AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I'd like other's input on this:

Forgotten Realms is very much a polytheistic world. There are very Gods who refute the existence of other Gods. There is even not many individuals who truly refute the existence of Gods.

My question is this ->
Is it just on Amia or is it replicated around the realms where individuals only worship one God?

I see many people who seem to only follow one of their Gods listed in their races pantheon. This isn't necessarily a problem but I guess from a polytheistic standpoint I cannot comprehend ignoring all of the others.

This flies out the window more when dealing with divine classes like Paladins and Clerics, etc. You know those who need to pray to a set deity for spells or power. It's well know that I miss things because I'm a foolish alcoholic Git, but this has been something I've seen as a pattern for quite a well.

Thoughts??

The majority of PCs don't really have a pantheon (ie most but not all humans, which make up a good portion), so I wouldn't think it's especially uncommon that they only worship the one.

For PCs whose race has an associated pantheon I have observed enough PCs who, while calling one particular deity their patron, pays an appropriate amount of respect to the others. But I don't know if they're in the minority or not I guess.

For me on several of my chars I just mention the main, but they pay homage to several deities. My Lolthite cleric obviously only pays homage to Lolth (whereas my Lolthite wizzy pays homage to Lolth as well as Kiaransalee), while my Sharessin pays homage to Sharess as well as the other deities of Love and even the Mulhorandi pantheon to a lesser extent now. A few of my others are the same, where they venerate many instead of just one. But the norm for me is to focus on the one in most matters.

I would go so far as to say even most priests should visit the services of other faiths. The world is polytheistic to a greater extent even than many of the authors and game designers realize. A devout servant of one god, in a world where the religions don't compete for legitimacy even if they may compete for popularity, should be even more sensitive to the nuances and value of another faith than would a layman. Joon certainly prays to gods other than Oghma, and attends Lathanderan services since they're offered so nearby. "Paying respect" isn't enough, really. If you want the patronage of a god in some endeavor, you need to offer prayer and possibly other sacrifice or you're off to a bad start. The power of gods over their portfolios is real, and probably believed to be even greater than it is.

The idea of a "patron god" doesn't really even fit into the setting that well. Most people would have several simultaneous patrons, even if mechanically we're allowed to have one. I would say you can also get divine spells from several sources at the same time. The witches of Rashemen serve the three goddesses seemingly equally. Wood elves worship the animal spirits who range from Demigod to Lesser Deity, and I doubt they only pick one. Durpari are a mess. Angharradh is kind of three deities in one, and could certainly be worshiped as such. Etc.

The thing that determines active worship is probably exposure. The human pantheon is large, but not everyone knows much about all its members. A small town will generally have a few shrines, a larger city maybe a few temples and a handful of shrines. People worship those gods who have active clergy, physical property and regular events in their proximity. Religion is not abstract thinking and private prayer to most people in the Realms (or even in the real world, though it's a trend), it's communal participation in rites.

My rule of thumb is: the balance is skewed so far in the favor of monolatry that you probably can't easily go too far in stressing polytheism.

A further thought regarding paladins:

Not all paladins are dedicated to justice, but many are. This is a perspective one such paladin paragon of formal justice could take: In the classic view of justice, it is giving and doing each man his due. And surely, the gods are due the worship and reverence of mortals. Such a paladin would acknowledge the jurisdiction of each god as he goes about his work, and diligently observe due deference. When he takes on a job as a hired protector, he gives tribute to Helm. When he is asked to act as a judge or as a legal representative in a case, he prays and sacrifices to Tyr. In the face of suffering, he asks Ilmater for perserverance. Getting up for a morning jog, ignoring Lathander is out of the question. At the annual harvest festival, he's the first to cheer Chauntea, and so on. Because failure to do so would be a crying injustice towards the gods, disrespectful of the divine order he, too, is sworn to uphold as a vassal of his own patron.

I am not saying that is the definitive paladin view. But it's one view, and it makes a lot of sense for a paladin of justice (as opposed to, say, mercy, "greater good" or some other specific agenda) to practice polytheism diligently.

With my characters I tend to organize the various deites into five categories, so that I have a better idea of their life and background. The first being the patron deity, who is the central faith the character's way of life is build around. For a farmer this might be Chauntea, while for my halfing bardess this would be Brandobaris. Taking Robert as an example, it is Siamorphe.

Next is the group of deities the character is a faithful follower of. The teachings and wisdom of these gods are something the character uses for himself to try to make the right decisions. Robert attends mass regularly at the Chapel of Lathander and the Church of the Triad, and for those who do not have a temple, offers his prayers in private. Their respective high priests are the ones he seeks out for their wisdom.

The third are those who he has a respect for. He offers his prayers and donations to them when he undertakes an endeavor that falls into their portfolio. Valkur if Robert undertakes a long journey at sea. Tymora if he seeks out good fortune at a risky endeavor. Mystra certainly is respected by him, but he hardly if ever prays or offers a donation, as she rarely directly becomes a factor in his life. He might attend certain celebrations and festivities throughout the year devoted to them, but outside of that they do not play a great role in his life. The harvest festival in honor of Chauntea for example might be something for Robert to attend, but otherwise the goddess of agriculture has little personal meaning for him.

The fourth group are those that simply do not fall into his pantheon. To some Robert may have a great respect, like Moradin. He will show this if he is invited to a ceremony paying homage to them, but neither their teachings or their faith play a significant part in his life. They are the gods of the halfings, dwarves, gnomes and elves, not his own.

The final group are those who are those my characters opposse or fear. Bane or Velsharoon for example Robert would never pray to, and who's servants he would work against. Important for me is that given their power, name calling them, like telling Bane he is a weak powerhungry bastard, is out of the question for all but my most demented characters. For most of them fear alone is enough of a reason to offer donations or prayers to appease them. Besheeba and Umberlee are definete canditates for many of the characters I had. A donation to ward off misfortune or the wrath of the sea is a custom of many people. There is a reason why there is a Temple of Umberlee in Baldur's Gate.

Most of the characters I've had have been polytheistic in some way. Zelly was really polytheistic. While Bahamut was her primary patron, she actively worshiped several others on a regularbasis (including most of the elven and dwarven pantheons). I personally think it's not unusual at all for polytheism. If anything, it's weird when people aren't polytheistic in Faerun. Pony's approach is similar to what I did with Zelly, too.

House gods for me.

I have always been of the mind with FR dieties, that they are super fickle at the best. Good Aligned gods will turn a blind eye when one of theirs gives lip service to a dark god, but will expect some form of atonement for letting themselves slip. Nuetral gods understand the balance and do not car either way, and dark Gods really do not care at all, as long as they are given their due.

From a RP stand point, I think it would not be uncommon for a ranger or druid of Mielikki to give silent prayers to Malar for a prosperous hunt, or thanks for a goo bounty from the hunt.

Or for a boat of Sailors who favor Valkur to pray to Umberlee for safe passage on the seas.

Portfolios are there for a reason. If a PC does something that infringes on the portfolio of another god, that god expects praise.. and their patron god realizes it is a necessary thing.

That is just how I view it.

Polytheism isn't... I perceive that a character is forced to have a main deity or patron, whilst he as well may worship a good number of deities, but secondarily, orbiting the primary.
So, this is my view on how a character regards the gods:

Main deity, whose dogma is supposed to be followed strictly.
Secondary deities, which a character holds close and respect. Usually these deities are connected between by portfolio or similar outlook.
Tertiary deities, which a character pays lip service. Tymora for good luck, umberlee when sailing to be spared of her wrath, etc, something for every occasion, since in D&D we have almost a god for every aspect of life.

IE; Ais may be a follower of Io, but he always keeps at hand a symbol of Bahamut, for heritage, Hlal, for comedic interest, Brandobaris, for the same, Eilistraee, for redemption (and dancing), and so on. And he would pay a soft pray to whatever god he deems fit in the moment. You can imagine a few situations.

I disagree with that interpretation, Ice. It's one possibility, sure, but it need not be the norm. Dogmas are something ordinary laymen probably don't pay a lot of attention to. When you join the clergy in an official capacity, as a devout layman (like the tertiaries of mendicant orders), as member of some regular order (monastic, knightly, whatever your class) or as a divine caster, you will receive more education on such matters and probably make some vows to follow the church's tenets. The idea that regular people shape their lives according to the dogma of their patron deity doesn't seem believable.

Your three levels of deities is very possible, but I don't see why a character would/should have only one main patron deity. Someone very religiously/theologically inclined who may want to join a clergy could come to such a choice, but it doesn't really concern the average guy in everyday life. Even if we translate into IC the OOC rule that a PC needs a patron deity, it's probably an ambiguous feeling in the back of your head on which god is really closest to you at this stage of your life. Changing patron deities, for the uninitiated, probably happens organically and subconsciously as your life and personality changes. I don't think the Realms has reached an age of confessionalism, introspection and self-helf books where everyone needs to define themselves by declaring their patron of choice.

In general, I feel that the ethical and philosophical aspect of the gods is secondary for most people. Similar outlook is beside the point, because the common man probably has no idea about divine personalities. Religion is a social phenomenon they practice. Again, I stress the absurdity of a villager worshiping alone a god nobody else in his community really knows and who has no clergy, shrine or rituals in the region. Holy days are probably the most important aspect of the various religions, and their primary medium of recruitment. The average adventurer is no different, though he's had more exposure during his travels and it's easier to justify exceptions.

I agree to a point, but I think you're going too far, Iron. "The common man would have no idea about divine personalities" just wouldn't be the case. I think, for a RL example, the common Greeks on the street in Athens had a pretty good idea of what the personalities of Ares and Zeus and Aphrodite and Poseidon were like, and what those gods wanted. The Greeks might not have had much of a notion of what behaviors the gods expected from their mortal followers, but that's probably because for the most part, the Olympians didn't expect a damn thing from mortals. In the FR, though, the gods are deeply bound to their mortal flocks, and they are intimately concerned with mortal affairs (not on an individual mortal-by-mortal basis, but in a very zoomed-out, big-picture kind of way). I think just like any Athenian could have told you "Zeus is a quick-tempered thunder god who likes to boff everything he sees" or "Hermes is clever and quick-witted and gets off on pranking his family," so could a typical Waterdhavian tell you "Tyr is a stern and demanding father figure, willing to sacrifice and suffer in the name of justice," or "Selune is a calm, serene sort who's all on about peace and tolerance." It sounds like you're saying that all any commoner would know about a god is the portfolio and the church calendar, and I just don't think that would be true.

And all that philosophizing is completely without regard to the fact that not twenty years ago, people all over Faerun actually met their gods in flesh and blood. "Wow, what was Torm really like in person?!" would probably be the sort of story that gets around pretty quick.

Fair point. To rephrase what I was trying to argue with that: whatever the gods' personality and outlook, it probably wouldn't be the primary standard of choosing a patron. (Not that Ice argued this exactly.) One probably wouldn't go, "Oh I'm a stern father figure to my children, so I should worship Tyr - he's just like me!" or in a more relevant example, a musician of any disposition would probably worship Milil even if they cared nothing for his goodly nature or were elitists strictly opposed to the tenet that "one singer's music is another's noise". The most important thing that makes him worth venerating is that he's the patron of song and poetry, even if his personality and morality is at odds with you.

I don't think it matters so much that the gods are real or walked the earth. There are plenty of Christians who have very little idea about how Christ is portrayed in the Gospels, let alone know the doctrines of the Church Fathers and the first major Councils - and yet all that is readily available in books at any library and many people's homes. The average, non-theologically inclined person just doesn't bother to find out or think about it much. The world is full of religious people with very loose, deviant or uninformed stances towards their religion, and that's not because of any fundamental difference in whether the gods are real and actually communicate. It's just because many people's religiousness doesn't operate on such a cognitive level. They usually settle with the image and interpretation that suits them.

Here, from the horse's mouth.

Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. pg93 wrote:

Some Faerunians zealously follow one deity. Others make sacrifices to many deities, while upholding one as their personal patron. Still others sacrifice to as many deities as possible, shifting allegiances as their circumstances and needs warrant; it's a rare Faerunian who hasn't occasionally hoped to avert the baleful influence of an evil deity with a propitious gift, or thanked a good power for an unexpected blessing. The belief system of most Faerunians generally centers on a particular deity whose interests and influences are most likely to affect them, but acknowledges other gods as significant and important, too.

Sounds like a pretty mixed bag to me, but with most folks giving the majority of their worship to one god but still paying, lesser homage to others. Probably choosing 'patron' gods to be those whose portfolios relate to the most important aspects of their lives, e.g. farmers worshipping Chauntea, smiths Gond, warriors Tempus, etc etc.

But as the lore states there are always exceptions to the norm.

Yes, yes, and yes. I agree with you three, to a point:

Iron; I may have slipped there. I didn't wanted to say that it was a norm of strict ruling that every character or individual in Faerun would go by my "three orbits" archetype. From what I can gather, I believe that it is just the tendency.
Anyone can behave however they wish, but we understand that it is common knowledge that somebody who shifts "main" patron constantly is one of weak of faith, and hence ends up nailed to the Wall of the city. I don't understand that part of lore very well, but it was said somewhere and heard it over again and again.
And possibilities.

With Liz I agree again; deity knowledge may be limited and most of the time entirely regional. A small town may have not even heard of certain deities, or a whole pantheon. Such as may happen with named hypothetical town in Frozenfar and the Mulhorand pantheon. It's subjective!
A character may have heard of the draconic pantheon, but if he's not interested, the information may enter by an ear and come out by the other. Whilst at the same time he may know -eeeeeeverything- of the elvish patheon in the hypocresy of ignoring related deities.
As said, it's all in the possibilities. Each person is their own universe.

LordSithaelon wrote:

From a RP stand point, I think it would not be uncommon for a ranger or druid of Mielikki to give silent prayers to Malar for a prosperous hunt, or thanks for a goo bounty from the hunt.

This won't happen, Malar is an enemy of Mielikki, and no self respecting druid or ranger or cleric of Mielikki would not pay homage to Malar. If any does, they should be fallen.

LordSithaelon wrote:

From a RP stand point, I think it would not be uncommon for a ranger or druid of Mielikki to give silent prayers to Malar for a prosperous hunt, or thanks for a goo bounty from the hunt.

Or they could just pray to Mielikki, or maybe even Nobanion, or a number of other dieties whose domain involves hunting when the need arises, and not just for the sake of hunting.

For a goo bounty, though, I think you want Ghaunadaur!

Kudark wrote:

LordSithaelon wrote:

From a RP stand point, I think it would not be uncommon for a ranger or druid of Mielikki to give silent prayers to Malar for a prosperous hunt, or thanks for a goo bounty from the hunt.

This won't happen, Malar is an enemy of Mielikki, and no self respecting druid or ranger or cleric of Mielikki would not pay homage to Malar. If any does, they should be fallen.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the personal relationships of gods really fall into the realm of common mortal knowledge (though you could argue otherwise), and more importantly, into the realm of the relevant. Gods are, first and foremost, keepers of their portfolios. A divine caster who does not respect the rights and jurisdiction of other gods doesn't set a very good example for others to apply to his god. If the hunt is a rightful and natural area under Malar's power, then denying him due deference could show a disdain for the divine order in general. If you deny Malar's right to appeasement and worship in matters pertaining to the hunt (or whatever his exact portfolio), you also imply that Mielikki's claim to forest creatures (or whatever) is less than unconditional - I am not sure she'd approve.

Malar and Mielikki, though foes, are still connected by their infinite superiority over mortals, and would hardly welcome any devaluing of their status by irreverent followers. This case would probably fall under the category of "lip service", even if generally I think people invoke it too lightly. One would only resort to reluctant, superficial lip service in such antagonistic cases, I feel. (A hypothetical one, mind you; reactions could vary on a wide spectrum, this is just what I imagine to be an average case.)

The matter of church relations is another thing. In my mind, gods may have their feuds, but that does not imply that individual mortals feel or act out animosity towards the opposing god. Such conflicts happen between the followers of gods. After a muttered plea for Malar to stay his rending paw while you wander through beast lands, you might head for the camp of a Malarite cult and butcher them. This should be understandable for everyone involved, gods and followers alike. Then there's the additional angle that followers of allied gods, or even the same god, can have bloody conflicts of faith. If the will and relationships of the gods was such an immediate factor that guides follower behaviour, intra-faith conflict would not happen.

Granted, Malar is a bit of a tricky case because of how inconsistent the designers are with druid lore. They've expanded the realm of druidism a lot in 3e, and yet forgot to eliminate some of the druidic rules. Malar is supposed to hate all druids and the concept of druidism, and yet he is a druid patron in 3e. That can only mean that druid, as a class, is thought to be looser and wider than the classical culture of druidism as represented by the 2e class. Malar has become to seem more legitimate as a nature deity whose porfolio coincides with the daily life of many druids, when in 2e he was an anti-druid deity. Make of it what you will.

Mind you, this is all just defending one possible interpretation. I do not mean to say it is the way it needs to go. I don't even mean that it's necessarily the norm or the average (though I do believe I'm on the right track). But I do argue that it's not as strict and simple as you make it seem. The story above, if not necessary, is possible.

Taken from FR Wiki:

Quote:

Before the Spellplague ravaged Faerûn, Malar was one of the Deities of Fury, led by Talos. He held a long standing alliance with Lolth against the Seldarine, and other dark deities like Bane and Loviatar. He fought against deities of peace, civilization, and nature, but held particular hate for Nobanion for defeating him in a battle during the time of troubles. Almost every other god hated him, including a number of other evil deities.

I have to disagree with you on this IA, and Sith. Malar is an enemy of Mielikki, and I believe an enemy of a God that one follows, is an enemy of the follower as well.

The first part is clear, but I just don't infer from it the latter. The friendships and enmities of the deities don't necessarily translate directly into mortal life.

There are several separate relationships at stake here, at least the following:

Deity A - Deity B
Deity A - Follower A
Deity B - Follower B
Deity A - Follower B
Deity B - Follower A
Deity A - Church A
Deity B - Church B
Deity A - Church B
Deity B - Church A
Follower A - Church A
Follower B - Church B
Follower A - Church B
Follower B - Church A
Follower A - Follower B

There is no necessary, logical connection between all these relationships. You can suggest almost any combination of relationships, given plausible context. Deity, church and follower operate on completely different levels. At least you need to provide an argument for the mechanism that connects these levels. Personally, I find it doubtful that a mortal would declare a god to be his enemy. That's hubris. The church of, say, Mielikki is not engaged in a war against Malar the god - they struggle with its temporal manifestation, the church of Malar. Individual followers, furthermore, might find themselves in all sorts of complication positions in this mess.

In Cormyr: A Novel, for example, you will see Vangerdahast call upon the religious leaders of the land to protect the king and kingdom from squabbling nobles and outside threats when Azoun is struck down by magical poison. Among these are high priests of, IIRC, Tymora, Deneir, Malar and Tyr. The Malarite was not friendly with the rest, but they were all united by a loyalty to the royal line, and their assistance was expected in return for their sanctioned status in the nation. Clearly, followers don't (always) running around mimicking their gods.

Not to say your position doesn't make sense. A follower of Mielikki probably is less likely to offer a prayer to Malar than a follower of some unrelated goodly deity. I just think you're going too far too categorically in claiming that a follower who pays the customary, proper lip service to another god should Fall for mere personal dislike between the two gods.

I don't imagine there's a consistent standard that can be applied. If the deities in question are, say, Selune/Shar or Corellon/Lolth or Ilmater/Loviatar, then it seems like a follower of the one should be pretty much bound to loathe the followers of the other. Those dichotomies are woven too deeply into their church dogmas for any but the most astonishingly stupid followers to be ignorant of. But there are other cases where gods hate each other just as fiercely as in those examples, but that hatred doesn't seem to carry over into the mortal world. Like, I haven't read every single FR novel, but it doesn't seem like the churches of Mystra and Cyric are calling daily jihads against each other, despite those two gods being constantly at each others' throats. And then there's cases where you'd think a certain pair of gods should hate each other, but they seem content to just sort of ignore each other (Tempus/Eldath, Waukeen/Mask).

I think Meilikki/Malar probably is probably somewhere in the middle. I can imagine a neutral-aligned ranger giving homage to both: "In his more favorable aspects he [Malar] is revered by beings who identify with the untamed nature, grace, and amorality of predators." Most rangers of Meilikki shouldn't have any trouble getting behind that. It feels likely to me (and this is just my opinion) that the more time a ranger of Meilikki spends out in the deep wilds far removed from civilization, the more likely she'll be to have some sympathy for Malar as basically the god of the food chain. It's the rangers who live on the fringes between civilization and wilderness, and who have to come face to face with the impact of Malar's dogma on peaceable innocent sentients, who would be most likely to just reject him categorically.

As a DM I would only rule that clerics of Mielikki who were told directly by the goddess herself not to associate with Malarites or pay lip service to Malar would fall if they did so. Otherwise, it's frowned upon, but not something a god would want to do. So often we forget that gods have a vested interest in keeping people worshipping them and not just Falling everybody all over the place for the slightest infractions.

On a larger scale, Malar's been through a change within the last half century in Toril. Some followers of Mielikki may be aware, but probably a lot aren't. There was a time when it was more acceptable for worshippers of Mielikki to give a little lip service to the god of predators, but the god of predators has started to become too polar, shirking any notion of the other nature gods' idea of balance in order to always present the entropic side of nature (hunting and consumption). The Wolf NPC that some people was just such a representation, a former archdruid of Malar who served the Grove in the Amian Forest before he started being a wolf and never being a man, always adopting the predatory.

The way I see it is.. Malar is the god of hunters and hunting. No other Diety has this persona on them. Anyone person that hunts food.. is giving praise to the beast lord by their actions.

But I guess I am just an old school type of gamer, when the gods understood a necessary turning of a blind eye was needed to keep the world go round.

My this rabbit hole has gotten deep.

LordSithaelon wrote:

The way I see it is.. Malar is the god of hunters and hunting. No other Diety has this persona on them. Anyone person that hunts food.. is giving praise to the beast lord by their actions.

But I guess I am just an old school type of gamer, when the gods understood a necessary turning of a blind eye was needed to keep the world go round.

Untrue. There are several hunting gods. Nobanion being one of a few.

I personally would slap anyone worshipping Silvanus and Malar if they were a divine caster for example. They are archenemies. Thats like worshipping Kossuth and Auril.

Liz wrote:

I think Meilikki/Malar probably is probably somewhere in the middle. I can imagine a neutral-aligned ranger giving homage to both: "In his more favorable aspects he [Malar] is revered by beings who identify with the untamed nature, grace, and amorality of predators." Most rangers of Meilikki shouldn't have any trouble getting behind that. It feels likely to me (and this is just my opinion) that the more time a ranger of Meilikki spends out in the deep wilds far removed from civilization, the more likely she'll be to have some sympathy for Malar as basically the god of the food chain. It's the rangers who live on the fringes between civilization and wilderness, and who have to come face to face with the impact of Malar's dogma on peaceable innocent sentients, who would be most likely to just reject him categorically.

Sorry, I can't get behind this.
It's going to be one or the other, not a combination of both. They are opposing Gods, and do not stand for the same things in nature. They are not aspects of each other like Yondalla/Dhala Thun (sp?)

Gods don't have to be best buds or aspects of one another to gain worship or respect. Can you follow the wishes and dogma of your gods without them conflicting? Does the worship of one expressly forbid the worship of another? I think its the things you do in service or respect to your gods that speak louder than any proclamation of following them. I don't eee anything written down which implies it would be like worshipping Gruumsh/Lolth AND Corellon.

If problems arise in your actions, your worship, or with other followers of your deities, that is a good spot for some character and community building roleplay.

Edit: This mindset obviously does not cater to Clerics, who may be tied to specific rules depending on their faith.

Amarice-Elaraliel wrote:

LordSithaelon wrote:

The way I see it is.. Malar is the god of hunters and hunting. No other Diety has this persona on them. Anyone person that hunts food.. is giving praise to the beast lord by their actions.

But I guess I am just an old school type of gamer, when the gods understood a necessary turning of a blind eye was needed to keep the world go round.

Untrue. There are several hunting gods. Nobanion being one of a few.

I personally would slap anyone worshipping Silvanus and Malar if they were a divine caster for example. They are archenemies. Thats like worshipping Kossuth and Auril.

Nobanion doesn't have the portfolio of "hunting" though. In fact I checked through several deities and Malar is the only one with that portfolio I could find (I'm not 100% certain on whether there is only one copy of each portfolio around, but either way it doesn't change my point). "Rangers", "woodsmen" etc, don't count. Nobanion and Malar's similarities come from the fact that they're both associated with beasts and while Nobanion's dogma talks about hunting, he's still not a god of hunting.

I'll personally bear any slaps, because Silvanus probably epitomises the "balance" aspect of druidism, whereas predation is a natural part of the cycle - Chauntea may be older and more powerful (not by much, they're both Greaters) but she's also NG, and not all of her nature can be encompassed in druidism as we have come to understand it.

"Marauding beasts", part of Malar's portfolio, are physically incapable of breaking that balance because they are 100% part of it. You can argue that malicious and intelligent hunting (a la poaching in the real world) breaks the balance, sure. But it's evident that that's not all of what Malar is about, and since Malarite druids can exist, upholding balance and their gods' teachings, it strikes me as absurd that a Malarite can't pay fealty to Silvanus as a greater power of balance, and vice versa since Silvanus is also meant to represent the brutality of nature (getting eaten by wolves is a part of that). All because for some weird reason the god of balance and pure, wild nature hates personifications of individual aspects which make up the very negative forces he represents. The Gods of Fury are all druid-sponsoring Nature gods AFAIK, but there seems to be no understanding that the destruction they bring is simply part of nature. Notably he has no beef with Good-aligned gods, even those whose dogmas and followers would regularly cause conflict with his interest in the preservation of nature. Part of the Forgotten Realms Good bias? Absolutely.

It would honestly be more interesting and internally consistent for me if there was an understanding that one didn't have cause to adopt their deity's hatred for other deities. Goodness knows I wouldn't mind a bit more conflict RP than "Rar you follow that guy, we no RP or else we PvPz now"

There can only be one copy of the same portfolio around in the same pantheon, except for cases when a demigod (or possibly a lesser deity, don't remember) controls a subsection of a greater god's portfolio. The rules are outlined in the early chapters of F&P, I think.

Some other points in response:

- Malar and the Furies, when conceived, were not viable druid patrons. Malar's dogma is anti-druidic. As I have tried to get into people's heads for a long time now, the nature of the class and the associated faiths changed in 3e but not consistently, so it's a giant clusterfuck of incompatible beliefs and rules now.

- Druids aren't really/necessarily about "balance." For the sake of debunking myths, I checked the PHB entry. I couldn't spot a single instance of the word. On the contrary, the alignment section opens with: "Druids, in keeping with nature's ultimate indifference, must maintain at least some measure of dispassion." If anything, that shows a general disregard for zelous dogmatism and in any case explains their neutral alignment not in terms of balance, but in terms of not giving a fuck.

- About "Rar stupid conflict". I agree. If it was true that the relationships of gods translated into the mortal realm, as I already argued, we would not see conflict between churches of friendly deities, or within the same church. And yet even goodly faiths quarrel or even fight bloodily with eachother and themselves. If the priests of Oghma don't get slapped for schismatic conflict that undermines the entire faith and can't agree whether Oghma has nominated a new leader of the faith or not, then certainly an individual doesn't get slapped for privately respecting the RIGHTFUL JURISDICTION of an unfriendly god.

Yeah, thinking back over the PHB I'm not sure where I even got all those ideas about how it works. But they've been incorporated so heavily into my Malarite druid that it's hard to shake them off so easily. I ran with it and posted my opposition, but I'm currently revising my opinion on the matter.

What I do recall from the 3.5 PHB (cant find the damn book unfortunately) is that druids are against the unnatural - aberrations, undead, outsiders, constructs. There aren't many specifics on the degree, but it's worth noting that there isn't a special amount of attention given to the unnaturalness of undead compared to the others. So if DMs ruling that druids shouldn't have anything to do with undead, they should rule that druids should never be friendly with outsiders, including PCs and good-aligned outsider summons, or face similar consequences to being buddy-buddy with a deader.

Falling of druids is equally open to interpretation, the key line (to me) being "druids who cease to revere nature" (paraphrasing).

It says pretty much "they hate aberrations and undead." It isn't explicated further. Just a personal dislike. Nothing about constructs and outsiders, though.

And yes, ex-druids are those who cease to be neutral, who stop revering nature, or who teach Druidic to non-druids.

Mind you, I am not saying there isn't more to them. There's way more in the 2e Druid's Handbook and the classes section of Faiths & Avatars. There are also the dogmas of druidic deities. But at the core of it, in 3e, ignoring all contradicting or dubious information, the parameters are pretty loose and undetailed. A druid can be all those Celtic New Age things described in some of the books, but it isn't required categorically in the game version we play.

In 3.0 / 3.5 Druids only need to be Neutral in one aspect of the alignment but.. I think I see what you meant with that.

IronAngel wrote:

Some other points in response:

- Malar and the Furies, when conceived, were not viable druid patrons. Malar's dogma is anti-druidic. As I have tried to get into people's heads for a long time now, the nature of the class and the associated faiths changed in 3e but not consistently, so it's a giant clusterfuck of incompatible beliefs and rules now.

Page 245 of the FR Campaign setting, clearly states a follower of malar can be a Druid... if evil. It does say that those druids are mostly clerics of his faith that have multi classed... but it does not say druids are disallowed. So it is up in the air and open to interpretation I suppose.

As for the argument over the hunting aspect... here is a list of all gods of the major pantheon that have anything to do with any aspect of nature, and their portfolios as stated in the Forgotten realms Campaign Setting...

Akadi: Elemental Air, movement, speed, Flying Creatures.
Auril : Cold, Winter
Chauntea: Agriculture, Farmers, Gardeners, Summer
Eldath: Quiet places, Springs, Pools, Peace, Waterfalls
Finder Wyvernspur: Cycle of Life, Tranformation of Art, Saurials
Grumbar: Elemental earth, Solidity, Changelessness, Oaths
Gwaeron Windstrom: Tracking, Rangers of the North
Istishia: Elemental Water, Purification, Wetness
Kossuth: Elemental Fire, Purification through Fire
Lurue: Talking beasts, intelligent non humanoid creatures
MALAR: Hunters, Stalking, bloodlust, evil lycanthropes
Mielikki: Forrests, forrest creatures, rangers, dryads, autumn
Nobanion: Royalty, lions and feline beasts, good beasts
Selune: Moon, stars, navigation, prophecy, questers, good and neutral lycanthropes
Shiallia: Woodlands glades, woodland fertility, the High forrest, Neverwinter Wood.
Silvanus: Wild Nature, Druids
Talos: Storms, Destruction, rebellion, conflagrations, earthquakes, vortices

As can be seen, Malar is the only God, whether greater, intermediate, lesser, or demipower, that has the root word of "Hunt" anywhere in his portfolioof the main pantheon. Therefore... Malar is the only god of the major pantheon that has anyhting to do with hunting.

Thard Harr of the Dwarven Panteon has hunting in his portfolio, but I have never heard of any instance where malar and Thard Harr have gone at each other over a deer.

Solonar Thalandira also has hunting as part of their portfolio, So I can see praise being given to them, but they are an elven diety of the Elven Panteon. Since when does the elven pantheon care for human affairs? Yes, they are for good and all that... but Elven affairs come first before anything else.

The only part of Mielikki's Dogma that deals with hunting states as written..

"Live as one with the woods. Teach others to do so, and punish and curtail those that hunt for sport or practice cruelties on wild creatures"

Hunting is not a cruelty on wild animals. It is a way of life. People will need to hunt for food... and even malar, by second edition standards, punished those who hunted for sport as it served no purpose.

So I reitterate.. I do not see it that far of a stretch for a ranger of Mielikki to give silent praise to Malar for a prosperous hunt.. a hunt mind you that will feed people, Something Malarites do with the "Feast of the Stags... where they hunt exsevively, before harvestide and invite anyone to join them in a celebratory feast and then pledge themselve to hunt in the coming winter to feed the needy.

EDIT:: If anyone needs reference material, let me know. I have a buttload of .pdf files on my comp for FR.

IronAngel wrote:

There can only be one copy of the same portfolio around in the same pantheon, except for cases when a demigod (or possibly a lesser deity, don't remember) controls a subsection of a greater god's portfolio. The rules are outlined in the early chapters of F&P, I think.

This is my understanding as well. There is no overlap of portfolios in each pantheon as per the laws of the deities stated in Faiths and Pantheons. Therefore, there can be only one god with the hunting portfolio in the Faerunian Pantheon i.e. Malar.

But if we are using the example of a good aligned Ranger devotee of Meilikki praying to Malar for a good hunt. The ranger may not necessarily do this if he his personal beliefs (whatever they may be, based on the character) saw Malar as an evil influence and did not wish to pay homage to this god. He may instead pray to Meilikki to give up the bounty of the forest for him (i.e. because she is the god of forests and forest creatures) which he will kill with mercy and use to feed the needy etc etc.

Who Malar is, is of course open to interpretation of the individual as are all gods, based on experience, belief, teachings of their church.. some see evil bloodthirsty warewolves as a bad thing to have rampaging through the forest or human settlements, some may just see them as a part of nature and the 'balance'. Hunters of all ilks may give offerings to Malar.. but in a way I would see to appease the god rather then to ask a blessing so to speak, to avoid acts of bloodlust or attacks by wild beasts during the hunt. I would think he would be a god to fear rather then one you would wish to invoke. He is more of a god for those who enjoy a long bloody hunt of an animalistic nature rather than a quick merciful bow hunt in the forest to kill a deer.

Sith, I know Malar is listed as a viable druid patron in the 3e FRCS. But take a look at these excerpts from Faiths & Avatars:

Quote:

--- The Lord of Beasts despises the Balance sought by druids and their deities and seeks to overthrow it through the actions of his faithful. He manifests an avatar in Faerûn in an endless hunt across the Realms whenever the mood strikes him—which is almost constantly. ---

Dogma: --- Suffer no druid to live, for they believe not in survival of the strong, but in a weak-minded balance that allows the inferior to survive and often to rule. ---

Day-to-Day Activities: --- Malarite clergy seek to slay druids of all faiths whenever possible, for they see the natural Balance that druids promote and maintain as the true foe of all who love to hunt. They believe it interferes with the rightful triumph of the strong over the weak. Consequently, druid organizations, those with druidic connections, and those sponsored even partially by nature deities (including the Harpers) also seek out and destroy Malarite strongholds at any opportunity.

Holy Days/Important Ceremonies: --- The beasts hunted down by Malarite hands are the main dishes at this two-day-long revel of gluttony, and all folk are invited (even druids may come and dine in safety, protected by "the Peace of the Table"). [SUGGESTS THAT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF CUSTOMARY PRACTICE OF RELIGION, DRUIDS OF OPPOSING FAITHS DO INTERACT WITH MALARITES PEACEFULLY!!!] At this feast, clergy publicly undertake to hunt throughout the winter ahead for the tables of specific widows, aged folk, infirm individuals, and orphan children. This day marks the annual high point of regard for the faith of Malar in most communities. ---

Now, this is not to suggest Malar can't sponsor druids; they clearly changed that in 3e. What does this mean then? What else, than that druid as a class has been expanded conceptually in the edition we play, and the rules and lore of previous editions no longer apply universally to all druids. Some people with the druid class are instead Malarites or followers of the other Furies, who do not subscribe to the traditional druidic oaths and beliefs. The Specialy Priests of Malar, Beastmasters, are specifically said to resemble powerful druids in their powers. In 3e there no longer are Specialty Priests, so this role is probably taken over by the druid class without a sudden change of IC culture to be more friendly with druidism.

I know.. I was just saying that the druid class while being a worshiper of Malar, I guess is open to the interpretations of the individual player.

Second edition did not have the prestige classes as we all know. So if someone wanted to play a class that offset the normal guidelines, then the character was normally called the "Anti - class" i.e Anti Ranger, Anti- Paladin and so on. Also, second edition had the "Kits" that players could take... the precursor to prestige classes. 3rd Ed. simplified the game, and I think WotC dumbed it down to lure a new generation to play.

Me personally... I dont see a druid follower of malar to be that much of a problem, so long as the character is of evil alignment... ie Neutral Evil, and does not conform to the general rules of the druid class. RP as an Anti Druid. Seems like it could work.

IronAngel wrote:

Now, this is not to suggest Malar can't sponsor druids; they clearly changed that in 3e. What does this mean then? What else, than that druid as a class has been expanded conceptually ...

I think it means that Malar has been expanded conceptually. We have to Occam's Razor this one: is it more plausible that one god's dogma changed over time, or that the dogma of *every* druid-sponsoring god broadened drastically? When one considers that these alleged fundamental changes to the concept of druidism are described nowhere else in any source other than the Malar entry of the deities sourcebook, and that the campaign setting goes to great lengths to suggest how to update a PC's build from 2nd Ed to 3rd without ever mentioning a redefinition of druids, I think the answer is kind of obvious. The quote you cite doesn't describe a change in druidism as a whole, but only in Malar individually.

You misrepresent the situation. Every Fury can sponsor druids now. They certainly could not in 2e. You will not find the word mentioned in the entires of Talos, Auril, Umberlee or Talona in Faiths & Avatars, and it's only mentioned in Malar because the very concept of the god is diametrically opposed to classical druidism. Druidism was a very narrowly defined concept, with reference to Balance, to druidic rituals and society. Druids were good guys, by and large, and uniform enough to enable generalisations like "Druids and Harpers are allies." The concept of a Fury, a disruptive, malicious and impatient deity, sponsoring druidism would have been impossible within the 2e framework. The 3e PHB entry on the other hand, as I already pointed out, is very vague and only talks about ambigious reverence for nature and an aspect of indifference/dispassion. The elaborate mythology of druidism with its doctrines and philosophies defined to the smallest detail (or rather, stolen from some New Age Celt fansite) is all well and good, but it doesn't apply to druids across the board. And why should it? No mention of it is made in the PHB. The word "balance" doesn't even come up. (And we know that specific in-world traditions trump generalisations anyway.)

I am not saying the culture of druidism somehow changed. The old druids are still the same, even if the several new faiths sponsoring the druid class may not have adopted all the details of their enemies' culture. (Why would they have?) I am saying that, in line with the general direction of design in 3e, the class itself is no longer defined under the strict parameters of one concept. Just like rangers don't have to be good anymore, priests can use bladed weapons, dwarves and halflings can become mages, and bards don't need to first take fighter and rogue levels before getting druidic training. It's just the sensible line that the few core classes of the game, while retaining certain quirks and restrictions, can represent as varied character concepts as possible.

And even without reference to changes between editions (though it's not so much a consistent change as it is a mess, just like whether rangers are nature casters or not), it's pretty clear that there is a strong archetype of a druid that people seem intent on enforcing. It's very similar to the paladin issue. But as we have come to know in life and in game, archetypes and people holding onto them rarely tell the whole story. There are always exceptions, always diversity. There are paladins who use undead or hide behind illusions, there are rangers who can gain divine spells without patron deities, there are heretics who get their spells from enemy deities or from gods who just don't care, there are upstanding rogues and truckload of other, non-stereotypical concepts in the setting. It would be highly unlikely that druids were the one exception and that every druid in the world conformed to the same mould even if it made absolutely no sense for their culture and faith.

EDIT: Besides, you make it sound as if there are two competing explanations resorting to IC change. I did not imply any IC change. I suggested that all those nature-themed specialty priests and other followers that the Furies presumably had in 2e history now use the Druid class. That kind of game rule tweaking happens all the time without need to explain it with historical changes. You suggested that the god who is all about killing druids and opposing their philosophy of balance suddenly embraces this balance and starts mass-producing druids to make up for years of misbehaviour, in charicature. (And, in fact, Yossarin suggested that the Amian Malar has grown even more vicious and out-of-control of late, in direct contradition to such a possibility.)

And there is ample evidence in the rules, too: their silence. A lot of the detailed druid lore of 2e is not reproduced in the normative core of 3e. That alone should let us infer that it does not apply categorically. Druid lore is mostly a clusterfuck of ideas gathered by devoted players and then passed on as the ultimate truth, while strictly speaking most of it is outdated or just not true in the first place. That's true for most classes: the rich 2e lore found in various splat books just isn't reproduced in 3e. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. But it does mean it no longer applies absolutely to everyone.

This is an easy question for my main, Isen.

He's a priest of Selvetarm, and obviously has to offer at least lip service to lolth even if she couldn't care less about his lot in life.

Everyone else is either heretic or rothe, he doesn't need to care about their gods.

"Occam's Razor"

You all keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In PnP, Druids, by all rights, are the ultimate polytheists. Sure they have a patron whose ethos they exhibit most closely, but otherwise, through maintaining nature, hunting for food, etc. they are paying homage to all the gods worried about the balance and the natural world. That said, on Amia, I defer to Amarice's opinion on this one.

DustSpray101 wrote:

"Occam's Razor"

"When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

That's what it should mean.

Bingo. Seen it misused a few times to express simply a general shifting of the burden of proof between 2 rather equally complex theories. Of course that observation is made excluding the personal bias as to the opinion of the complexities at hand.

Otherwise, yea. What does Amarice have to say about it on Amia?

Well, Occam's Razor is sort of applicable (although William of Ockham used it for quite different, metaphysical purposes) because in Liz's framing of the problem, the assumption of one change in one faith on the IC level does require less than assuming conceptual change on a metalevel concerning many faiths and characters. Actually, this is pretty close to the original use, which seeks to eliminate superfluous conceptual levels (like Platonic ideas/shapes/concepts). However, as I pointed out, that's not really a correct representation of all the evidence.

Somewhere here, there is the best argument and the most reasonable, most exclusive answer. We definitely should not make a ruling about it, though. How people choose to RP their characters must be up to them, and any case where there's the slightest bit of doubt (and in this case, there's a great bit of doubt for good reason) should default to the inclusive stance: if A and B are both reasonable, or at least you can't be sure they aren't, you should live and let live. The worst thing to do is to invalidate player interpretations for no real reason. And in general, divine intervention should be the last resort as a corrective - even issues of heresy or disobedience are first approached through representatives of the church. Gods don't just go slapping and zapping followers; that's the local high priest's job.

Anyhow, we can probably sum up the fairly noncontroversial points:

- Malar and Mielikki, and in general the Furies and the classic Nature deities, are enemies.
- The druids of the Furies are enemies of the druids of the classic Nature deities, and probably do not conform to identical social structure, rituals and beliefs (such as that of a "Balance").
- People tend to give varying degrees of worship, reverence or deference to various deities when dealing with their rightful portfolios, regardless of alignment.
- The situation may be different when it comes to certain enemy deities/faiths like Shar-Selune. But that depends on the situation, and different people with different ideas about the gods may have different views.
- Gods do not micromanage interpretations, and divine relationships do not directly translate into mortal relationships. If they did, there would be no heresies, no intra-faith conflict, or quarrels between churches of friendly deities. As Yossarin reminded, the gods are concerned about gaining and keeping followers, not alienating them. An exclusive god is unlikely to be a successful god.

What the exact case of Mielikki and Malar is, is really open to interpretation. You couldn't really say anything definite about it without a specific case of a specific follower performing (or not performing) some particular act of worship in a given situation. In that case, you'd have to evaluate the motives, circumstances and consequences, as well as his religious upbringing. When it comes to religion, gods and the cosmos, there really are no blanket answers, and the whole point of playing a religious PC is to develop your own theology and debate its finer nuances with other PCs.

P.S. The paragraph above raises one point I think is often neglected: religious upbringing. Gods do not communicate their doctrines and expectations directly to mortals on a regular basis, and when they do it may not be explicit or consistent. A lot of what people believe comes from what they're taught. Often this point is used to justify deviation from the mainstream doctrines; that since there's no absolute certainty about the god's will, almost anything goes.

That's well and good, but I'd like to submit the opposite possibility: many things may be alright for the god on a global scale, but still be against your religious upbringing. The case of Salandran pacifism is a good example. It's established that Salandra does not require absolute pacifism from her followers and does not categorically refuse divine spells to those who fight. However, someone who was raised in a community that held to the tenet might still be required to respect it. If you were taught that Salandra expects pacifism, and choose to go against the consensus of your church tradition, superiors and what you believe about Salandra (even if untrue), you demonstrate a lack of respect, humility and obedience that may cause your fall. Salandra may not expect all her temples to adhere to the same beliefs, but she may still expect that followers adhere to the faith and tradition of their local temples. That is, after all, how they know and reach Salandra. A church hierarchy is, generally, the legitimate temporal manifestation of the god.

The above doesn't invalidate the possibility of genuine, legitimate doubt and questioning, though. Perhaps you've studied your heart and the sacred writings, and come to the conclusion that your local priests are doing it wrong. That may very well get you the goddess's approval, and perhaps even make her promote you over the other clergy for local authority.

In short: the exact details of what gods expect and what they might allow aren't that important. The believer's inner attitude and sincerity of faith is much more crucial. One person may get away with something another gets fallen for, because they know and believe different things. Doing something your god likes and expects by accident is not as commendable as doing something she doesn't really care about in the sincere belief that you're furthering her cause.

Who needs Candlekeep, when you have Iron Angel for pure unbridled bookwormy geekiness?

We all love him <3

GreatPigeon wrote:

My question is this ->
Is it just on Amia or is it replicated around the realms where individuals only worship one God?

I see many people who seem to only follow one of their Gods listed in their races pantheon. This isn't necessarily a problem but I guess from a polytheistic standpoint I cannot comprehend ignoring all of the others.

Faerunian religion is a very big deal. It's very much "no other God before me"in how it is enacted. The churches are these huge, pervasive megalithic things that constantly fight to get converts and that is because of the way the Faerunian afterlife is set up. Unlike most afterlifes, the Faerunian's pantheon is set up as a rather weird game of all or nothing. That is, a body MUST be spiritually voted to one God, otherwise when they die, because souls who aren't get subsumed by the wall.

That said, gods and their churches are pretty vocal about what they expect, who their allies are and who their enemies are. It isn't like the Greek pantheon, where a person can be primarily devoted to Zeus, but might make offerings to Ares in a time of war. Faerun gods are very jealous and vocal. A person who isn't woefully ignorant worships one God whole-heartedly, and probably thinks very well of that God's allies and might even offer a pertinent prayer to them if necessary, but most likely doesn't bother with others since they know unrelated gods have nothing to gain at all by expending power on a soul already claimed by another.

Other pantheons on the planet curiously enough don't act like this since they seemingly aren't restricted by the same mechanics. Kar-turans often worship many gods equally. Most Zakharans worship all their gods (indeed, there is even a religion that espouses worship of every god that exists and will ever exist, everywhere). Most other pantheons on the planet are planar transplants (Mulhorandi being Egyptian, Maztican the Aztecs, etc) and they generally act as culturally appropriate, but tend to stick together. This includes racial pantheons.

In summary, given the source material and given representations of it (published novels, adventures, video games) I'd very much have to say the Faerunian pantheon is no different from any other single-sphere pantheon, in that unlike cultural or familial pantheons, the gods are very much "each power for themselves" and given their constrictive afterlife mechanics and overbearing Overgod, they have made it plain and clear "worship me and only me or your butt won't get into paradise." Your typical faerunian would have had this drilled into their head at church service and the furthest they'd ever likely stray would most likely be a prayer to an ally or subservient deity to their main God if it were pertinent to a particular issue.

I disagree vehemently with the above, and it's pretty commonly agreed among Realmslore buffs that the idea of a mechanical patron deity and an afterlife based on devotion to a single deity was a poor addition that did not keep in line with the spirit of the setting. It's an inconvenience we have the get around, not the basis on which to draw conclusions.

Not that you couldn't use such an interpretation in your RP, of course. There are some arguments to support it and reasons why a person might feel that way about religion. But I don't think it's a fair representation to generalise from, especially as regards how the churches behave. Ed himself has taken every opportunity to stress the polytheistic tendencies of the setting and downplay exclusive devotion as a widespread phenomenon.

I read through much of Faiths & Pantheons and did not get that impression of Faerunian religion at all. What did I miss?

IronAngel wrote:

I disagree vehemently with the above, and it's pretty commonly agreed among Realmslore buffs that the idea of a mechanical patron deity and an afterlife based on devotion to a single deity was a poor addition that did not keep in line with the spirit of the setting. It's an inconvenience we have the get around, not the basis on which to draw conclusions..

It may or may not be a poor addition, but it is the reality of the setting. Due to the way the Faerun pantheon is run by Ao, it's mechanics make the competition for souls very fierce spiritually. There's good reason why every character seems to hammer on endlessly about their choice of God even if they aren't a divine class in the novels, video games, etc. Godly mechanics are fairly straight forward, a person dies, if said person was fairly devoted to a particular deity, that deity had a claim on their soul and will claim it as a petitioner to dwell in that deity's realm. Once there, the petitioner I is set at a certain level of station based on its devotion to the deity in life. If you choose Bane as your deity in life, when you die, you get sent to Bane's realm. Now where you go there and the level of status you get put into its wholly basedon the merit of your devotion in life. If your character was simply a commoner of little import who gave Bane lip service (moreso than other deities), but didn't really do much to spread fear and tyranny or gain converts to Bane's faith, that character ends up on the lowest rung of the ladder with a long slog of testing before finally merging with Bane and increasing Bane's divine status and power. On the other hand, if that character was someone who formed a banite sect, spread much fear and tyranny in Bane's name, and gained many converts to Bane's cause, that petitioner starts out much higher on the ladder and is nearly perfected for merging with Bane.

Due to the Wall of the Faithless and Ao's harsh decrees and rules (which other pantheons don't suffer), the Faerunian pantheon has an all or nothing attitude. Habitually giving devotion to a deity gives that deity some claim on a soul and spreading your devotion around means when you die, your soul can literally be contested for by servants of the deities themselves. A deity would be foolish to not make it clear to its worshippers to give their hearts to it and only it, since straying a little could possibly be a loss to the deity. Not to mention no deity is going to bother expending its very precious, hard-earned power answering the prayers of a soul that is largely claimed by another deity. A deity who is an ally of the one the supplicant worships may consider granting aid if petitioned through prayer as a favor to its ally in return for some future favor itself, but unrelated deities have no impetus or expectation of favor for doing so.

The key difference between a single sphere pantheon like the Faerunian pantheon (or Greyhawk's pantheon or Krynn's pantheon, etc) is there is almost no cohesion or cooperation amongst them simply because they are only a group based solely on geography, nothing more. Other pantheons which are cultural (greek, egyptian) or racial (elf, goblin) largely are related and/or share the same interests and create agreements amongst themselves that give them some cohesion as a group. If one of them is attacked by an outsider, the group itself will put the differences aside and band together to retaliate. This threat alone is why godswar is almost non-existent in the planes and why single sphere deities are perceived as easy weaklings in a planar-sense and preyed upon by usurper deities with multiversial pantheon backing. If Ares were slighted by Bane and retaliated by crushing Bane utterly, Ares really has little to fear simply because the Faerunian pantheon would largely shrug its shoulders, its members mostly not giving much care for Bane. Vice-versa, if Bane were foolish enough to attempt the same thing, the entire greek pantheon would band together and turn Bane's realm into ash.

That said, gods in single sphere pantheons are much more jealous of their power and largely brook no poaching of worshippers. Factor in the facts that losing a worshipper to another in the pantheon doesn't really help a deity in the least since you can't expect any one in the pantheon to get your back except close allies and the Wall of the Faithless is ever a looming threat for souls who waffle much a deity would be an idiot to not be very precise and proactive about being very devoted. Being a tormtar who habitually offers prayers and offerings to Beshaba simply because your station puts you at sea everyday opens up your soul to Beshaba's claim if you die! This isn't so much a problem in a pantheon like the greeks, which largely has agreements amongst each other to keep the pantheon strong as a whole, but in single sphere pantheons, it's very much first come first serve, every deity for themself.

Much of the explanations of workings of the gods can be found in the most excellent sources throughout the Planescape line, particularly "On Hallowed Ground" (which explains how deityhood works very well) and there is much proof of it throughout various FR novels and games (like the Avatar trilogy , Baldur's Gate series, etc).

Patron Deties and Multiple Gods

Who is online