Mysticism

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I was paging through Complete Divine, and I came across the Mysticism domain. It didn't list any pre-fab deities that had the domain, but it did include a note that says, "Neutral, Lawful Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral deities would never have this domain." And that seemed like an odd thing to note. I rather wonder why morally neutral deities would avoid this particular domain.

So, I look over the domain granted power and spells granted by the domain. And you know what? Everything about the domain is geared towards crusader-type priests. So I think to myself, "Okay, I can see how Neutral deities aren't typically interested in crusading. But there's certainly a fantasy tradition of epic crusades of Law versus Chaos. Why wouldn't Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral deities be interested, huh?"

But then I realized that was all just a distraction.

See, I cannot at all figure out what "Mysticism" has to do with big ol' Moral Crusades to begin with.

My Oxford American Dictionary has the following listing:

mys•ti•cism
noun
1 belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2 belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, esp. when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.
Now, it seems to me that both these definitions imply a certain amount of detachment. And Moral Crusaders rarely act with detachment. Furthermore, being detached is usually a personality trait associated with characters that have a Neutral component to alignment.

So in what way does the Mysticism domain make sense as being associated with actual mysticism?

[The_Snark]

That, I can't tell you, but the reason it's limited to Good or Evil deities is because it includes the Visage of the Deity spells, which require you to choose between celestial and fiendish traits... and there's no neutral equivalent for those. That's it; there isn't a flavor reason, simply mechanical.

The name doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except that the Visage spells do correspond well with "union with or absorbtion into the Deity".

The rest of the spells strike me as filler material; I would definitely re-select some more appropriate ones, more geared towards becoming like your deity than smiting people.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That, I can't tell you, but the reason it's limited to Good or Evil deities is because it includes the Visage of the Deity spells, which require you to choose between celestial and fiendish traits... and there's no neutral equivalent for those. That's it; there isn't a flavor reason, simply mechanical.
But then, Good and Evil spells don't oppose Neutrality. A Neutral cleric of a Neutral deity can freely cast Good or Evil spells as he or she sees fit. Nothing really wrong there, mechanically. Only thing is that as a domain spell, it can't be locked into one particular configuration when cast by Neutrals.

Of course, Neutral deities don't really work celestials or fiends so much as Neutral outsiders. So why isn't there a setup to help Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral deities as much as Good and Evil? Why can't they take part in being "absorbed" by the deity?

Good catch on the absorption angle, though. I guess it has that in common with actual mysticism, then. :smallsigh:

[Tor the Fallen]

Just rename it the "Crusade domain" or something if it's too bothersome.

[Roderick_BR]

I imagine the only reason is that in D&D, deities are inspired on our RL legends. In old mythic legend, you don't see many "neutral" deities. They always pend to some side. Remember that in D&D, alignment is not only subjective moral, it's a tangible force that dictate many powers.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Just rename it the "Crusade domain" or something if it's too bothersome.
Well, that's a given. But I'm just curious if I missed something that caused the situation to arise as it did. Not so much, "There's a problem. What's the Solution?" as "There's a problem. Why is it that way?"

[The_Snark]

But then, Good and Evil spells don't oppose Neutrality. A Neutral cleric of a Neutral deity can freely cast Good or Evil spells as he or she sees fit. Nothing really wrong there, mechanically. Only thing is that as a domain spell, it can't be locked into one particular configuration when cast by Neutrals.

Of course, Neutral deities don't really work celestials or fiends so much as Neutral outsiders. So why isn't there a setup to help Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral deities as much as Good and Evil? Why can't they take part in being "absorbed" by the deity?

Because they don't have a ready-made template for that, I guess. Neutral deities are a diverse lot; Olidammara, Obad-hai, and Wee Jas would be unlikely to grant the same abilities, whereas most good/evil deities at least could be seen to grant the half-celestial/fiend abilities.


I imagine the only reason is that in D&D, deities are inspired on our RL legends. In old mythic legend, you don't see many "neutral" deities. They always pend to some side. Remember that in D&D, alignment is not only subjective moral, it's a tangible force that dictate many powers.

Really? I mean... looking at old Greek myths, many of those deities would be hard to pin down as solidly good or evil (the Deities and Demigods stats aside). There certainly wasn't an epic Good vs. Evil clash central to the myths. There are plenty of morally ambiguous god-figures in legends.

[Tor the Fallen]

Well, that's a given. But I'm just curious if I missed something that caused the situation to arise as it did. Not so much, "There's a problem. What's the Solution?" as "There's a problem. Why is it that way?"

Haven't got a clue. Maybe their fantasy thesaurus was lost?

[Tor the Fallen]

Really? I mean... looking at old Greek myths, many of those deities would be hard to pin down as solidly good or evil (the Deities and Demigods stats aside). There certainly wasn't an epic Good vs. Evil clash central to the myths. There are plenty of morally ambiguous god-figures in legends.

Yup.
It wasn't until rather late in ancient history that deities evolved to become inhuman and perfect. Wasn't until the Greeks, I think, followed by the Macedonians spreading their ideas everywhere. Used to be that the Gods were just higher level people.

[Fax Celestis]

Really? I mean... looking at old Greek myths, many of those deities would be hard to pin down as solidly good or evil (the Deities and Demigods stats aside). There certainly wasn't an epic Good vs. Evil clash central to the myths. There are plenty of morally ambiguous god-figures in legends.

That may be the case with the Greeks, but take a look at the Norse deities: very Good/Evil clash going on there. Same with the Egyptians.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Because they don't have a ready-made template for that, I guess.
But they should.

Neutrality always gets the shaft. :smallyuk:

[Fax Celestis]

But they should.

Neutrality always gets the shaft. :smallyuk:

Remember, when you say shaft, you have to say it in a high pitched voice and pose.

...oh, wait, not that Shaft.

[The_Snark]

That may be the case with the Greeks, but take a look at the Norse deities: very Good/Evil clash going on there. Same with the Egyptians.

Point. And D&D is based, in large part, off the Lord of the Rings, which drew inspiration from Norse mythology, which comes back to the original topic of why the game (and in particular the Mysticism domain) focuses on Good and Evil.

There are legends and mythologies detailing something other than Good and Evil, is what I was trying to point out, and they tend to get less stuff.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Point. And D&D is based, in large part, off the Lord of the Rings, which drew inspiration from Norse mythology, which comes back to the original topic of why the game (and in particular the Mysticism domain) focuses on Good and Evil.
A lot of the reading of done about 1e seems to indicate there was almost just as much going on with Law vs. Chaos as Good vs. Evil. Heck, look at the rod of seven parts. The Wind Dukes, champions of law, created it to fight the Queen of Chaos.

Now, however, Law vs. Chaos also loses out on a lot of the fun alignment stuff.

But Neutrality on either axis tends to lose out the most. While the reasons for that are understandable, as it's just a middle ground, Neutral characters just seem to get left behind.

[The_Snark]

Yes... Rilmani are the least interesting of the major outsider types. And I suppose there used to be more Law-Chaos, but remember that in the very early versions, Law tended to be Good and Chaos was often Evil. (The Queen of Chaos has been redone as a demon, incidentally.)

To give the designers credit in this instance, however, it's hard to think of a template that would apply equally well to all followers of Lawful Neutral deities. (St. Cuthbert and Wee Jas are fairly different... and those are just in the core setting).

[Fax Celestis]

Yes... Rilmani are the least interesting of the major outsider types. And I suppose there used to be more Law-Chaos, but remember that in the very early versions, Law tended to be Good and Chaos was often Evil. (The Queen of Chaos has been redone as a demon, incidentally.)

To give the designers credit in this instance, however, it's hard to think of a template that would apply equally well to all followers of Lawful Neutral deities. (St. Cuthbert and Wee Jas are fairly different... and those are just in the core setting).

To put it in perspective, I'd forgotten about Rilmani.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

To put it in perspective, I'd forgotten about Rilmani.
I don't think I've ever properly heard of Rilmani.

In any case, you should be able to find just as many Lawful Good gods that don't quite mesh with their respective philosophies. Or Chaotic Good. Or Chaotic Evil. Or Lawful Evil. They all have there intra-alignment differences. But they can find a number of Celestials or Fiends that will serve them just fine.

Anyway, just a thought as to alignments getting robbed: 3.5 managed to bring out different ethical groups of Celestials. You have your Archons (Lawful), Eladrins (Chaotic), and even your Guardinals (Neutral). The entire spectrum of Good is represented in Core.

But for Fiends? We're still restricted to Devils and Demons. There are no Core Yugoloths. I think the only book I ever managed to get that had any of these so-Evil-as-to-be-untainted-by-Law-or-Chaos outsiders is Book of Vile Darkness.

(Hm. Just pinged a reminder to myself that neither Eladrins nor Guardinals are in the SRD, though they are Core in the Monster Manual at least.)

Eh, I think I'm just venting because I'm writing up a Neutral cleric and noting a lack of goodies.

[Nota Biene]

Yeah, for us newer folks... what are Rilmani?

[The_Snark]

Eladrins and guardinals actually are in the SRD; they're just listed as separate monsters, rather than under "eladrin" or "guardinal".

There is a distinct lack of yugoloths. There are some in Fiend Folio (which also has the rilmani) and Book of Vile Darkness... both 3.0. And... there's one in Stormwrack. One 3.5 yugoloth.

And for that matter, Good also gets angels, which vary between the three Good alignments.

Edit- Rilmani are neutral outsiders who try to keep the four alignments balanced, believing that a sort of middle ground is best and using the elemental/energy planes as examples of what happens when one element (or philosophy) dominates. I've never liked them much.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Yeah, for us newer folks... what are Rilmani?
You know, Wikipedia is a surprisingly good resource for answering basic D&D questions. I just looked it up right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rilmani

Short answer: Outsiders devoted to Neutrality (on both axes).

EDIT: Huh. I recognize the picture that Wikipedia links to. It seems I have dealt with Rilmani on one other occasion.