A player of mine wants to justify godless clerics in FR with backstory

[gogogome]

So this is his first backstory.

There is a Shadow Portal that leads to alternate material planes. In front of this portal is a Devil disguised as a human. Since devils try to thwart divinity and create bloodshed at every turn this crafty genius attempts to reduce the number of deity worshipers not by recruiting them to an infernal cult but by teaching them how to generate divine magic on their own. Afterwards, when there is a decent number of godless clerics roaming Faerun a war will be waged against them by all the churches resulting in endless witch hunts and executions.

The player's character as a child is lured to the Shadow Portal by the Devil and the Devil teaches the child how to generate magic via belief in the alternate material plane and draw it through the portal. He does not let the child enter the portal for if he just leaves the Forgotten Realms there will be no bloodshed. Once the child became sufficiently skilled the Devil teaches him how to draw the divine magic through the plane of shadow so he may always cast divine spells as long as where he stood is connected to the plane of shadow.

His second backstory is that he worships AO. AO does not grant spells but the act of worshiping alone results in creation of divine magic.

His third backstory is identical to the first except instead of a Devil, the player character figures this out on his own through his own research.

His fourth backstory is that he is from the alternate material plane and as such he intuitively knows about the connection without any training or research.

His fifth backstory is that he has a unknown planar connection to the plane of shadow and therefore intuitively knows about the connection.

So... what are your thoughts? Are these backstories legitimate for the FR campaign setting? Or is it not? I honestly don't care about godless clerics but I don't want to betray the setting as written.

edit:Half the reason he wants to do this is because he doesn't want to worship anyone and the other half is because he wants the diabolic and lust domains which no deity offers and he doesn't want to worship evil.
I'm also interested in the background proposed by RoboEmperor at post#9.

[OgresAreCute]

If he wants to "generate his own divine energy", why doesn't he play a Favored Soul?

[Florian]

So... what are your thoughts?

Just say no to it and be done.

[Mordaedil]

Just pick a deity instead of inventing a time machine so you can have your mom and dad meet at the prom.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by gogogome
AO does not grant spells but the act of worshiping alone results in creation of divine magic.

Is this anywhere in FR lore, or is this an invention of your player?

Personally I don’t mind when players contribute something to the campaign setting, but this is a pretty major addition. I would worry about the trouble this could cause down the road, or that your player might try to cause later on with this as an established rule.


Originally Posted by gogogome
…I don't want to betray the setting as written.

If you feel strongly about keeping within the setting lore, then you should be consistent in that approach. Some of these backstories (or backsketches) are inventive, but relying on an “intuitive connection” or whatnot is just bending into a pretzel to avoid one very minor ramification of playing a specific class. As Ogres mentioned, there are other classes that might suit him better if he has real issues with this.

Also, I feel that backstory should illuminate a character’s history and personality, rather than serve as a trite justification for this or that build decision, but that’s more of a personal preference.

.

[jedipilot24]

Do you by chance have "Elder Evils"? If not, I recommend getting it. This is right up the alley of Sertrous, and there's even a specific section for adapting him to FR.

[Mehangel]

If I recall correctly, there is a FR sourcebook that states that clerics can gain spells from dead gods (clerics of bhaal) or false gods, but are limited to spells of 3rd level or lower. I would treat a cleric of 'no god' as a cleric of a false god.

[Kish]

By the letter of Forgotten Realms rules, this is something you specifically can't have there. Most other campaign settings, yes. There no.

Whether you want to uphold that rule and tell him "no, you want to be a divine caster*, you choose an actual patron god and you get power from that god, not from your worship," is up to you.

*This does include me contradicting other people who have posted in this thread; the Forgotten Realms is the one campaign setting that explicitly spells out that there anyone who casts divine spells, even a ranger, has to choose an appropriate patron god. It's not a design I like at all, but it is what it is.

[RoboEmperor]

Tell him to use my backstory.

"___ is a Godless cleric of a distant far away land and one day he/she found himself awake in Faerun."

Regardless of whether the character chooses to stay in Faerun, quests for a way home, or tries find out who was responsible for his current predicament


Even if an alternate Material Plane has its own pantheon of deities, divine spellcasters can still gain their spells provided that they have access to their native plane through spells or portals.

This Godless cleric has access to his divine spells and domain spells without worshipping a faerunian deity.

[ericgrau]

So this is his first backstory.
I'd be lenient and helpful then.


There is a Shadow Portal that leads to alternate material planes.
Oh screw that. It sounds like he read a trick from this thread to bypass the FR deity requirement:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?551262-How-many-ways-are-there-to-bypass-Forgotten-Realms-Deity-requirement-for-Clerics

Reading further it looks like he wants to drastically change the FR setting with a major player, devils, coming into conflict. That's fine if you want to do a lot of work yourself and not go 100% with modules. Otherwise I'd say "sorry, no". Backstory #4 could work, but it would generate massive backlash from all FR churches. Every cleric or church he met would give him funny looks and suspicion and minimum. "No, who's your deity for real? Who do you really serve? Why are you trying to hide who you serve?"

[RoboEmperor]

I'd be lenient and helpful then.


Oh screw that. It sounds like he read a trick from this thread to bypass the FR deity requirement:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?551262-How-many-ways-are-there-to-bypass-Forgotten-Realms-Deity-requirement-for-Clerics

Reading further it looks like he wants to drastically change the FR setting with a major player, devils, coming into conflict. That's fine if you want to do a lot of work yourself and not go 100% with modules. Otherwise I'd say "sorry, no". Backstory #4 could work, but it would generate massive backlash from all FR churches. Every cleric or church he met would give him funny looks and suspicion and minimum. "No, who's your deity for real? Who do you really serve? Why are you trying to hide who you serve?"

Aw man, why do you have a link to that thread. I was absolutely terrible there. You're bringing up cringe inducing memories @_@

[bean illus]

If I recall correctly, there is a FR sourcebook that states that clerics can gain spells from dead gods (clerics of bhaal) or false gods, but are limited to spells of 3rd level or lower. I would treat a cleric of 'no god' as a cleric of a false god.

Yeah. I would go with this.
And the ideal also needs followers. The 'followers prayers = divine power' equation'.

[GrayDeath]

Simple Solution: He could play an Ur-Priest.. They get their Power from Gods, but dont worship them.

problem solved (if you dont start at level 1 that is^^).



Otherwise, its in the Setting. The Gods and the Wall of the Faithless are more or less THE central part of FR. Why play there, if you make it like any other Multiverse Setting in D&D?


I mean I am usually very willing to "Play" with what they players come up with, but not if it requires changing central points of the setting.
Are you and the other players fixated on palying in the FR? otherwise, doing this in Eberron, Greyhawk or almost anywhere else will work without ruining (TM) the central premises of these settings...

[the_david]

This is probably just the evil DM inside of me, but have you considered that what the player thinks is true might not be true at all. After all, he's making a deal with the devil.

If a player would come to me with a story like this I'd let them. And then I'd gloat, and plot, and eventually the player would find out that his character is actually a cleric of Gargauth, because that's what happens to players who make this kind of stuff up.

[CIDE]

Faerun has always been a sort of generic "no! bad fun!" setting for me and the issues with deities and the dead already covered here is one of the big reasons why. That said Ur Priests and Sertrous are a thing and there's adaptations to bring Sertrous into Faerun. The major story there is that Sertrous was spreading the word that gods are required for divine magic is an outright lie perpetrated by the gods. It still comes down to you as the DM to decide if you want to include this content in your setting or not. if you're not opposed to having a godless cleric but you're having problems with your player's backstory I'd second the inclusion of Sertrous or aspects of his mythos into the setting to help ease the transition.

Edit: In that Sertrous was the only elder evil that could "grant" divine spellcasting. A devil/demon could theoretically do the same using the same method. IIRC there were also articles in Dragon Magazine that included cults of archfiends getting divine spellcasting but I'm not sure if anything there was Faerun specific (also, it's 3rd party).

[jdizzlean]

nothing states unequivocally that a cleric MUST have a deity, in fact it clearly states in the PHB that you can choose no deity. As far as FR goes, it makes things more complicated as you're cut off from initiate feats, and deity specific spells, but otherwise you can choose any of his backgrounds to match this. I think it irrelevant beyond a RP reason as to a devil teaching him to access w/o a god's influence, you could shut that down when he tries to metagame it later and say he "discovers" the teacher to be a devil.

Granted of course, that in the FRCS, it specifically states a cleric MUST have a deity, meaning the player couldn't be godless at all, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

[Zaq]

You’re the GM. You’re the one choosing to set the game in FR. Why did you make that decision? If you really like the FR lore and you like the kind of ham-fisted (IMO) way it handles deities and religion, then you should ask your player to find another character hook that’s less antagonistic to the setting’s premise. (I don’t personally like FR’s “gotta have a deity” premise and I don’t think I’d ever want to enforce it as a GM, but if I wanted to play in a game that was already being set there, I’d find it easier to just scrawl a token patron on my sheet and never really mention it than to set up some cockamamie scheme circumventing it. If you don’t want your character to be defined by their deity, then don’t play them as being defined by their deity.)

Now, if you chose to set the game in FR because (for example) you like to have all the preexisting maps and towns and guilds and all that jazz already done for you (which is a 100% respectable choice) but you aren’t invested in the whole FR religion thing, then you can relax the “pick a deity OR ELSE” rule to make this backstory unnecessary, or you can just allow the backstory as-is, or whatever.

It’s pretty special snowflake, but PCs ARE special snowflakes by definition, and while we might roll our eyes at it now and again, it’s honestly not that bad a problem unless a player takes it to a disruptive extreme (which says more about the player than about the backstory). Most of us aren’t professional writers who can craft interesting and flawed and believable and consistent and compelling and timeless characters without spending a long time hacking through some very imperfect practice. (Not that fantastic characters usually come fully-formed into the brains of professional writers either, but I think you get my point.) Is it a plus to have a backstory that’s a bit less, um, over-the-top in that regard? Generally, yeah. Is it a requirement for fun at the table? Emphatically not. I mean, I firmly believe that you find out most of your character’s real beliefs and motivations and personality over the course of playing them, anyway.

So yeah. The player seems to be fairly obviously trying to work around an aspect of the setting that they don’t like. If you care about that aspect of the setting, this is likely to be disruptive, and it’s reasonable for you to request that the player go in a different direction. If you don’t care about that aspect of the setting, then you still might want to have a conversation about how to mesh individuality with group harmony, but it doesn’t have to be a big deal that he’s working around something that doesn’t matter to you.

[Eldonauran]

Honestly, I would go with his second background option and insert one of the trickster gods as the actual source of his divine power. This way, there is still "worship" going on and spells being granted, all the while supplying a good plot hook involving the other churches starting to question why the overdeity is granting spells. Ao CREATES deities, he doesn't involve himself with mortals unless... [insert possible ascension rumors and the struggles that ensue over competition for this false belief].

In the end, said trickery/chaos god gets a return on his investment and the character/player gets a rather interesting surprise/reality check.

[gogogome]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

He's doing this because he doesn't want to worship anyone and wants the diabolic and lust domains which no deity has and he doesn't want to worship an evil entity.

I run a no house rule or homebrew table. We are playing forgotten realms at the moment because we played in eberron and greyhawk last few campaigns. I am someone who doesn't deviate from the written lore/rules no matter what because once I start bending this and that it no longer becomes a d&d game.

trickster god giving spells is not an option because those gods don't give him the domains he wants.

Sertuous is not an option because he doesn't want to worship an evil entity, or worship any entity for that matter.

He wants to go cleric instead of wizard because he really likes the cleric exclusive spells more than the wizards.

If something is possible then I allow it even if it's out there, as long as it's possible and not rule bending. So far from the comments it seems background #4 is a valid background? I'm also interested in the validity of the background RoboEmperor suggested because I think that's a background my player would get behind, if it's valid.

[Nifft]

I run a no house rule or homebrew table. We are playing forgotten realms at the moment because we played in eberron and greyhawk last few campaigns. I am someone who doesn't deviate from the written lore/rules no matter what because once I start bending this and that it no longer becomes a d&d game. Side-topic but this seems like setting yourself up to crash at some point, given that the rules are self-contradictory in various places and dysfunctional in others. I'd suggest relaxing that stance if possible.


Sertuous is not an option because he doesn't want to worship an evil entity, or worship any entity for that matter. Sertuous grants spells in a way that's explicitly identical to worshiping an ideal, so you could just allow worshiping an ideal to work.

So there are characters who worship ideals, and they get spells from somewhere, but where in specific is unknown. Maybe a sympathetic god (or cabal of sympathetic divinities) provide divine power for non-evil godless clerics. Maybe they each send sales-pitch representatives to try gently closing the deal with these godless clerics. This could mean getting a sales pitch from every NPC cleric and half the [Good] Outsiders they meet.

Or maybe the source of divine power is a genuine mystery, and NPCs don't usually believe that the PC is actually "godless" -- they think the PC is just hiding his patron, for some weird and suspicious reason, because other godless clerics are rare and hide their lack of patron.

[Eldonauran]

"A" trickster god may not be ideal for his Domain choices, but two or more "gods" might be willing to work together in an ad-hoc pantheon to grant want is needed. Let him "worship" Ao and have a few entities of divine rank offer the divine magic he wants. Maybe have them make a wager of the "fools" soul and see who gets it after his death, instead of it ending up on the Wall.

You CAN make this work and you don't have to bend the rules to do it. In FR, divine magic comes from the divine beings, the character (or player) knowing from where is not necessary.

[Doctor Awkward]

edit:Half the reason he wants to do this is because he doesn't want to worship anyone and the other half is because he wants the diabolic and lust domains which no deity offers and he doesn't want to worship evil.
I'm also interested in the background proposed by RoboEmperor at post#9.

Part 1:
"I don't want to worship anyone but I want to be a divine caster."
Answer: Too bad. This is Forgotten Realms. Per the FRCS, pg 22, clerics all have a patron deity and do not draw divine energy from a cause or an ideal. This notion is baked into the setting with regards to patron deities. If you don't worship someone, you go on the Wall of the Faithless when you die. Divine spellcasting is intrinsically tied to worship of a specific deities, and you cannot draw that same energy from an ideal alone.

Part 2:
"But I want these two domains, and no deity offers both of them."
Answer: Ah, well there's a feat for that.
Power of Faerun, pg. 46, Heretic of the Faith.

Excerpt:
... If you are a cleric, your alignment may be 2 steps away from your respective deity's alignment instead of just one. (in other words you can violate your deity's alignment restrictions 1 extra step.) You can gain levels without atoning (see the atonement spell description). However, you are in no way exempt from excommunication, or immune to divine retribution from your deity or his servants. In fact your actions invite the highest levels of scrutiny. If you have access to domains, you can exchange any one domain you have with another domain outside those normally available to your faith. The new domain must be consistent with the tenets of your heresy (as adjudicated by the DM).

So you can pick a deity to worship that offers one of your two desired domains, and then that feat will allow you to exchange your other domain for any one of your choice, provided you have structured your character's backstory and particular heresy to allow for it.


In general, allowing a player to write a character backstory to justify breaking established game rules is a bad idea. A creative enough person can come up with anything to justify any mechanical effect they want. Often times this leads to a story that is a rambling mess of contrivances that exist solely to get the character into the place the player wants them to be for the purposes of the campaign.

You will always do your best work when placing yourself under uncomfortable restrictions. A heretic of the faith pulling an outside domain makes for a much more interesting and organic experience that will be easier to weave into a typical FR narrative than some bizarre otherworldly being using questionable methods to accomplish generic goals.

Alternatively, tell him to play an archivist.
They don't get domain powers, but they can get any divine spell they want in their prayerbooks and don't have to worship anyone.
He is simply in the same boat as all of the Faithless when he dies.

[gogogome]

Part 1:
"I don't want to worship anyone but I want to be a divine caster."
Answer: Too bad. This is Forgotten Realms. Per the FRCS, pg 22, clerics all have a patron deity and do not draw divine energy from a cause or an ideal. This notion is baked into the setting with regards to patron deities. If you don't worship someone, you go on the Wall of the Faithless when you die. Divine spellcasting is intrinsically tied to worship of a specific deities, and you cannot draw that same energy from an ideal alone.

Part 2:
"But I want these two domains, and no deity offers both of them."
Answer: Ah, well there's a feat for that.
Power of Faerun, pg. 46, Heretic of the Faith.

Excerpt:

So you can pick a deity to worship that offers one of your two desired domains, and then that feat will allow you to exchange your other domain for any one of your choice, provided you have structured your character's backstory and particular heresy to allow for it.


In general, allowing a player to write a character backstory to justify breaking established game rules is a bad idea. A creative enough person can come up with anything to justify any mechanical effect they want. Often times this leads to a story that is a rambling mess of contrivances that exist solely to get the character into the place the player wants them to be for the purposes of the campaign.

You will always do your best work when placing yourself under uncomfortable restrictions. A heretic of the faith pulling an outside domain makes for a much more interesting and organic experience that will be easier to weave into a typical FR narrative than some bizarre otherworldly being using questionable methods to accomplish generic goals.

Alternatively, tell him to play an archivist.
They don't get domain powers, but they can get any divine spell they want in their prayerbooks and don't have to worship anyone.
He is simply in the same boat as all of the Faithless when he dies.

This is why I post threads here for confirmation. If Heretic of the Faith does what I think it does, which I think lets people give lip service to their god and completely ignore everything related to the god and church as long as their beliefs are similar, so like as long as it brings good to the world a cleric of pelor might raise an army of undead, then i think the issue here is solved.

[Nifft]

This is why I post threads here for confirmation. If Heretic of the Faith does what I think it does, which I think lets people give lip service to their god and completely ignore everything related to the god and church as long as their beliefs are similar, so like as long as it brings good to the world a cleric of pelor might raise an army of undead, then i think the issue here is solved.

You're still vulnerable to excommunication, and you're under divine scrutiny, so you probably can't use FR-specific not-Pelor's power to raise an army of the undead.

The DM has final authority over the specific heresy in question, so you as DM are expected to work with your player to create something reasonable. Not just your player telling you "LOL UNDEAD FOR PELOR".

[gogogome]

You're still vulnerable to excommunication, and you're under divine scrutiny, so you probably can't use FR-specific not-Pelor's power to raise an army of the undead.

The DM has final authority over the specific heresy in question, so you as DM are expected to work with your player to create something reasonable. Not just your player telling you "LOL UNDEAD FOR PELOR".

Consequences will probably be inability to be raised on the account of your soul being on the wall of faithless, being hated by the church and churches, but I think that feat lets you do "LOL UNDEAD FOR PELOR" as long as you have a reason for it other than to piss pelor off.

Im gonna have to look into the wall of the faithless.

[Doctor Awkward]

This is why I post threads here for confirmation. If Heretic of the Faith does what I think it does, which I think lets people give lip service to their god and completely ignore everything related to the god and church as long as their beliefs are similar, so like as long as it brings good to the world a cleric of pelor might raise an army of undead, then i think the issue here is solved.

It's not quite that simple.

A heresy in regards to faith is essentially nothing more than an opinion that is at odds with the given orthodox religious doctrine. A heretic as is suggested with regards to that feat is very devout and possibly quite open in their beliefs. It's not a matter of subterfuge with regards to being in whatever church they belong to. They genuinely believe that their churches interpretation of its deity's religious tenents is wrong, and that their interpretation more accurately reflects how things should be.

Now clearly the deity (read DM) has the final say as to whether the character is actually correct in their beliefs, and you certainly are under no obligation to tell the player how the deity feels about them. It would probably be much more interesting, as the feat suggests, to see whether or not the player's roleplaying causes their heresy to be adopted by the deity itself, and therefore the church at large.

[Darth Ultron]

You can do the Third One.

You can get divine spellcasting from a fiend. This is covered in the FR book: Faiths and Pantheons.



Worshiping Fiends

Some powerful demons and devils have found ways to garner power from mortal worshipers in the same manner as deities. Although these beings are cruel, sadistic, and unreliable, some beings on Toril see them as a means to quick power. Fiend-worshiping cults are usually very small and localized, with few followers and a tendency to disintegrate in the face of opposition or when the fiend gets distracted by other things and stops granting spells. Still, some fiends establish a permanent foothold on Toril in this manner--Gargauth is a former archdevil that has become a deity, and the minotaur deity Baphomet is a demon. Two other known demons worshiped in Faerun are Orcus (responsible for much of the trouble in Damara years ago) and Pazrael.

In some ways, worshiping a fiend is similar to how some souls bargain with the baatezu in the afterlife. A mortal makes a pact with a demon or devil, promising worship and sacrifices in exchange for spells. The agreement usually entails condemning the worshiper's soul to the Abyss or the Nine Hells under control of the fiend in question. The pact generally stipulates that if the mortal fails to propitiate the fiend with frequent sacrifices, it may slay him and take his soul back to its outer planar home. While this seems like a bargain stacked in the favor of the outsider, the fiend usually makes few demands of the mortal other than the sacrifices, so the mortal doesn't have to worry about morals, restrictions on behavior, dogma, or improper use of the granted spells.

[RoboEmperor]

So you can pick a deity to worship that offers one of your two desired domains, and then that feat will allow you to exchange your other domain for any one of your choice, provided you have structured your character's backstory and particular heresy to allow for it.


In general, allowing a player to write a character backstory to justify breaking established game rules is a bad idea. A creative enough person can come up with anything to justify any mechanical effect they want. Often times this leads to a story that is a rambling mess of contrivances that exist solely to get the character into the place the player wants them to be for the purposes of the campaign.

You will always do your best work when placing yourself under uncomfortable restrictions. A heretic of the faith pulling an outside domain makes for a much more interesting and organic experience that will be easier to weave into a typical FR narrative than some bizarre otherworldly being using questionable methods to accomplish generic goals.

Alternatively, tell him to play an archivist.
They don't get domain powers, but they can get any divine spell they want in their prayerbooks and don't have to worship anyone.
He is simply in the same boat as all of the Faithless when he dies.

Wow, 3.5 has everything, even feats that... wow...

I wish you posted this information a year ago in my thread about circumventing FR's deity restriction. It would've saved me a LOT of grief, time, and effort. Like a LOT.

In any case I like to thank you for bringing this feat to my attention. This feat quashes all qualms I had about clerics. I like to use my build for literally all settings but FR destroyed my cleric, so I kept turning to wizard or sorcerer, but here it is, a feat that lets me use my build in FR at a cost of 1 feat tax. I can finally satisfy my OCD and be happy with clerics.

[Doctor Awkward]

Wow, 3.5 has everything, even feats that... wow...

I wish you posted this information a year ago in my thread about circumventing FR's deity restriction. It would've saved me a LOT of grief, time, and effort. Like a LOT.

In any case I like to thank you for bringing this feat to my attention. This feat quashes all qualms I had about clerics. I like to use my build for literally all settings but FR destroyed my cleric, so I kept turning to wizard or sorcerer, but here it is, a feat that lets me use my build in FR at a cost of 1 feat tax. I can finally satisfy my OCD and be happy with clerics.

My pleasure.

You should check out the sample heresies presented on the next page in Power of Faerun if you get a chance. Really fascinating stuff, especially if you have any interest in theology and dissecting scriptures.

I especially like the Three-Faced Sun, which teaches that the sun is a tripartite overdeity comprised of three essences that represent dawn, highsun, and dusk, and that like a spinning prism only two of the aspects are manifest in any given age. Thus many of the "dead" gods are simply different names for these aspects as they were known to man in the past.

[RoboEmperor]

My pleasure.

You should check out the sample heresies presented on the next page in Power of Faerun if you get a chance. Really fascinating stuff, especially if you have any interest in theology and dissecting scriptures.

I especially like the Three-Faced Sun, which teaches that the sun is a tripartite overdeity comprised of three essences that represent dawn, highsun, and dusk, and that like a spinning prism only two of the aspects are manifest in any given age. Thus many of the "dead" gods are simply different names for these aspects as they were known to man in the past.

Yeah I read all of that. It does open to abuse. Its like a feat that gives you your own custom deity with custom domain choices you can swap out with substitute domain as long as you can justify it fluff wise. Really powerful.

More interestingly, it shows that even in FR clerics can generate their own magic with their belief as long as you worship a deity. I mean, how else can the wrong heresies keep their divine spellcasting when their deity disagrees with them and therefore refuse to grant them spells? The answer is, their belief in the heresy generates divine magic like in normal d&d.

[Doctor Awkward]

Yeah I read all of that. It does open to abuse. Its like a feat that gives you your own custom deity with custom domain choices you can swap out with substitute domain as long as you can justify it fluff wise. Really powerful.

More interestingly, it shows that even in FR clerics can generate their own magic with their belief as long as you worship a deity. I mean, how else can the wrong heresies keep their divine spellcasting when their deity disagrees with them and therefore refuse to grant them spells? The answer is, their belief in the heresy generates divine magic like in normal d&d.

Depends on your interpretation of the deity's actions.

It's widely known that in Faerun the gods initially didn't care about mortals who worshiped them. Ao changed that by first forcing them to walk the earth, making them vulnerable to other mortals and entirely dependent on their own faithful to shield them from the attacks of other deities. And secondly by making them dependent on mortal worship for their very existence.

The implication with this feat is that deities, being entirely dependent on mortals for not just their power, but their very existence, may actually defer to mortal interpretations of their own dogma, and change their portfolios to match if they feel they might otherwise go the way of Amaunator.

So in the event of a heretic priest preaching an alternate interpretation of the faith, it's not implausible that the deity will wait to see if a) the heretic is charismatic enough to persuade the majority of the deity's faithful to his line of thinking, or b) the heretic fails to attract followers and is thus excommunicated and largely ignored by the majority of the faithful, rather than intervening directly and risking an even greater rift forming within in his own flock.

It's actually a very interesting interpretation of how real-life religions can subtly change their doctrines over time in order to better appeal to the masses that is still consistent with the established rules on worship the Forgotten Realms setting.

[Beckett]

Personally I would say go for it. When I DM, I like to have a few things like this left unexplained, even to me, and see what fits best after a bit of actual play. The #1 reason I have always heard for no godless Clerics was to avoid "Cherry Picking" Domains. Honestly, I think that is stupid beyond belief. No other class, especially the stronger ones have such a restriction.


If I recall correctly, there is a FR sourcebook that states that clerics can gain spells from dead gods (clerics of bhaal) or false , but are limited to spells of 3rd level or lower. I would treat a cleric of 'no god' as a cleric of a false god.

I believe it was Lost Empires of Faerun, and I don't believe the Feat restricted you, it just allowed you to get spells and Cleric Features when normally you can not. It was my default back in the day because I really hate requiring a patron deity for religious reasons, and FR snowflake lore doesn't really change that for me.


This is probably just the evil DM inside of me, but have you considered that what the player thinks is true might not be true at all. After all, he's making a deal with the devil.
That was a thought I had as well, though it doesn't have to be an evil being, (because you know that is what the player specifically requested). What if instead it is a form of test, to see just what happens if restrictions are lifted? Or what if the character is themselves Divine, and actually granting themselves (only) spells? There are a few possibilities, if you want.

[Beckett]

Depends on your interpretation of the deity's actions.

It's widely known that in Faerun the gods initially didn't care about mortals who worshiped them. Ao changed that by first forcing them to walk the earth, making them vulnerable to other mortals and entirely dependent on their own faithful to shield them from the attacks of other deities. And secondly by making them dependent on mortal worship for their very existence.

I don't recall this second part being true, only that they where forced to take personal interest in their faithful in the Time of Troubles. That being said, it's been a while and I've never really been an FR fan.

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't recall this second part being true, only that they where forced to take personal interest in their faithful in the Time of Troubles. That being said, it's been a while and I've never really been an FR fan.

Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, pg. 232, Deities:

"The deities of Toril take an active interest in their world, channeling power through their clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, and other worshipers and sometimes intervening directly in the affairs of mortals. At the same time, they plot, war, intrigue, and ally among themselves, between themselves and powerful mortals, and with extraplanar beings such as elemental rulers and demons. In this they resemble their mortal worshipers, for to an extent deities are defined and shaped by their worshipers, their areas of interest, and their nature-- for many deities are actually mortals who have gain the divine spark. Because they lose strength if their worship dwindles away and is forgotten, deities task their clerics and others to whom they grant divine spells with spreading their praise and doctrine, recruiting new worshipers, and keeping the fail alive. In exchange for this work and to facilitate it, deities grant divine spells."

[RoboEmperor]

So in the event of a heretic priest preaching an alternate interpretation of the faith, it's not implausible that the deity will wait to see if a) the heretic is charismatic enough to persuade the majority of the deity's faithful to his line of thinking, or b) the heretic fails to attract followers and is thus excommunicated and largely ignored by the majority of the faithful, rather than intervening directly and risking an even greater rift forming within in his own flock.

It's actually a very interesting interpretation of how real-life religions can subtly change their doctrines over time in order to better appeal to the masses that is still consistent with the established rules on worship the Forgotten Realms setting.

There was an official heresy of Waukeen worshippers that believed she traded out most of her divnity to Grazz't for her freedom, and the person giving them spells was actually Grazz't and not Waukeen, and they were ok with that, and they still had spells. Harlot's Coin or something. How would you justify Waukeen giving these clerics spells?

[Sleven]

You can play deity-less “ideal clerics in faerun, they just can’t be from faerun. More or less, the way it works is that your character receives spells from deities that align with their ideal. So asmodeus would grant the diabolical spells while sune would grant the lust spells. When you die your soul is wisked away to the plane that is closest to your ideal and alignment (and doesn’t go to the wall because you’re not from faerun). There are also places in faerun—like mulhorand—that, if you are from there, you are not subject to the wall.

[gkathellar]

If we’re remaining strictly faithful to FR’s lore, IIRC there is one out for divine spellcasters on the patron deity requirement: a god can, for their own reasons, grant spells to someone who is not one of their faithful. An atheist cleric need not know that their powers are being granted by Cyric.

[Doctor Awkward]

There was an official heresy of Waukeen worshippers that believed she traded out most of her divnity to Grazz't for her freedom, and the person giving them spells was actually Grazz't and not Waukeen, and they were ok with that, and they still had spells. Harlot's Coin or something. How would you justify Waukeen giving these clerics spells?

Assuming we are thinking of the same thing, the Harlot's Coin heresy is being spread by the League of the Six Rings, a secret cabal dedicated to Graz'zt that embedded itself in the upper echelons of the church of Waukeen during the 13 years she was imprisoned in the Abyss. So none of the members of the League are heretics themselves since they all worship Graz'zt.

According to Dragon #355, they believe that "Waukeen has been slowly selling fractions of her divinity (and her virtue) to Graz'zt to finance her church and that the Dark Prince imprisoned the Merchant's Friend during the Time of Troubles for failing to pay her debt. They also believe that Waukeen only won her freedom from Graz'zt's Triple Realm by paying her debt in full, tipping the scales so that the Dark Prince now holds the majority of her divine mantle."

So unlike the League members, these heretics still venerate Waukeen, they just believe the lie that she is actually much weaker than orthodoxy indicates.


How would I justify that in a hypothetical game I was running? It would depend on the players and the tone of the campaign I was going for.

Ever since Waukeen made her full return to divinity Graz'zt has the chief enemy of her faith, so heretics of the Harlot's Coin would likely be much more discreet than other common heresies.

One possible explanation is that Waukeen simply sees them as misguided and continues to grants them spells out of pity, hoping that other members of her clergy might convince them of the error of their ways. There is no rule that says what the heretics believe must have any basis in fact.

Or if I wanted to play around with the mythos a little, I might run it that the heretics are correct, and Waukeen did indeed give up most of her divinity in exchange for her freedom, and the League of Six Rings is instead perpetuating the lie that everything is fine, when it is in fact Graz'zt that is granting most of the spells and slowly corrupting the church from the top down. In this instance she would be attempting to raise the "heretics" up to restructure the church, and take it back from the festering evil that has been really running things since the time of her imprisonment.

Or I might flip it again, and make this a calculated gambit on behalf of Waukeen against Graz'zt where she is deliberately allowing the heresy to be spread in an attempt to deceive his followers into thinking the Dark Prince is in a much more advantageous position than she actually is. In order to keep her followers from revealing the plan to the enemy (through any number of divinations), they must believe that her bluff is the truth.

[RoboEmperor]

Assuming we are thinking of the same thing, the Harlot's Coin heresy is being spread by the League of the Six Rings, a secret cabal dedicated to Graz'zt that embedded itself in the upper echelons of the church of Waukeen during the 13 years she was imprisoned in the Abyss. So none of the members of the League are heretics themselves since they all worship Graz'zt.

According to Dragon #355, they believe that "Waukeen has been slowly selling fractions of her divinity (and her virtue) to Graz'zt to finance her church and that the Dark Prince imprisoned the Merchant's Friend during the Time of Troubles for failing to pay her debt. They also believe that Waukeen only won her freedom from Graz'zt's Triple Realm by paying her debt in full, tipping the scales so that the Dark Prince now holds the majority of her divine mantle."

So unlike the League members, these heretics still venerate Waukeen, they just believe the lie that she is actually much weaker than orthodoxy indicates.


How would I justify that in a hypothetical game I was running? It would depend on the players and the tone of the campaign I was going for.

Ever since Waukeen made her full return to divinity Graz'zt has the chief enemy of her faith, so heretics of the Harlot's Coin would likely be much more discreet than other common heresies.

One possible explanation is that Waukeen simply sees them as misguided and continues to grants them spells out of pity, hoping that other members of her clergy might convince them of the error of their ways. There is no rule that says what the heretics believe must have any basis in fact.

Or if I wanted to play around with the mythos a little, I might run it that the heretics are correct, and Waukeen did indeed give up most of her divinity in exchange for her freedom, and the League of Six Rings is instead perpetuating the lie that everything is fine, when it is in fact Graz'zt that is granting most of the spells and slowly corrupting the church from the top down. In this instance she would be attempting to raise the "heretics" up to restructure the church, and take it back from the festering evil that has been really running things since the time of her imprisonment.

Or I might flip it again, and make this a calculated gambit on behalf of Waukeen against Graz'zt where she is deliberately allowing the heresy to be spread in an attempt to deceive his followers into thinking the Dark Prince is in a much more advantageous position than she actually is. In order to keep her followers from revealing the plan to the enemy (through any number of divinations), they must believe that her bluff is the truth.

Considering the fact that Deities cannot grant domain spells of domains not part of their portfolio, and since FRCS or PGtF says even someone who worships multiple deities can only receive spells from one, I think I am correct that heretics create their own divine magic and gain access to domains without their deity instead of all this benevolence from the deities whose code of conduct you've betrayed.

[Doctor Awkward]

Considering the fact that Deities cannot grant domain spells of domains not part of their portfolio,

Where is this rule?

[RoboEmperor]

Where is this rule?

I'll admit this is an assumption on my part. So I guess this is where we agree to disagree.

If Deities cannot grant access to domains not on their portfolio then I am right and if they can then you're probably right.

[noob]

Since you can customize your heresy you could pick AO and make the heresy "AO is not a real god but rather a planar system that turns worship into power that the gods use to stay powerful and by doing exactly the right thing I can get power from the planar system out of my worship of two picked concepts"
Now you are godless and an heretic and have the two domains you want and it does not matters whenever what you believe is true or not but since AO is not supposed to grant spells(which is generic and so overriden by your specific instance of feat "heretic of the faith(AO)") then you totally can say "Since AO does not gives spells to people who worships it as a god then it means that I am right and everyone else is wrong"
Then you can even go around and try to convince people they can get powers without a god giving them to you.
It is even possible that after enough converts AO will say when interrogated "I am totally a planar machine converting faith in power" and for the possibility of that happening a lot of gods would be ready to provide you with tons of help because many gods are not happy with the caprices of AO.

[Willie the Duck]

Otherwise, its in the Setting. The Gods and the Wall of the Faithless are more or less THE central part of FR. Why play there, if you make it like any other Multiverse Setting in D&D?



You’re the GM. You’re the one choosing to set the game in FR. Why did you make that decision? If you really like the FR lore and you like the kind of ham-fisted (IMO) way it handles deities and religion, then you should ask your player to find another character hook that’s less antagonistic to the setting’s premise.

I think I'm in this camp. What is the point of playing a FR game if you are just going to spend your time circumventing everything that makes it distinct? I mean, having to play a cleric who has to choose to worship a god(dess)? -- I mean, it is more restrictive than the theoretical maximum amount of freedom, but hardly the biggest restriction one could have on character choice (think Dark Sun and arcane magic, divine magic for various eras of Dragonlance, All the nuances of Ravenloft, the cultural weapons/armor restrictions of Hollow World, or heck how about, "this game world does not include psionics/incarnum/weapons of legacy/etc."). And most of the reason for published game worlds (other than a map and pre-made cultures in place) is to give some boundaries within-which to rattle around.



I run a no house rule or homebrew table. We are playing forgotten realms at the moment because we played in eberron and greyhawk last few campaigns. I am someone who doesn't deviate from the written lore/rules no matter what because once I start bending this and that it no longer becomes a d&d game.

I think most people would say that straight no-house-ruling D&D is its' own bizarre thing that also isn't "a d&d game" (at least it is as divergent as many to most house ruled games). Especially in 3e, where it pretty much acknowledges the Tippyverse as reality, and not just a thought experiment. There really doesn't seem to be a non-decision decision, as it were. But if you want to avoid actively contradicting established canon where possible, that can be a worthwhile decision. But that brings us back to why then play in a game world of which your players actively want to circumvent the defining features?

[noob]

Well in most cases if you are a godless cleric you will still enjoy one of the major features of the setting: the wall of the faithless.
It also allows directly to have a target (get rid of the tyrant evil gods(especially good aligned gods which if they had been players would have been shifted to chaotic evil a dozen of times per day for all the atrocities they commit) and of the wall of the faithless)

[RoboEmperor]

I think I'm in this camp. What is the point of playing a FR game if you are just going to spend your time circumventing everything that makes it distinct? I mean, having to play a cleric who has to choose to worship a god(dess)? -- I mean, it is more restrictive than the theoretical maximum amount of freedom, but hardly the biggest restriction one could have on character choice (think Dark Sun and arcane magic, divine magic for various eras of Dragonlance, All the nuances of Ravenloft, the cultural weapons/armor restrictions of Hollow World, or heck how about, "this game world does not include psionics/incarnum/weapons of legacy/etc."). And most of the reason for published game worlds (other than a map and pre-made cultures in place) is to give some boundaries within-which to rattle around.

Maybe they like everything about FR, how it's so detailed and expansive and such, EXCEPT this one thing so they try to circumvent this one thing they don't like.


I think most people would say that straight no-house-ruling D&D is its' own bizarre thing that also isn't "a d&d game" (at least it is as divergent as many to most house ruled games). Especially in 3e, where it pretty much acknowledges the Tippyverse as reality, and not just a thought experiment. There really doesn't seem to be a non-decision decision, as it were. But if you want to avoid actively contradicting established canon where possible, that can be a worthwhile decision. But that brings us back to why then play in a game world of which your players actively want to circumvent the defining features?

Why aren't there any spaceships in the Medieval Ages? Everything you need to build spaceships existed in the Medieval Ages.

Same reason why d&d is not tippyverse. Despite everything you need to become pun-pun is there, nobody knows how to achieve that, and the only reason you know of it is because millions of people across millions of characters crowd sourced it.

[Nifft]

His second backstory is that he worships AO. AO does not grant spells but the act of worshiping alone results in creation of divine magic.

Just a quick question -- how does his character justify knowing that Ao even exists, since Ao is a meta-game construct which justifies various divine railroad plots but never interacts with the moral layer of creation?

[RoboEmperor]

Just a quick question -- how does his character justify knowing that Ao even exists, since Ao is a meta-game construct which justifies various divine railroad plots but never interacts with the moral layer of creation?

Ao isn't an obscure deity. He's well known. There are even cults of it. Anyone who knows about the time of troubles knows of him.

[hamishspence]

Just a quick question -- how does his character justify knowing that Ao even exists, since Ao is a meta-game construct which justifies various divine railroad plots but never interacts with the moral layer of creation?

He has interacted with mortals - just rarely. Elminster (Shadow of the Avatar trilogy book 2), and Shield of Innocence (War in Tethyr) are the two mortals Ao has specifically spoken directly to.

[Nifft]

He has interacted with mortals - just rarely. Elminster (Shadow of the Avatar trilogy book 2), and Shield of Innocence (War in Tethyr) are the two mortals Ao has specifically spoken directly to.

Oh, gosh. Of course the self-insert Wizzy-Sue is friends with Ao.

How silly of me to assume otherwise.

[hamishspence]

Of course the self-insert Wizzy-Sue is friends with Ao.


Not friends - Ao only talked to him to give him a yelling-at for attempting to give Midnight a bunch of plot-sensiitive info ahead of time.

Midnight had the relevant memories deleted - Elminster was teleported to Thay to keep him busy for a short period. Much to his annoyance.

[Resileaf]

Not friends - Ao only talked to him to give him a yelling-at for attempting to give Midnight a bunch of plot-sensiitive info ahead of time.

Midnight had the relevant memories deleted - Elminster was teleported to Thay to keep him busy for a short period. Much to his annoyance.

:roy: "Oooh, holy burn!"

[Willie the Duck]

Maybe they like everything about FR, how it's so detailed and expansive and such, EXCEPT this one thing so they try to circumvent this one thing they don't like.

It's plausible, but the OP (with the line "We are playing forgotten realms at the moment because we played in eberron and greyhawk last few campaigns.") made it sound like they were doing so as a form of experiment. But if so, why not just change that. Yes, they said they don't want to make house rules (and that seems like a bit of a personal challenge), but then you have a loophole (a genuine loophole, as in we're actively trying/brainstorming/conspiring to get around this rule as the thread subject) to get around a rule they are deliberately choosing to implement. What is the value-add to this?

Having said this, I do get it. 'Here are some additional rules/constraints, see what you can get away with these boundaries' is a reasonable thing to want to do. I am all for both challenges of constraint, and challenges of exploit.

But would this specific loophole that works be particularly meaningful? Is it a victory of rules-fu, or one of Emerson's 'foolish consistencies' ("the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines)?


Why aren't there any spaceships in the Medieval Ages? Everything you need to build spaceships existed in the Medieval Ages.

Same reason why d&d is not tippyverse. Despite everything you need to become pun-pun is there, nobody knows how to achieve that, and the only reason you know of it is because millions of people across millions of characters crowd sourced it.

I'm not sure I see your point. Playing the (3e) game with no alterations to the rules isn't the Tippyverse because persons (PC+NPC) in the game you are thus playing simply haven't thought to abuse the rules of the universe they live in? That's an option. It then makes it an absolute free-for-all for the PCs who come in with the knowledge that their player's bring with them*. And if the DM doesn't want to allow them to do that, well then isn't that going to be a form of house ruling?
*Not that that is inherently a bad thing... at least once. I remember a story Jeff Berry (archivist of MAR Barker's Empires of the Petal Throne documents and 'played with the original movers/shakers' gamer) telling the story of buying up all the steel near original Blackmoor and Castle Greyhawk in Gygax and Arneson's campaigns, travelling to Barker's Tekumel campaign (where steel is rarer than hen's teeth) and selling it for gold to take back to the other universes... and crashing the economies of all three game worlds. It was apparently fun to do... once.

My point is that I don't really believe in a 'pure' game 'played straight' or anything like that. The rules of each edition, plus the world described don't 100% match, even without any contradictions within the rules or the world.

[Nifft]

Not friends - Ao only talked to him to give him a yelling-at for attempting to give Midnight a bunch of plot-sensiitive info ahead of time.

Midnight had the relevant memories deleted - Elminster was teleported to Thay to keep him busy for a short period. Much to his annoyance.

Overgod is unhappy with the gods: "NOW YOU SHALL SUFFER AND DIE AS MORTALS DO."

Overgod is unhappy with self-insert Wizzy-Sue: "NOW YOU SHALL BE MILDLY INCONVENIENCED."


I'm not even going to ask why the self-insert Wizzy-Sue had plot-sensitive info beyond what the gods were allowed to know.

.... actually, bah, in addition to not asking, I'm going to apologize for the derail. My topical question ("how would a mortal know Ao?") has been answered. Sorry for swerving away from the topic upon getting the answer.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm not sure I see your point. Playing the (3e) game with no alterations to the rules isn't the Tippyverse because persons (PC+NPC) in the game you are thus playing simply haven't thought to abuse the rules of the universe they live in? That's an option. It then makes it an absolute free-for-all for the PCs who come in with the knowledge that their player's bring with them*. And if the DM doesn't want to allow them to do that, well then isn't that going to be a form of house ruling?
*Not that that is inherently a bad thing... at least once. I remember a story Jeff Berry (archivist of MAR Barker's Empires of the Petal Throne documents and 'played with the original movers/shakers' gamer) telling the story of buying up all the steel near original Blackmoor and Castle Greyhawk in Gygax and Arneson's campaigns, travelling to Barker's Tekumel campaign (where steel is rarer than hen's teeth) and selling it for gold to take back to the other universes... and crashing the economies of all three game worlds. It was apparently fun to do... once.

Most people I played with play the game to play a character concept, not to munchkin, and intentionally limit themselves to their one shtick because it's more fun to have weaknesses and teamwork, so the games are fine even when the DM doesn't house rule. They play Barbarians because they want to play a marijuana smoking illiterate idiot, not because they are one of the best uberchargers, and in fact avoids the ubercharging feats because they want to two-weapon fight.

I'm not saying your points are wrong, I'm saying "pure" d&d works just fine and is actually not that uncommon.

[hamishspence]

Overgod is unhappy with the gods: "NOW YOU SHALL SUFFER AND DIE AS MORTALS DO."

Overgod is unhappy with self-insert Wizzy-Sue: "NOW YOU SHALL BE MILDLY INCONVENIENCED."

"Sent on an extremely dangerous mission" was what happened.

And it was only because Elminster was interfering with what Ao had planned for the future Goddess of Magic, at the very start of the Time of Troubles, that Ao got involved at all.

The War In Tethyr incident involved a fake cult of Ao - which might be why he was so willing to intervene (resurrecting one person).



Shield of Innocence took the bloodstained amulet from about his chest and laid it on Stillhawk's unmoving breast. "O, Torm," he prayed, "O, True and Brave, please listen! Your dog begs you, do not let this soul slip out of the world. No-one is truer and braver than he, and we have-"
He coughed up blood. "We have not enough hands to fight the evil that waits below. I know ... I have not served you long enough to earn the power to bring him back. And I won't ever, for this day I die. But please ... please give him back his life, for his sake, for those poor brave women down there, for this whole world!"
Tears streamed down his cheeks. "Good Torm, I beg you!"
A shimmer in the stinking air before him. A tiny point of radiance, intolerably bright, expanding to a miniature sun. The brilliance dazzled his heat-sensitive eyes, threatening to burn them out, yet it filled his soul with warmth and peace such as he had never known.
Shield of Innocence, said a voice in his mind, who well have justified your name: you alone of mortals in this world have I addressed through all the ages, and you alone shall I so address. Torm hears you, and through Him, I hear.
My name has been taken in vain. You have chosen to redress this evil, knowing what the cost would be. So be it: your wish is granted.
The light flared, expanded, enveloped Shield so that it seemed he would be consumed by it, as by the heart of a sun. Then it went out.
The ranger opened his eyes.