Nature's Wrath

[Sardinal]

Nature’s Wrath (Pantheon)
Benefit: You worship both Nathis, God of Nature and Koric, God of Destruction and Vengeance.
When you choose your domains you must obey the following rules. You must choose one domain from each God. From Koric you must choose either Destruction or Retribution. From Nathis you must choose one of the four elemental domains, Air, Earth, Fire, or Water.

In addition, when you use the granted ability of the Destruction or Retribution Domains the extra damage from the smite, or the full damage from the retributive strike are changed to elemental damage of the type associated with your elemental domain. Air = Electricity, Earth = Acid, Fire = Fire, and Water = Cold.

Finally, you may use the elemental turn attempts granted by your elemental domain to power further uses of your Destruction or Retribution domain granted power. Each further use per day costs 3 elemental turn attempts. .

Special: This feat breaks from the standard rules of Pantheon Feats, granting access to more of Nathis’s domains than would normally be allowed.

[seekyr]

And, naturally, each god is okay with the character moonlighting for another god.

[Sardinal]

If your only purpose in maintaining an account on our site is to levy snarky criticisms against our creative efforts and mindlessly spout your lofty but utterly flawed judgments on our world I cordially invite you to delete your account and fuck off.

[seekyr]

It's really not, but I have a problem with some of y'all's 'creativity'.
The problems I have with the mystic theurge are sort of mirrors to this one. If a divine prestige class is a further delineation of what the cleric is supposed to be doing, then I have (usually) very little problem with it.
What this is, is two gods who don't necessarily like each other being absolutely okay with one of their own priests worshiping another god. The fact that you don't see this as a problem - and decide that cursing at me is the way to handle this - speaks volumes as to what 'creativity' you're bringing to the table.

[Katdoral]

There are specific gods that do find the concept of sharing worshippers accaptable. For instance, the Drow pantheon is rigidly hierarchical from the gods down. Other dieties share some elements of their divine vision with other dieties, and since domains (beyond the required alignment domains) can't be shared by different dieties in severall, the pantheon feats also (though that wasn't the reason for their creation) allow clerics with domain access not normally possible. However, in all cases, the dieties of severall are played by charcters so whether or not they accept the creation of a pantheon feat has to be discussed. The details of those discussions are generally made available after they take place in game, and after they would become known of by other divine elements. While on the surface, sans internal knowledge, these feats may seem counter intuitive, they represent diversity severall's religious evolution. Also of note, there are severall combinations that are extremely unlikely. Katdoral and Theylin, Sierra and Cyian, Nathus and Shal-Tsu just to name a few.

[Sardinal]

My cursing says nothing about my creativity, that doesn’t make even the smallest amount of sense. What it does reflect is my frustration with someone who bounces on the boards, makes one or two sentence criticisms without reasonable explanation or constructive advice and then bounces back out. That isn’t constructive criticism, it’s just criticism. It’s rude, pointless, lazy, and cowardly. If you can’t be bothered to genuinely participate and contribute, why comment at all?

It’s clear that you adhere to a purist ideology about the game. That you think anything stronger than the core classes is broken. It’s a philosophy they clearly intended to follow, based on how the DMG talks about prestige classes. It is, however, a direction they also promptly abandoned with the “complete” series and other publications. As we use those publications, our prestige classes are built to those design standards. I’m not going to apologize for choosing to use the material WotC provided for the game they designed. I’m not going to gimp our creations by holding them to an archaic formula that no longer applies to the game. I’m not going to put up with unhelpful criticisms from someone stuck in the games past.

As far as worshipping multiple Gods goes. The idea is an expression of Dogmatic Law. That mortals can influence the divine, if to a lesser degree than the divine influencing mortals. Polytheistic churches are created with the permission of all the gods players involved and adhere to a rule set described in the faiths of severall section. The religion is formed from the point where two gods portfolios interact or overlap. In this case it is Nathis’ command over the raw elements and Koriks dominon over destruction wedded into a religion that believes in Harnessing the destructive side of nature.

A Gods power is directly impacted by the number of followers he has. If a group of mortals forms an ideology that adheres to an aspect of the gods portfolio that isn’t played up by his mainstream faithful, that allows for his dominion to be expressed in a new way, and that includes another god fostering a method for their faiths to coexist without destroying each other, what god would say no? As long as the gods agree, as long as the gods players agree, and as long as the religion is well fleshed out in terms of dogma and structure, it does nothing but add richness and diversity.

[seekyr]

Katdoral
'There are specific gods that do find the concept of sharing worshippers accaptable.' - Somehow, I think that 'Nathis, God of Nature and Koric, God of Destruction and Vengeance' don't fit among those. Unless you're just talking about storms and such, which could just as easily be covered by either. There are aspects of each which the other would find detestable. That you think it easy enough for gods to timeshare a cleric seems very, very wrong to me. The whole point and purpose of a cleric is that they identify with and worship a god so strongly that the god reciprocates with power. There are many people who believe in the gods, and who worship one god above others. Almost none of those are clerics, who dedicate their lives to the god's call. That's why they receive the abilities they do.

Sardinal
'My cursing says nothing about my creativity, that doesn’t make even the smallest amount of sense.' - It's not a statement as to the lack of creativity, more to the direction of such creativity.

'What it does reflect is my frustration with someone who bounces on the boards, makes one or two sentence criticisms without reasonable explanation or constructive advice and then bounces back out.' - My views have been made on other posts, and I didn't think they needed to be restated every time I raised the same objections. If it bothers you so much, I can try to remember to restate my views on clerics and why I think the gods might just object to multiclassing, let alone this timeshare business.

'That isn’t constructive criticism, it’s just criticism. It’s rude, pointless, lazy, and cowardly. If you can’t be bothered to genuinely participate and contribute, why comment at all?' - I'll grant the lazy, but I don't feel it rude, pointless, or cowardly. Did I curse someone, or try to make them feel inferior? Do the objections raised have a point? Would it be more or less cowardly to simply not speak up at all if I have an objection? As I have objections, I feel the desire to raise them. As many politicians have noticed (as well as people who merely watch politics), being trapped in an echo chamber with no objections raised can make someone feel as if there are no objections, giving them a false sense that their ideas have more merit than they do.

'It is, however, a direction they also promptly abandoned with the “complete” series and other publications.' - Power creep, in other words. It is possible to supply more content without making the original of less worth.

'I’m not going to apologize for choosing to use the material WotC provided for the game they designed. I’m not going to gimp our creations by holding them to an archaic formula that no longer applies to the game. I’m not going to put up with unhelpful criticisms from someone stuck in the games past.' - Put another way, the Constitution was writ so long ago, that the precepts it raises have no longer any meaning in the society presented today. Something like that? Whyever would you need such a stolid and worthless document as the core rule books? Surely, there are better things in this day and age!
That others have cheapened this is no reason to abandon it. The rules are fine as they are, and power creep is what has turned quite a few away.
(Also, this is not meant as a political argument: It just popped to mind due to today, and all )

'That mortals can influence the divine, if to a lesser degree than the divine influencing mortals...In this case it is Nathis’ command over the raw elements and Koriks dominon over destruction wedded into a religion that believes in Harnessing the destructive side of nature.' - At which point there would be a new god who does that, or one god would assume the new portfolios. Taking two things that absolutely do not go together and saying that it w*rks is wrong. Blasphemous, some might say. I understand that this is your game, but... Dag, yo!

'If a group of mortals...what god would say no?' - Every god in the history of ever. It'd be sort of like the US military saying to it's fighter jets that they can also be Chinese, part-time. Or Russian. Doesn't matter that they don't like each other at all. Or the President of America also being the King of England. Pick one. It's where your power comes from. If you don't believe strongly enough in one god, then you're not a cleric of them, are you?

'As long as the gods agree, as long as the gods players agree, and as long as the religion is well fleshed out in terms of dogma and structure, it does nothing but add richness and diversity.' - As long as everyone wants to munchkin the game and make clerics and gods do whatever powergamers feel would w*rk best for them, sure.
I kind of prefer a little more sincerity, and a little less munchkin.

Might just be me.

[Sardinal]

"My views have been made on other posts, and I didn't think they needed to be restated every time I raised the same objections. If it bothers you so much, I can try to remember to restate my views on clerics and why I think the gods might just object to multiclassing, let alone this timeshare business." - You make my point for me. You raise the same objections. Despite the evidence that we dont share your opinions you stubbornly insist on telling us our creations are broken. Like it or not that has the effect of making it seem like this site is your personal bridge to live under and troll those walking across it.

"Did I curse someone, or try to make them feel inferior?" These are not the only circumstances to which rudeness applies. Knowing full well that we do not have your aversion to (most) power creep and that our games operate at the level of the later 3.5 books, you tell us our world is broken and wrong. You choose to come to this site to read about a world that does not adhere to your game philosophy and then tell us its broken and insincere because it doesnt. That is rude.

"Would it be more or less cowardly to simply not speak up at all if I have an objection? As I have objections, I feel the desire to raise them. As many politicians have noticed (as well as people who merely watch politics), being trapped in an echo chamber with no objections raised can make someone feel as if there are no objections, giving them a false sense that their ideas have more merit than they do." - It is cowardly to raise nothing but objections and not step forward with suggestions or advice on how to change what you object to. You do not temper your desire to raise objections with reason. Reason would insist that as you know this world is designed by those who have a different view of game balance than you, you must expect and accept that different view as inherent to the world. It would insist that you view Severall as it is, not as you wish it to be.

"Power creep, in other words. It is possible to supply more content without making the original of less worth." - There are flaws in this logic. To this day the Players Guide remains the one truly indispensable book. Power creep has not lessened its worth at all. Nor the DMG or MM, for that matter. Using the example of prestige classes, the DMG itself has prestige classes that put the base classes to shame (I'm looking at you Archmage), thus putting to bed the idea that prestige classes should only be specializations that make you better in one area while sacrificing power in other areas. If that is an idea you adhere to I recommend Pathfinder, but 3.5 D&D isnt it.

If instead you are saying that its possible to supply more content without making some content from older books weaker by comparison then I challenge you to prove it. I can think of no examples of such a thing occurring in 27 years of playing role playing games. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 4th (eewww), 5th editions of D&D, every Palladium game out there, Magic the Gathering from 3rd to 8th ed., 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of the entire World of Darkness...every one of them suffered from power creep. The only games that dont are the ones that dont make it off the ground and only get one or two books released. Successful role playing games that dont suffer power creep are a fantasy.....maybe we should make a fantasy game about it.


"Put another way, the Constitution was writ so long ago, that the precepts it raises have no longer any meaning in the society presented today. Something like that? Whyever would you need such a stolid and worthless document as the core rule books? Surely, there are better things in this day and age!" - Ummm buddy, the Constitution was writ so long ago that it's had to be amended 27 times since specifically because either specific precepts no longer had meaning in the society today or because its precepts couldn't account for the unseen aspects of modernity.  Social Power Creep, yo.  As for the "stolid and worthless" comment, if you must take the oppositions view and twist to extremes well beyond its intent you've already lost the argument.

"At which point there would be a new god who does that, or one god would assume the new portfolios. Taking two things that absolutely do not go together and saying that it w*rks is wrong. Blasphemous, some might say. I understand that this is your game, but... Dag, yo!
" -- Not in Severall.  Gods in Severall can only be created from actual PC's, they dont just spring up to fill new needs.  Also, no domain may be held by more than one God in Severall (Excepting only the alignment domains).  These two facets of our world conspire to create a more limited and confining number of options for clerics.  We choose to ameliorate this limitation by allowing for Polytheistic Religions.  Faiths constructed by some commonality between the Gods that has inspired mortals to new ways of thinking about the world, new expressions of faith. 

And where do you get the idea that we're talking about "two things that absolutely do not go together".  What makes you think that Nathis and Koric are incapable of working together?  Destruction and Nature work well together.  Koric sees Nathis as a necessity, Nathis sees Koric as the divine embodiment of a natural race.  Nathis is supremely unconcerned about the petty ethics and moralities of mortals as long as some aspect of nature is being served, and Koric has no problem using that lack of concern to gain a faction aligned with one of his dominions.  At what point did you decide you know better then us what our God's outlooks, history, portfolios, domains, and personalities would make them interested in.  These Gods are our characters, we played them for 20+ levels each.  We know what ideas they'd entertain, what lengths they be willing to go to, what excites them, and what repels them far better than you.

Furthermore, I feel your view dramatically underestimates the breadth and timelessness of vision, commitment to purpose, and scale of power of the Gods.  The idea that they could not find or do not see purpose for a given polytheistic faith seems myopic.  To what nameless ends might a god put such faithful with access to another god.  What innumerable obstacles, trials, and opportunities could this combination or that specific belief be used to overcome or harness.  Gods have the freedom of eternity to play the games they play, to make and place the pieces they require, and polytheistic churches give them access to knowledge, avenues to alliance, and new tools for their faithful.  While the faithful wouldnt betray either god, the belief itself could be very useful. 

It also opens the door to potentially great sub plots and character stories.  How did such a union occur? How did they manage to mingle without violating the most universal aspects of each God?  What happens if/when it schisms?  Can you force a PC to choose which god he sticks with if the one of the Gods of the pantheon decides to stop accepting the polyfaith.  How do the mainstream faiths react to them?    


- "Every god in the history of ever. It'd be sort of like the US military saying to it's fighter jets that they can also be Chinese, part-time. Or Russian. Doesn't matter that they don't like each other at all. Or the President of America also being the King of England. Pick one. It's where your power comes from. If you don't believe strongly enough in one god, then you're not a cleric of them, are you?"   
You keep saying things like "part-time" and "timesharing".  This isnt about a cleric worshiping Nathis during the day and Koric at night.  It is a religion, whole and complete that encompasses two Gods, or at least aspects of two Gods.  Similar to some pagan, wiccan and/or hermetic religions that accept a Divine Masculine and a Divine Feminine as their deities.  Or the Exegatai of ancient Greece who were priests and religious advisers of the whole pantheon and not just one God.  Or most priests of the Aztec faith who worked to ensure all the Gods were satisfied, not just one.  There are many more examples if you look for them.  I seem to have blown that "Every God in the History of ever" nonsense out of the water, so I'll move on.



- As long as everyone wants to munchkin the game and make clerics and gods do whatever powergamers feel would w*rk best for them, sure.

I kind of prefer a little more sincerity, and a little less munchkin.


Adding diversity and using a system that asks players to develop an actual dogma and structure around their faith while granting them leeway to burn a feat to worship in a polytheistic system is neither munchkining, nor powergaming, nor insincere.  Your statement is arrogant in its judgment and ignorant in it's lack of a deep understanding of Severall.  That you have limited yourself to such a narrow, rigid, and uncompromising view of gaming and faith is saddening, but that's your choice.  

[seekyr]

'Like it or not that has the effect of making it seem like this site is your personal bridge to live under and troll those walking across it.' - No one's making you walk over it. You started saying that all I did was spout off with no sense. I show what I mean, and you tell me that everyone knows what I've been saying? And sense y'all just wanna go and munchkin the game, you'll ignore me anyways. What I say doesn't bother you, so carry on and ignore the 'troll'.

'That is rude.' - Wow. I had no idea that people disagreeing with you is rude, even when they're respectful. My utmost apologies. I certainly didn't realize that disagreement was cause for actual cursing. Remain in your echo chamber.

'It is cowardly to raise nothing but objections...insist that you view Severall as it is, not as you wish it to be.' - At what point did I insist? I think something is wrong, and I tell you what I think is wrong about it. If anyone was interested, a conversation can then ensue about it and my objections. Y'all don't want to (and I honestly don't blame you), but if I see something as being wrong, I'll mention it. You're the only one who's spouted off about how rude you think it is to disagree. Others talk about specific points, in sort of a discussion of merits. Almost like a conversation, as it were. I am not invited to the general discussions (it's all right, really: I wasn't involved with the creation of it), so this is the forum of ideas. I'm engaging. Engage or not as your choice.

'Successful role playing games that dont suffer power creep are a fantasy.....maybe we should make a fantasy game about it.' - Maybe we should. That everyone's doing it doesn't make it right. That I object to it doesn't make it wrong. You want to do this with your world, it is absolutely your choice. If I want to point out why and how I feel it is broken? My choice. If you want to ban me from posting over this? Your choice.

'Social Power Creep, yo. As for the "stolid and worthless" comment, if you must take the oppositions view and twist to extremes well beyond its intent you've already lost the argument.' - Keeping this to D&D, you need an opposition to keep the power creep from becoming what 3rd edition ended up as. Remember that class that just added two levels of arcane casting per level in lieu of everything else? A firm example of power creep gone bad. That they came out with 3.5 is great. That they're engaging in more power creep now is troubling. Some of them try to hold it in check more than others.

'Also, no domain may be held by more than one God in Severall (Excepting only the alignment domains). These two facets of our world conspire to create a more limited and confining number of options for clerics. We choose to ameliorate this limitation by allowing for Polytheistic Religions.' - In order to not break the rules you set out, you feel the need to break the rules set by reality? Destruction and chaos allied with nature? Good fit. Saying that you're only trying to cram the destructive parts of nature in means that you're not accepting the rest of it. It's like trying to make islam better by taking out all the raping and killing. Either you're following the god or not. Biggest problem I have with this is not the power creep, but the mashing together of two deities who don't fit. Not even putting them together, saying that they're each okay with their priests moonlighting for someone they don't even like.

'as long as some aspect of nature is being served' - That right there. You don't need to be aligned with me even a little bit, so long as you mouth some words and don't hate me too badly. That you don't see how wrong that is speaks volumes.

'These Gods are our characters, we played them for 20+ levels each. We know what ideas they'd entertain, what lengths they be willing to go to, what excites them, and what repels them far better than you.' - 'That mortals can influence the divine, if to a lesser degree than the divine influencing mortals.' - There is a reason that gods do not remain as they have always been in these games. People influence their deity with their worship and their thoughts and desires. Unless you're trying to tell us that over the centuries (and millennia) the influence of the people hasn't changed or stratified their beings - counter to what you've said - then I see no reason for two people to have any affection for each other, even if they started in the same party. Over time, the camaraderie would be lost, because the people would not ever have known it. The gods themselves would not cling to it, because they're on another level of reality.
Nature would include storms, sure. It also includes (and is more seen to include) the life after that storm, the new growth, and life itself. Which people would be focusing solely on the storm aspect of nature to the point of ignoring all the rest? And further, which of those people would start looking at the god of destruction and chaos and vengeance thinking: 'You know? He's got some good ideas. I wish my god did those sorts of things.' How many of them would have to have those thoughts for how long to even get nature's attention? Where would they be isolated enough for the rest of the church to not have an intervention of one sort or another? Especially when nature's destructive power is already in evidence? Or do you not have that as part of nature in the first place? Not being able to share domains even a little would keep that from happening. Does nature not have storms anymore? Do they not exist? If that destructive power is not a part of nature, then would there even be any natural storms? Does destruction just come from the other god? When a storm rolls in, do the worshipers of nature curse the god of destruction? They wouldn't see it as a natural thing, would they? Would it be that they would come to hate destruction? Would they - like anyone else who wants a society - try to remove the followers of that god if only to lessen the strength of the storms they face? People influence gods here, remember? If nature has no destructive aspect, then its followers would not attribute a storm to nature, but to destruction. After they see the swath of destruction, they would likely have some bad feelings. Do the priests of nature try to calm their flock to keep them from jihad?
Did anybody think about any of this before they set out on this journey?

'The idea that they could not find or do not see purpose for a given polytheistic faith seems myopic.' - And your view that nature's life and destruction's chaos can agree in the face of their not having anything in common isn't? Or are they big enough munchkins to want the power no matter what it does to their followers (who are their power)?

'To what nameless ends might a god put such faithful with access to another god.' - So you're munchkins, one and all. It doesn't matter what they are about, what they've wanted to do, who they want to protect. All of it is a power grab. The only thing that matters is that they have access to more followers. So are these gods going to merge into a new being? Are the gods capable of procreating? Ignore the mechanics of it (you've ignored them so far, why start now?): Are you going to make a new god outside of your rules? The people influence the gods, right? Make this mesh with that idea, or you go nowhere with it. Or make gods who are not w*rking together make their followers go along with it.

'While the faithful wouldnt betray either god, the belief itself could be very useful.' - Are you serial? If this is the new norm, then the faithful wouldn't remain faithful, would they? They would themselves start a new god, or merge the two aspects into something that made sense to them. Part of the reason I don't like this sort of thing is that it has impact far beyond what was intended at the start. This is not something that is simple, this is foundational. Shift the foundation, and things topple.

'How did such a union occur? How did they manage to mingle without violating the most universal aspects of each God?' - So now you're deciding to make a shift, and let the characters adventure to discover how and why? Isn't that sort of going against what you stated, where the gods are characters, who've gone through gameplay to become as they are, but now things happen without gameplay? Is this to give you time to make sense of your decisions?

'Similar to some pagan, wiccan and/or hermetic religions that accept a Divine Masculine and a Divine Feminine as their deities.' - These aren't pagans, though. These are people who have seen their god in action in miraculous ways. From making a small wound disappear to raising the dead. Those sort of people do not believe lightly, even when you can see others doing the same thing. You worship nature, and you try to follow those precepts. If you take a few from column 'a', and another from column 'b', etc. then of what use are you? Does your devotion get split up among the 17 gods? More to the point, the priest has to adhere to the god, or the god does not bestow the power. If you were a priest of nature, and you started mouthing prayers to another god, would not nature stop giving you stuff? You get the powers because of devotion. Adhering to a god. The priest who leads and protects the flock cannot follow two gods. I believe I read that somewhere. Either you will hate the one, and love the other; or love the first and despise the second. Yep. That's it.

'Adding diversity and using a system that asks players to develop an actual dogma and structure around their faith while granting them leeway to burn a feat to worship in a polytheistic system is neither munchkining, nor powergaming, nor insincere.' - Again: What god would allow this? That you want it is evident. I don't see any gods allowing it. This is, however, your barbecue.

Political Rant.

'Ummm buddy, the Constitution was writ so long ago that it's had to be amended 27 times since specifically because either specific precepts no longer had meaning in the society today or because its precepts couldn't account for the unseen aspects of modernity.' - People choosing to try and force it to do things it was not intended to do - especially when those things are in opposition to what the Founding Fathers intended - I don't think that makes your argument stronger. The first ten (yes, one of which allows Congress to do what they did) point out what they were trying to do. I can't think of any others off the top of my head that are in line with them. As with most things, they left the rest to the states for a reason.

[Sardinal]

Ok, lets try this one last time. As has been said multiple times now, disagreement is not the problem. The problem is that all you seem to do is disagree. You called this "the forum of ideas", so lets see some. Really. Right now all we have are statements about creations being broken and wrong with broad generalities about why you feel that way. "Anytime you get more than you give up, it's broken" and "Just because everyone else is doing it, it doesnt make it right" are not only trite, not only of little use, but ideas that are not at all born out by the games designers or their products. We play 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons, not Bias and Fundamentalism, 1st (and only one to ever exist because change is evil) edition.

If you arent comfortable with the later-day mechanics of 3.5 that's fine, there are plenty of other arenas that we'd love to see ideas for. We have three massive worlds that are about 10% fleshed out by our games. If you have ideas, I (and I suspect the broader we) would love to see/read about them. Kingdoms, regions, variant religions, plots, villains, histories, societies, ancient relics...what do you have up your sleeve? Give this forum some ideas...or dont. It's up to you, but as long as you keep making nothing but mechanical arguments from outside the framework of the mechanics we have chosen for our world you're just screaming at the sky.