 wrote:
Until you've had an in-law tell you your choice of game was stupid, and just Warcraft on paper, and dumbed down for dumber players who can't handle a real RPG, you haven't lived. You haven't lived.
56902498 wrote:
Lady and gentlemen.... I present to you the Edition War without Contrition, the War of the Web, the Mighty Match-up! We're using standard edition war rules. No posts of substance. Do not read the other person's posts with comprehension. Make frequent comparison to video games, MMOs, and CCGs. Use the words "fallacy" and "straw man", incorrectly and often. Passive aggressiveness gets you extra points and asking misleading and inflammatory questions is mandatory. If you're getting tired, just declare victory and leave the thread. Wait for the buzzer... and.... One, two, three, four, I declare Edition War Five, six, seven eight, I use the web to Go!
57062508 wrote:
D&D should not return to the days of blindfolding the DM and players. No tips on encounter power? No mention of expected party roles? No true meaning of level due to different level charts or tiered classes? Please, let's not sacrifice clear, helpful rules guidelines in favour of catering to the delicate sensibilities of the few who have problems with the ascetics of anything other than what they are familiar with.
56760448 wrote:
Just a quick note on the MMORPG as an insult comparison... MMORPGs, raking in money by the dumptruck full. Many options, tons of fans across many audiences, massive resources allocated to development. TTRPGs, dying product. Squeaking out an existence that relys on low cost. Fans fit primarily into a few small demographics. R&D budgets small, often rushed to market and patched after deployment. You're not really making much of an argument when you compare something to a MMORPG and assume people think that means bad. Lets face it, they make the money, have the audience and the budget. We here on this board are fans of TTRPGs but lets not try to pretend none of us play MMORPGs.
90571711 wrote:
Adding options at the system level is good. Adding options at the table level is hard. Removing options at the system level is bad. Removing options at the table level is easy. This is not complicated.
57333888 wrote:
112760109 wrote:
56902838 wrote:
Something like Tactical Shift is more magical than martial healing.
Telling someone to move over a few feet is magical now? :| I weep for this generation.
Given the laziness and morbid obsesity amongst D&Ders, being able to convince someone to get on their feet, do some heavy exercise, and use their words to make them be healthier must seem magical.
158710691 wrote:
D&D definitely improves mental health; Just as long as you stay away from these forums ;)
It would be an evil act, but still possible--and good deities might punish their priests for doing so.
I seem to recall reading something in feat descriptions from either Players Guide to Faerun or Waterdeep: City of Splendors, both from 3e, that said something that could be taken that way, but from what hazy recollections of it I have that was in reference to good-aligned faiths.  It wouldn't surprise me if it was a 2e source though, there were a lot of stupid little rules like that tossed hither and dither in those days, but I never had a problem ignoring a lot of rules from 2e.

"Be careful to choose your enemies well.  Friends don't much matter.  But the choice of enemies is very important."  

- Oscar Wilde

There was the rule, I think it was in 2e, that anytime you said a deitys name that deity would hear you, thus becoming aware that youre pulling a sham, some gods might get angry about it, other gods may try to hold you to it.
I survived Section 4 and all I got was this lousy sig Off-topic and going downhill from there
Sune fakes it all the time.

*reads original post*

Oh, wait, nevermind.     
  
I survived Section 4 and all I got was this lousy sig Off-topic and going downhill from there
Sign In to post comments