Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Hi. This came into my mind as I was replying to the thread about faith quests, and I wanted to ask people's opinions about this, and make a suggestion.

For a long, long time, we've been roleplaying the faith managers as having a special link with their god, trusting they speak with the voice of that god, always requiring obedience because only they know that god. And in many ways, if an imm is online they will back that up, against other members of the faith if they are arguing.

Now, I would suggest (humbly, and open to disagreements) that we move on from that method of roleplaying an FM. I tend to think an FM is a temporal (non-spiritual) authority, sometimes more than spiritual. Obviously they worship and serve the god as the highest rank attainable, so they are spiritual as well, but their power extends to the management of a faith, rather than to doing potent miracles as a spiritual channel for their god (excluding prayers and spells).

As an FM for Oghma, I ICly encourage my faith to disagree with me. At the same time, IC, I (and Ynaura, I think, but she can speak for herself! ) would probably expect my faith to obey if I felt something was serious. But herein lies my argument. Lerytha (and as a result, her player) follows one interpretation of the Oghman faith. Another character might have another interpretation. Now, obviously the "true" interpretation is explained when the characters are faithed, but in terms of those finicky little issues? Why should there not be disagreement? Why could there not even be a rebellion? Lots of the faith siding with one annoying moron who for some reason has re-interpreted the dogma in a persuading way?

As it is, if that happened, the FM would (at different stages depending on the IC patience of the character) probably "demote", "demote", maybe "pray Oghma Lord Oghma, insurrection is rife in the faith, and... blah, blah, blah, help me by turning them into weasels.". Good. In a "new world" proposed by me, that's exactly what should happen. In the new world, I would suggest a FM can demote all the way down to initiate if the faith completely disagrees with them, and prays to the god for help. That way if the GOD is incredibly angry by the shift in views, he or she can make an appearance. If the GOD doesn't though, the FM must rely on their temporal power to discourage rebellion, or perhaps find a way where the two interpretations can exist side-by-side.

You see, I think RP, even RP that "ruins" a faith (but makes it interesting IC) is always healthy. And by having a rule that FMs are always right, we are in a sense, stifling that RP.

I am probably going to explain it more in further detail if anyone responds, but until that, I'll leave it there and see what people think - and see if I need to explain it better!

Thanks!

~Ol

Good topic

I really believe that it all depends upon the FM and the faith in question. Myself, being the FM of Malar, have a fairly open viewpoint as to how followers can worship him. In canon, Malar receives followers of all different alignments, even though he himself is a chaotic evil god. This means that they all follow him in their own way. I believe that each can worship in their own way and as long as they follow the dogma guidelines, he (Malar) would not care very much because they would still be furthering his goals and precepts.

I openly accept and enjoy interpretation of the dogma and am always willing to discuss or debate them, be it with those outside the faith, even enemies, or followers. I am willing to be convinced of another viewpoint, but I would of course need to be persuaded that that view is more "right" than the one I currently have. Even so, among followers, I will not punish an alternate interpretation, as long as it isn't blantantly "wrong" (*grumbles* Stupid Unicorn-followers).

For instance, Malar is the god of the hunt. One of the main ways to worship him is to hunt. As long as you are hunting, I believe he accepts that as worship and glory to him. The reasons why you are hunting, I think, are open to many different viewpoints and all would be correct (as long as one of those views is to give worship and glory to him ).

Now I am only a bit more strict on this matter with priests, because they can only really be two alignments (following them being druids as well as the "one step" rule). I simply expect a bit more from them.

So to address your post, I agree with you. I think that FMs are those chosen by the gods and their views are most definitely "correct" but just because you might have a different interpretation on the matter does not mean yours is not also.

Just to add my two cents, there are faiths that have schisms already within them. For example the faith I know best, Ilmater's faith is divided into the Orthodox and the Traditionalists. I won't get into what the details of difference are between them, but the two sects are constantly vying for power within the faith, trying to convince each other that they're way is the "right" way, converting followers of the other side, etc. Of course there are followers who are neither Orthodox nor Traditionalist, and they might be neutral in the matter. But further still Ilmater's faith is rich with other varying orders and sects: the Issaqari and the Trinitarians, Flagellants, Stoics, and Penitents to name a few. But I've always felt that it would make an amazing faith RP to have inner conflict between an FM of sect A and followers of sect B who don't want that sect A having power. I mean Ilmater may be all blah blah compassion help your fellow man, but that doesn't stop his followers from being a little petty and power-hungry at times...

There is even some cannon to back that up. I remember reading that Lathander has a group of priests who believe he is Amaunator reborn (the Netherese god of the sun) The priests when they get too carried away get cut off from Lathander's prayers, but for the most part they are just a offshoot radical group of the faith.

That's largely my point. In that, canon-wise, divisions are encouraged. But in terms of the MUD, practically, if you go against your FM in any way you are largely brought crashing down to earth in almighty style, either through IMM intervention, or just through the FM demoting you or even taking your symbol. Would people think a culture change in terms of how FMs use their power is warranted, or not?

Certainly, there's potential in Oghma's faith for a great deal of difference. What if Ynaura got fed up with neutrality and went off bringing good knowledge to good people? That would be a heck of a schism. Of course, its different when you have two FMs, and there's nothing Lerytha could do about it. But what if one of the faith started preaching that we had to destroy dangerous knowledge, and not just keep it safe? Although it would be tempting as a player (and as a character, first and foremost) to just stamp down on it, root it out, punish them, should I be limited in those means? Because at present I (and Ynaura) would have almost total power to a) take their symbol b) demote them and c) speak to an imm to have them removed/made an example of.

And I don't like that I have that power at my disposal, because it seems VAGUELY (and I mean really vaguely) OOC. That is, you don't agree with me, so you get scuppered. I would prefer it to be only the real serious breaches of dogma that would be punishable by an IMM, and leave minor ones to the FM.

So, is it about asking the IMMS to react less quickly to cases of dogma-interpretation? Is it about asking the IMMS not to protect faith managers as if they are the walking word of that god? Or is it about letting each faith choose the different ways they act?

(Incidentally, I still think there should be an inherent respect for faith manager characters. But this is my main OOC point: In real life, if I ever met the Pope, being a Catholic, I would probably be so, so, so respectful. I mean, this guy - officially - represents God on Earth, wow. But at the same point, within the Church, we are still able to disagree with that guy's view of dogma. What, Popey? You think so-and-so is evil? Nah, that's silly... etc. Of course, I don't expect any sort of God to make an example of me in that real-life case-study, but in FK the parallel is ALMOST the same).

I'm welcome to be told that FMs need NOT to tolerate argument, or welcome to be agreed with. Is it something we just leave and let invididual FMs sort out, or do we request a new way of doing things? Not sure at the moment, but it is definitely worth discussing?

There are a few canon heresies and even a feat - heretic of the faith - so yes, there is definitely a precedent for schisms! In fact the setting is rife with various priests battling for power, from the followers of Umberlee to the priests of Waukeen and it certainly does open up the possibilities for some yummy roleplay (providing it doesn’t get out of hand and every single priest doesn’t come up with their own unique POV causing mass chaos). Certainly I don’t think there is any need for members of the same faith to be stuck in a mindset that they all have to be buddies and never have a disagreement. I know that some of my characters actively dislike, and would definitely work against, fellow faith members.

That said, FMs are generally elevated to their position, in FK at least, by their chosen deity - there’s no denying that. Of course, it doesn’t mean that they automatically and forevermore have the complete backing of said god, but as Lerytha says there should still be a reasonable expectation that faith members will do as they’re told when it comes to a crunch. Even if they do it begrudgingly.

Nothing wrong with faith in-fighting and conflict. For example, Nysan has been hating by most of his faith for years because he doesn't follow "normal" interptations of the faith, even broke down to open hostility and death threats on occassions. Such situations can lead to some great RP. But! I put such RP in the "advanced" catagory, similar to proper play of a dwarf or pregency, its not for everyone and can really mess up a player's enjoyment of FK if they cannot handle it. Nothing wrong with taking a stand against fellow faith members... but there will be a big reaction to deal with.

I can't say for FMs, but I know Marcus as HP of Tempus had a specific set of things tolerable and things intolerable. Selveem followed those suggestions to the letter, but there were other things that weren't specified that he did _not_ punish for even if it directly opposed him!

History wrote:Selveem, as being made General of Hartsvale in the pending War of Hartsvale versus Waterdeep was asked to train the Hartsvale soldiers for the upcoming war. Marcus was the then-Battleguard of Waterdeep and thus they were directly in opposition

Luckily, the war never happened as Waterdeep sent apology for their Watchman's behavior, but it was a pretty big eye-opener for Selveem (and even myself as a player).

Currently, however, you are correct in that there is no standard. Some FMs are more lenient like Marcus was, others are more militant in their beliefs that there can be no 'misinterpretation' or divergence.

That being said, sometimes I think only having one FM of an entire faith _is_ a huge hindrance. Having none is.. well, it's just not good.

Tempus already has some faith infighting and it's been great. Seeing the CGs going against the freedom-types like the CNs, and the prospect of a CE joining the mix.. *drools* FUN TIMES TO BE HAD!

At any rate, I think it's important for the FMs to remember that we love them for the sacrifices they make, even if we don't show it at all times.

I have no idea what Lerytha is talking about. If someone tried to stray away from Ynaura's views on the Oghman faith, she's subtly lure them back to her side with tarts and tell them how they were wrong...and keep telling them until they agreed.

Really though, as Ynaura, I always encourage Oghmans to question her if they do not think it is right, unless it is something serious (like burning down a library would never be accepted, no matter how many tarts you bribed Ynaura with. That is just a no no.) There have been two occassions that I can think of that such questioning, actually brought Ynaura to question how she thought about things, and she changed her stance. It is her belief that no one will worship him in the same way..Especially with having such a diverse faith. We have some of everyone, necromancers, mages, bards, fighters, rogues, clerics..no two people think alike, so they will not worship alike. I'm not very knowledgeable about FR stuff, my first experience with it was this game. My first experience with rping was this game...when I was given the FM position of Oghma though, I really really tried to do my homework about him online and come up with my own opinions about how she would worship and how she would believe. Should have been writing term papers, but I was researching the Oghman dogma instead. There are many parts of the Oghman faith that could be taken different ways..such as..to what extent should we share knowledge...what is considered prudent and what isn't...to what extent should Oghmans be neutral and are there any situations where they wouldn't have to be so neutral.. Those are just a few things. Ynaura basically believes that if you are not blatantly violating some doctrine of the faith then you are alright. If other things are to be questioned, she just waits for Lerytha to open up a debate about it I think it's perfectly acceptable for people to stray from their FM's set of beliefs..to a degree. And only with certain faiths. Some faiths it just won't fly and your symbol will be snatched up quicker than you can say 'Hey!'. I also think though if you are going to choose to be one of those difficult ones, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences. Your FM or even your God may decide not to put up with it at all. Before you try it...ask yourself how you would feel oocly if your character gets punished for not sharing the exact views of the rest of the faith. If it is something you would oocly be upset about..just stay away from it. A lot of people think it wouldn't bother them, and go for it in the name of rp, but when it actually happens, maybe they are dealt out more consequences than they were expecting and they get upset, oocly and icly. And that just makes the whole experience unpleasant for everyone. Regardless of what some people might think we do not take pleasure in taking symbols or giving punishments..atleast I don't. I really really really hate it. I get upset oocly if I have to give someone a lecture (I'm pathetic..I know) And that's been my toughest part of being an FM. I don't know how much of this was on topic...but atleast this way I got to procrastinate on writing another paper! YAY!

I hate to say it but this topic, and many other topics similar to this have been discussed over and over again. The answer that comes back each time is this:

It varies from faith to faith and how the person in power roleplays it.

And there's me thinking I was really original. Oh, well!

Personally, I think some things should be reopened for discussion from time to time, particularly when new players come along. I don't think that because something has been discussed before, that it isn't relevant for it be discussed again, particularly when it might throw up a few things which might prompt someone to initiate an interesting RP. It's pretty topical right now with the other discussions around faith which are taking place.

This is a bit of an older thread it looks like, but in light of some other threads going on, I thought I might give it a bump....

One thing to consider is the "Helm incident."... You know, Time of Troubles? Bad priest, everyone followed him blindly because he was the FM? Granted, one could argue that these are real players, and not characters written by one 'player' as it were, but that's just all the more reason to consider that having FMs be 'always right' is dangerous. The players, as has been stated many times, are real humans, and are thus falliable, as are their mortal characters. Demanding blind obedience, to me, because of someone's position, seems to be asking for trouble.