When Clerics Don't Agree (3.PF - Discuss please)

[Maquise]

I have an idea, but I'm not sure how to manipulate it mechanically, if it should be at all.

The Ordeal

When two or more parties of the same faith have a disagreement, they can invoke a divine ritual called the Ordeal. This calls upon their deity to elect the party in the right. The ordeal consists of...

[krai]

...trial by fire?

[jmelesky]

I expect such disagreements would be resolved entirely differently by different orders and deities.

[PoorHobo]

This reminds me of two siblings arguing then both of them running of to ask mom who is right. I just have this mental image of two clerics arguing until one of them say "Fine, lets just go ask god." Which doesn't work for me because whilst gods exist is, I don't see any of them stooping down to intervine in mortal bickering about the right way to sacrafice a goat or interrogate a prisoner. Make your choices, live with the result, and if you were wrong, there is always the atonement spell.

Also the divination spell works forth this, I think.

Edit, Augery could work as well depending on the argument. Also those are 3.5 pells and I just realised this is a PathFinder thread. If those spells don't exist disregard.

[Dryad]

The DM is aways right. :P
While this statement may go for a lot of things, including this (invoking the deity to stoop down to the level of puny mortals and decide who is right), faith is always a personal thing. You can't expect to people to believe exactly the same way, so I think the same should go for player's characters. This goes especially for morality; what is evil to some is not necessarily so for others. What is good to some may very well be evil to others. Even within the same religion, huge schizms may occur because some people start believing differently, or seeing the world differently. A solid real life example: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. And each of these has their own sub-groups, which can differ quite dramatically from one another. And each of them seems to know exactly what their deity likes and hates. And, not surprisingly, none of them agree.

Why should a DnD-religion be any different?

[hamishspence]

In Power of Faerun, it mentions that if a belief about the deity becomes the mainstream viewpoint rather than the exception- the deity itself may have to change to match the beliefs of its devotees.

[PoorHobo]

Why should a DnD-religion be any different?

D&D gods are tangible, belief isn't an issue, they exist, there is proof. A real world anaology wouldn't be a mainstream religion like Christianity or Islam, it would be along the lines of the Koresh cult.

[hamishspence]

But (depending on the setting) the gods can be shaped by belief- if enough worshippers believe the god has certain attributes- they may change and develop those attributes, even if they didn't have them before.

Similarly, in Eberron, the deities are much less tangible- and info about them much less certain.

[Dryad]

D&D gods are tangible, belief isn't an issue, they exist, there is proof.

I think that would depend entirely on the setting. I don't see why in DnD, there should be 'proof' of the gods. It's not like they talk to everyone constantly.

[Maquise]

As it is, this discussion is neither here nor there. I was wondering the best way to implement this if I was going to. Augury could work.

This thread might be better in the RP section; I put it here because I planned on coming up with some crunch.

[Dryad]

Well; you could always make it a deity-fitting duel of sorts... Whichever cleric is most proficient in the magics of their deity is obviously right. ;)

[jmelesky]

Well, off the top of my head, here's a possibility:

When priests of Lawgod, the LN god of Law, have a disagreement which cannot be immediately resolved by augury or consultation with the scripture, a Trial is held. Typical time for a Trial is three weeks (two of preparation, one of argument), though more or less may be allowed depending on the circumstances.

Each priest is given an initial modifier (+5 to -20), based on how conventional their position is. +5 represents a position commonly held by over 95% of the faithful, -20 represents a position completely counter to common assumptions, -5 could represent exceptions to the common position, or unification of existing exceptions into a single rule, or whatnot. Use those examples as guidelines when assigning modifiers.

It is possible for both claimants to have a negative modifier. It is likewise possible for both to have a positive modifier.

A claimant then either becomes her side's representative, or designates another (with their permission) as the representative.

The modifier is further adjusted for Trial experience: +1 for every successful Trial the representative has argued (up to +5), -1 for every unsuccessful (down to -10).

Now, research. For every week of research, make a Knowledge (Religion) check (this check can be made by anyone interested in the Trial outcome, but only one check per team is allowed), DC 20. If the check succeeds, adjust the modifier by +2. If it succeeds by more than 10, instead adjust the modifier by +5. If it fails, make no adjustment.

Finally, the Trial proper. Routine trials are adjudicated by three high-ranking members of the church of Lawgod. Unless previously familiar to the claimants, each judge starts with "Indifferent" as his attitude towards each side. Each representative may make a Diplomacy check to influence each judge. Every "Friendly" judge adjusts the modifier by +1, every "Helpful" by +2. "Unfriendly" and "Hostile" judges adjust the modifier by -3.

For exceptional Trials, a Tertian Modron is summoned to preside, instead of the three church officials. It is immune to Diplomacy, and treats both sides as "Indifferent".

In truly momentous, once-in-a-millennium Trials, the Tertian Modron will impose a Arbiter of Law effect on the representatives. This effect renders all skill checks to resolve as if the character had rolled 11. This effect stays in place until the Trial is resolved.

Now there are no further adjustments to make. Each representative makes a Knowledge (Religion) check with the final modifier. DC is 25.

If both sides fail the check, both claimants (though not the representatives, if they're separate designates) are censured for wasting the church's time. They are each assigned tasks to complete before they are readmitted to full standing within the church.

If at least one side succeeds at the check, the side with the higher result wins. Both claimants are now tasked with amending church doctrine, a task which they are expected to complete together (under the guidance of the winning claimant).



Of course, that's a LN church. I expect churches less concerned with formality might have less deliberate and involved processes for adjudicating questions of dogma.

[Golden-Esque]

In Power of Faerun, it mentions that if a belief about the deity becomes the mainstream viewpoint rather than the exception- the deity itself may have to change to match the beliefs of its devotees.

That's because in Faeruin, divinity is almost completely determined by the number of people that are worshiping; henceforth referred to as the deity's divine-peen size. If the worshipers start interpreting a deity in a certain way, you can bet that the god will try to adapt to that belief; if they don't, they are at risk to have their divine-peen drastically reduced in size.

[Maquise]

Jmelesky, that's a good idea.

Based on that, I'll go ahead and throw out a case study. This is how I initially thought up this.

A cleric and an inquisitor of the same deity (LG) meet at an ancient evil ruin. The cleric's mission is to locate and retrieve an ancient artifact, the inquisitor's is to seal the ruin. Both believe their mission is divinely inspired, so they decide to partake in the Ordeal to determine who's mission is the correct one. In this faith, the Ordeal is used in such cases, rather than the Trials of Jmelesky's Lawgod over doctrine.

[Thrawn183]

They stick their hands in boiling water. Whichever one is correct doesn't get burned.

[jmelesky]

A cleric and an inquisitor of the same deity (LG) meet at an ancient evil ruin. The cleric's mission is to locate and retrieve an ancient artifact, the inquisitor's is to seal the ruin. Both believe their mission is divinely inspired

If they're both devotees of a god of Authority or Hierarchy or Loyalty or similar (and that includes many or most Lawful gods, regardless of good/evil alignment), then whoever has higher rank or standing within the church is right. If that's not easily determined (crossing jurisdictional boundaries, etc), then they walk back to the nearest temple and ask someone in authority. The ruin has waited for years; it can wait another couple days.

If they're devotees of a deity that eschews organization or celebrates Freedom, Individuality, or whatnot, then they might be able to resolve it on the spot. Gods of Strength may want their followers to grapple or engage in weapons-free combat. Gods of Foresight or the Woodlands or Hunting might have their devotees set up an impromptu archery contest. Gods of Dreams or Magic or the Mind might engage in opposed (Int or Wis) rolls.

[drack]

Why can't they just bicker about it for a few millenia until one order finally dies out ... maybe even after that.
(in all seriousness though there are quite a few 'ask a deity' spells which you can turn to here )