Topic: Channeling house rules

[netbat]

In working to make channeling a little more interesting and religion more relevent in my game I have been thinking of ways to better reflect the relationships between followers and deities. One of the things I was thinking of changing was to require channeling spells of type U to require a RR unless the target had some kind of relationship with the deity behind the spell. All channelers with base lists would have to have gone through an investiture ritual(I use the ChCo Ceremonies list as ritual suggestions using the ritual rules rather than list rules), that connects them to their deity so any spell from their deity doesn't require a RR. Other worshipers of the same Dieity would either have a mark(as in Brian Hansons BASiL channeling) or would go through a coming of age or dedication ceremony to attune to a personal holy symbol that would allow any spells from that deity to bypass the RR. Associated deities that are in the same pantheon and "friends" with the worshiped deity might only have the RR at half level.

Any thoughts or issues with this idea?  Anything that would cause balance problems?
I was looking for a way to include reasons for being a lay worshiper, and not having to have a RR preventing you from getting blessings, healing, or life-giving would be a good incentive and would cause channelers to have to look after the actions of party members following the same deity.

[Thot]

I would say this seems like it would fit some game worlds pretty well. Whether you make the distinction between actual Channling casters and lay members of the Deity's cult would probably depend on how often there is some kind of schism in the various gods' churches.

[pastaav]

I was looking for a way to include reasons for being a lay worshiper, and not having to have a RR preventing you from getting blessings, healing, or life-giving would be a good incentive and would cause channelers to have to look after the actions of party members following the same deity.

Being a willing target changes the target number for the resistance roll in RMU, but if I recall correctly you must still make the roll. If compatible religous belief will make the utility spell always work no matter how bad the spell casting is or how much the caster did overcast...you might end seeing a lot of overcasting at your game table.

[Thot]

[...]If compatible religous belief will make the utility spell always work no matter how bad the spell casting is or how much the caster did overcast...you might end seeing a lot of overcasting at your game table.

You'd still need at least 1 on the SCR to avoid spell failure.

[netbat]

I was looking for a way to include reasons for being a lay worshiper, and not having to have a RR preventing you from getting blessings, healing, or life-giving would be a good incentive and would cause channelers to have to look after the actions of party members following the same deity.

Being a willing target changes the target number for the resistance roll in RMU, but if I recall correctly you must still make the roll. If compatible religous belief will make the utility spell always work no matter how bad the spell casting is or how much the caster did overcast...you might end seeing a lot of overcasting at your game table.

Oh, I am coming from RMSS where utility spells generally don't require an RR for self, willing, or incapable of resisting targets. My rule would keep RAW for worshipers of the casters deity(marked or attuned to a holy symbol), but require a RR for others.

[Cory Magel]

My knee jerk reaction (without trying to dig into really specific examples) would be it wouldn't really be unbalanced so long as everyone played by the same rules (i.e. the 'enemies' in the game) but that it would potentially make those spells less effective/powerful for the player characters more so than the enemies because what are the odds that you'll have a diverse set of 'good' guys (and therefore have to make tougher RR's) who are battling a set of 'bad guys' that ARE grouped together from a religious standpoint (and won't have the same potential drawback even if playing by the same rules)?

[rdanhenry]

RMU does not require a resistance roll for Utility spells.

Spell Law, p. 44:

Note that while Utility spells automatically affect
a willing target, a willing target of a Force spell (or
other spells permitting RRs, such as someone wishing
to have a Light spell stick to him) must roll an RR,
with the benefit of the -50 “willing target” modifier.

[netbat]

My knee jerk reaction (without trying to dig into really specific examples) would be it wouldn't really be unbalanced so long as everyone played by the same rules (i.e. the 'enemies' in the game) but that it would potentially make those spells less effective/powerful for the player characters more so than the enemies because what are the odds that you'll have a diverse set of 'good' guys (and therefore have to make tougher RR's) who are battling a set of 'bad guys' that ARE grouped together from a religious standpoint (and won't have the same potential drawback even if playing by the same rules)?

Good point. It would make cults and religious groups more powerful opponents. From a world building metaphysics perspective it explains things well for me; from a metagame perspective, I wonder if the incentive it gives for roleplaying and character behavior are stronger than the incentive for min/maxers to create single religion parties for the benefits rather than the character story.

[nash]

So this seems like a cool idea.  However I wonder in practice how fun it is.   Probably needs some specific work to really make it work. 

If your healing character[1] just means everyone needs to convert to same faith to be effective, everyone will just do that.   

From a GM you need to keep track of everyones faith (or lack thereof).

Of course maybe you could use a piety trait as a straight RR bonus/penalty? 

[1] It's annoying there is a healing profession at time.   Any healer,

[MisterK]

There was an alternative of sorts in the Shadow World Master Atlas (I think it was there), where the priestesses of Eissa could cast specific spells more effectively when they were cast on a devout follower of the faith.
Basically, it worked the other way: no penalty, but a bonus if the target is of the "right kind".

In that particular case, the spell was Lifegiving and, since Lifegiving is a "x" spell (Lifegiving I, Lifegiving II, ...) the bonus was that the spell worked as "x+1", or "x+2" (so a Lifegiving I worked as a Lifegiving III on a devout of the faith, but as a 'normal' Lifegiving I on a target that was not a faithful of the pantheon.

I think I like that approach more, because it works with the carrot instead of the stick, if you will.

The bonus was specific: only one (or a few ?) spells were affected, and those spells were central to the portfolio of the deity. So translating that kind of feature for all faiths requires some work (find the spells that are a core part of the portfolio, determine the bonus, and playtest it to see how it goes: do you get the effect you wanted, without any major side effects ?), but if I wanted to add a pinch of salt on the Channeling dish, I would probably go that way.

[Cory Magel]

My knee jerk reaction (without trying to dig into really specific examples) would be it wouldn't really be unbalanced so long as everyone played by the same rules (i.e. the 'enemies' in the game) but that it would potentially make those spells less effective/powerful for the player characters more so than the enemies because what are the odds that you'll have a diverse set of 'good' guys (and therefore have to make tougher RR's) who are battling a set of 'bad guys' that ARE grouped together from a religious standpoint (and won't have the same potential drawback even if playing by the same rules)?

Good point. It would make cults and religious groups more powerful opponents. From a world building metaphysics perspective it explains things well for me; from a metagame perspective, I wonder if the incentive it gives for roleplaying and character behavior are stronger than the incentive for min/maxers to create single religion parties for the benefits rather than the character story.

If you do want a world where the lines between who is friend and foe are more heavily influenced by religion (and maybe you want the PC's to lean into that) this isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Or... there could be some specific reason why the party is diverse that you throw in the plot.

I think the Mythic profession would be great thematically in that world.

[gog]

With the idea at the top, I'd possibly go for pantheon alignment, rather than individual deity. (Provided they are grouped into pantheons).

This would then allow for followers of allied deities to get a bonus, and not force the can only help one group.

Example of this being in the party the Paladin is a follower of the God of War, and a Healer is a follower of the God of Healing, and the sailor is a follower of the God of the Sea. The three gods are allied in the same pantheon, so the party working together makes sense both from a practical approach and from the fact the gods get on.

[MisterK]

With the idea at the top, I'd possibly go for pantheon alignment, rather than individual deity. (Provided they are grouped into pantheons).

This would then allow for followers of allied deities to get a bonus, and not force the can only help one group.

Example of this being in the party the Paladin is a follower of the God of War, and a Healer is a follower of the God of Healing, and the sailor is a follower of the God of the Sea. The three gods are allied in the same pantheon, so the party working together makes sense both from a practical approach and from the fact the gods get on.

Depends on the Pantheon, I guess - the Greek myth is full of gods playing very nasty tricks on people who just happened to favor another deity of the same pantheon. Because the Olympian gods were as much at odds with one another as they were allies.

I think the difference is what you're against. The ancient greeks only had one pantheon. Even the titans, and the primordial gods that came before them, were part of the same "order of things". The myth doesn't consider other pantheons because a pantheon defines the whole universe - if you consider *another* pantheon, you admit that your own is not complete. Other pantheons do not exist. The only rivalry, the only enmity, is *within* the pantheon.

Mortals have it easy: they are not gods, so they can just trade the words "faithful", "infidel", "unbeliever", and so on, which basically mean "those who know" and "those who are blind". But gods know : either a pantheon *is* the sum of the cosmos, or it isn't. Historical pantheons *were* the sum of the cosmos, so other gods did not exist. As such, they could not be enemies, and their followers were just idiots.

Monotheistic religions changed the game completely, because you cannot have enemies within (single deity, cannot be their own enemy). The enemy thus has to be without, and all religions need an enemy. But making an enemy of another god is acknowledging its existence in the cosmos - in essence, including it in the pantheon. This is what the christian faith did with Satan (create an enemy, integrate it in the cosmos, make it "lesser" and a rebel against the order of the One, but ultimately constrained by Fate as the One ordered). The other main adversary of the Christian faith, the Muslim faith, was different because *it is the same god* - the problem does not come from the god, but from the prophets and the holy doctrine. It's a kind of very successful heresy

I think creating a pantheon needs to take that into account : you cannot create two pantheons and say they are enemies. The *people* might be enemies, but either it is a single pantheon, or they are the same gods with different names, and the problem comes from the people, not from the gods.

The consequence is, segregating *by pantheon* does not work because it is self-defeating: admitting the existence of the "other" gods makes them part of the pantheon (litterally "everything that is divine"). Either it is a schism in the faith (same god, different doctrines), or it is a rivalry within the pantheon itself.

For a pantheon with many gods, the second case is much easier to set up (just watch the Olympian Gods). For a pantheon with few gods (or a monotheistic religion), the first choice is much more obvious.