|
|
Post by DOT on Aug 6, 2017 23:41:57 GMT -5
 So I've been working on the background of this new char to sort of continue ahmed's legacy. background-wise, he's the youngest of ahmed's three children bukan: eldest son - ahmed was too strict and heavy handed, bukan though physically impressive, is quick to temper and not stable of mind nefersit: only daughter and twin of bukan - ahmed tried to be more nurturing and careful this time around, though she is skilled in magic and trade, she does not have the mettle to pass the tests to become a red wizard enter Atrox, youngest son - Ahmed took the middle road with this one, giving a guiding hand, but allowing personal freedom. Atrox is both physically acceptable and has strong mental fortitude. to excel in two fields one must give way in the third. What atrox excels in, he lacks in statecraft and the trade tongue. This is enough for him to survive both on the field and in the political sphere. Atrox is a ranger of Malar with keen senses, and a conjuring focused wizard (unfortunately no mechanical benefit of actually taking the school, unlike animal domain of clerics); his primary focus would be the summoning of beasts and such and dabble with portal theory. granted he's not going to be as casting effective as your standard recommended pure wizard, but the skills available and ability points just made sense (start 16 int and distributed from there). the story just opens up with increase depth and has been unrolling itself with minimal effort on my part. I've been reading as much ooc lore as I can to apply what makes sense, but is there anything I should remember not to do as a malarite? so far: -dont use ranged weapons (or ranged offensive spells?) -don't use poison/disease magically or otherwise -don't summon undead -don't kill children or the pregnant let me know, thanks  |
|
|
|
Post by FlyingMidget on Aug 7, 2017 1:00:38 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, I'd say add avoid harming deepspawn as something that populates the hunt, this would be a big one to add I believe, on par with the don't create undead thereby tainting the hunt or kill the young or pregnant so that the hunt can continue in the future.
The don't use ranged weapons was more a cleric only restriction from 2nd edition (clerics had a fair number of restrictions in 2nd ed) to my knowledge but people tend to roll with it as alot of Malarite's prefer the up close and brutal nature of butchering their prey with their bare hands/blade/club. Alot of hunters that aren't deeply religious towards Malar will generally offer at least lip service to him even if they use a bow as he is a god of the hunt. It really depends on the character I think, perhaps they're a mostly religious person and stick to most parts of the faith but don't care about any prohibitions towards killing from a range (ranged offensive spell or weapon).
If you're going for wizard, necromancy might be a decent school, particularly if the character wants to revel in causing fear (as in the fear spell !) in your foes as you hunt them down, the destroying undead with undeath to death or killing foes with finger of death (particularly if you've made them suffer under fear for a time while approaching them to cast it up close) might also work nicely.
That said, Malar's tendency towards physical strength and hunting/tracking tends to lend more towards the more martial classes then a Wizard.
Merely food for thought,
FM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calliope on Aug 7, 2017 4:17:27 GMT -5
Heya, About the range thing. It's commonly misinterpreted IMO. It's says in the dogma "never kill from a distance." Notices it doesn't say you can't attack from a distance. Just says you can't -kill-. The actually kill should be melee but you can still injure or wound from far away. That's my thought anyway. I'd also suggest you read this thread about evil faiths as I think it's a wonderful resource, thank you Lady Frost. frc.proboards.com/thread/20422/reasons-tolerate-faiths-cormyr-specificHope that helps. Enjoy the new Malarite! <3 -Calliope |
|
|
|
Post by DOT on Aug 7, 2017 8:37:53 GMT -5
Its fun so far 😁
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 8:44:06 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, I'd say add avoid harming deepspawn as something that populates the hunt, this would be a big one to add I believe, on par with the don't create undead thereby tainting the hunt or kill the young or pregnant so that the hunt can continue in the future. Yep! Here's some sourcebook quotage for what you've already said. Emphasis mine. Dogma: Survival of the fittest and the winnowing of the weak are Malar's legacy. A brutal, bloody death or kill has great meaning. The crux of life is the challenge between the hunter and the prey, the determination of who lives or dies. View every important task as a hunt. Remain ever alert and alive. Walk the wilderness without trepidation, and show no fear in the hunt. Savagery and strong emotions defeat reason and careful thought in all things. Taste the blood of all those you slay, and never kill from a distance. Work against those who cut back the forest and who kill beasts solely because they are dangerous. Slay not the young, the pregnant, or deepspawn so that prey will remain plentiful.And then for some lore on clerics and faithful... Clergy and Temples: Clerics of Malar indulge in hunting as often as possible. They drive the hunt to make it as dangerous as possible to prey and predator alike, and try to ensure that its bloody finale takes place in a settled area. Common folk do not appreciate having desperate wolves, displaced beasts, and the like chased through town, and they tend to hate and fear Malar's faith—which is the whole idea. Malarite clergy also preach the joy and bounty of the hunt and work to thwart the expansion of civilization to preserve as much wilderness as possible. To the end, they stage raids and acts of vandalism that are popular with outlaws and bored young nobles. Malarites opposite druidic circles dedicated to Eldath, Mielikki, Silvanus, and similar deities and their allies, such as the Harpers. Such groups promote and maintain natural balance, while Malarites see as interfering with the rightful triumph of the strong over the weak. Temples of Malar are rare, as most Hunts eschew formal buildings for shadowed wilderness glades. Unlike most druidic circles, those of Malar's worship consist of inwardly curving, fang-shaped stones arranged in a ring. In more civilized settings, where the activities of Malarites are viewed with loathing, the scared area may be hidden within extensive limestone caverns accessible via a sinkhole above the center of the stone circle. The twisting subterranean passages serve as hunting grounds through which ruthless Malarites stalk sentient prey (particularly humanoids) captured from the surrounding region. Ceremonial headgear is made from the pelt and head of he most impressive beast the cleric has killed with bare hands (usually a bear or great cat, but sometimes an owlbear, displacer beast, or a stranger creature). Malarites carry hunting horns at their belts and are never without several daggers sheathed in boots and belts, strapped to either forearm, or hidden in a sheath at the nape of the neck under the hair or in an armpit. Woodland garb of red or brown is the favored dress for hunts, often concealed by day under a woodcloak of mottled black, gray, and green. Cleics looking to make an impression may also wear necklaces of animal bones, fangs, and claws and a variety of pelts. The church of Malar is loosely bound and without a central hierarchy. It is organized around the concept of the Hunt and consists of local, independent cells. This makes it all the more difficult to count or remove, for as soon as one den of Malarites is contained, another arises. Huntmasters are the informal religious leaders of the church and may be clerics, druids, rangers, or shapechanging predators. They decide the locale, time, and prey of the ceremonial hunts of the faithful. The office of Huntermaster is won by challenge—a fight to the death if the incumbent does not resign. Maybe they'll start a hunt by shooting their prey with arrows to encourage it into frenzy before they give chase/fight it in melee? Summoning beasts of your own sounds neat. Use them to herd and hunt prey towards towns for the final kill sites! |
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Aug 7, 2017 8:57:23 GMT -5
Heya, About the range thing. It's commonly misinterpreted IMO. It's says in the dogma "never kill from a distance." Notices it doesn't say you can't attack from a distance. Just says you can't -kill-. The actually kill should be melee but you can still injure or wound from far away. That's my thought anyway. I'd also suggest you read this thread about evil faiths as I think it's a wonderful resource, thank you Lady Frost. frc.proboards.com/thread/20422/reasons-tolerate-faiths-cormyr-specificHope that helps. Enjoy the new Malarite! <3 -Calliope Sorry Calliope, but that is pure sophistry. To shoot an arrow at someone is most definitely an attempt to kill them, when someone is hit with an arrow they get hurt, and it's metagaming to shoot an arrow and "know" that your arrow won't kill that target, that you're just "softening them up". I can't think of any feudal time archer that carried such to "wound" people and not to kill someone. A Malarite carrying a ranged weapoon is still breaking their deities wishes. If you make one mistake and do kill someone with a bow, what then? Will you confess to a DM so they can have an aspect of Malar rip out your characters intestines for their cowardly act? Any Malarites I've seen on the server are usually without any missile weapons of any kind, and are so due to Malar dogma. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 9:03:42 GMT -5
Wait. Then wouldn't most magic fall in the "attacking from a distance" category as well?
I mean, maybe he can use damage shields and buffs to enhance his melee prowess, or also summon creatures and use them. However, evocations, illusions, some necromancy and few conjuration spells are still ranged magical attacks.
Malarite summons... This gives me an idea!
|
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Aug 7, 2017 9:54:01 GMT -5
It would be indeed. Again, I've never seen any Malarites here on this server use such means to kill. It's always been up close. A testiment to this server really when people stick to the canon and roleplay that so well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calliope on Aug 7, 2017 10:27:10 GMT -5
Heya, About the range thing. It's commonly misinterpreted IMO. It's says in the dogma "never kill from a distance." Notices it doesn't say you can't attack from a distance. Just says you can't -kill-. The actually kill should be melee but you can still injure or wound from far away. That's my thought anyway. I'd also suggest you read this thread about evil faiths as I think it's a wonderful resource, thank you Lady Frost. frc.proboards.com/thread/20422/reasons-tolerate-faiths-cormyr-specificHope that helps. Enjoy the new Malarite! <3 -Calliope Sorry Calliope, but that is pure sophistry. To shoot an arrow at someone is most definitely an attempt to kill them, when someone is hit with an arrow they get hurt, and it's metagaming to shoot an arrow and "know" that your arrow won't kill that target, that you're just "softening them up". I can't think of any feudal time archer that carried such to "wound" people and not to kill someone. A Malarite carrying a ranged weapoon is still breaking their deities wishes. If you make one mistake and do kill someone with a bow, what then? Will you confess to a DM so they can have an aspect of Malar rip out your characters intestines for their cowardly act? Any Malarites I've seen on the server are usually without any missile weapons of any kind, and are so due to Malar dogma. Meh, Malarites hunt wild dangerous beasts. If I went into the swamps of Tun and saw a Thunderbeast you better believe it's not going down with one arrow. The same could be said for a lot of large creatures a malarite would fight. To fight something that dies with one shot is not overly challenging, not much of a hunt. Shooting a human or a goblin or something though is entirely different then an elephant. I don't think it's meta gaming at all to know that a few arrows isn't gonna drop an elephant. Things aren't always so blank and white. You bring up a valid point but it's a point that isn't always true. <3 -Calliope |
|
|
|
Post by Calliope on Aug 7, 2017 10:32:19 GMT -5
Side note,
"Never kill from a distance" LOL, I'd love to see a malarite archer who used point blank shot and only used a bow a foot from his target. That's not "from a distance" is it? heh.
<3
-Calliope
|
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Aug 7, 2017 10:36:47 GMT -5
Side note, "Never kill from a distance" LOL, I'd love to see a malarite archer who used point blank shot and only used a bow a foot from his target. That's not "from a distance" is it? heh. <3 -Calliope A foot away is technically still a ranged attack from a bow  Now, if you started beating them with the bow and stabbing with the arrow instead... |
|
|
|
Post by Calliope on Aug 7, 2017 10:39:35 GMT -5
What if you literally used a crossbow as a nail gun and just stuck the tip of the bolt in their gut and pulled the trigger? XD
Is it still ranged? ^_^
|
|
|
|
Post by bloodalchemist on Aug 7, 2017 10:57:47 GMT -5
Sorry Calliope, but that is pure sophistry. To shoot an arrow at someone is most definitely an attempt to kill them, when someone is hit with an arrow they get hurt, and it's metagaming to shoot an arrow and "know" that your arrow won't kill that target, that you're just "softening them up". I can't think of any feudal time archer that carried such to "wound" people and not to kill someone. A Malarite carrying a ranged weapoon is still breaking their deities wishes. If you make one mistake and do kill someone with a bow, what then? Will you confess to a DM so they can have an aspect of Malar rip out your characters intestines for their cowardly act? Any Malarites I've seen on the server are usually without any missile weapons of any kind, and are so due to Malar dogma. Meh, Malarites hunt wild dangerous beasts. If I went into the swamps of Tun and saw a Thunderbeast you better believe it's not going down with one arrow. The same could be said for a lot of large creatures a malarite would fight. To fight something that dies with one shot is not overly challenging, not much of a hunt. Shooting a human or a goblin or something though is entirely different then an elephant. I don't think it's meta gaming at all to know that a few arrows isn't gonna drop an elephant. Things aren't always so blank and white. You bring up a valid point but it's a point that isn't always true. <3 -Calliope We are talking about the Gods of Forgotten realms, things often do become black and white in this case, especially for anyone claiming a formal role within the clergy or church of any faith. You want to be granted divine spells from your god? Follow the damn dogma, that's what seperates one CE god from another CE god, ignoring it just because you find it tedious or just constantly looking for wiggle room to justify stepping outside the rules of the dogma means you should probably avoid playing lore heavy classes such as faith based characters. This isnt an attack on you personally but a request to everyone on the server. If you aren't willing to investigate a god's lore and stick to it and rp it, please don't play faith based classes. |
|
|
|
Post by Calliope on Aug 7, 2017 11:22:09 GMT -5
Part of the problem though is interruption.
In the world we live in there are tons of different christian denominations all professing to worship the same god and yet they all do it differently. Some say baptism by immersion, some say sprinkling, some say baptism as an infant some say at eight years of age and some say that baptism isn't required at all... Hell, I even heard about one christian faith that performed baptisms some how with sand. No idea. I'm not hear to argue Christianity but I am bringing up the point that even if something seems clear to one person it's not always clear to others. One person says, oh that means no ranged at all and another says nah, I think it means you can use ranged as long as ya don't kill nothin that way.
I mean hey, the dogma we are handed from the source books is very limited and all it says is "Never kill from a distance" What does that really mean? Is a spear considered from a distance? A spear is a very long weapon that out ranges a dagger. Would that be a fair fight? Dagger vs spear? If you use a spear are you close enough to your kill? What exactly -is- "close enough".
In PNP some melee weapons have reach. Is that, "from a distance"?
The dogma of Malar also says, "Taste the blood of all those you slay". . . Do I literally need to drink the blood of everything I kill? It says to taste the blood of -all- those you slay. My Malarite, Heather Hearthwood, actually eats the flesh of what she kills. She's a full on cannibal if she's fighting other humans. Is that the correct way to do it? Or am I going overboard? Are there exceptions to the rules?
Often a dogma consisting of a single paragraph or two brings up more questions then it answers and even in forgotten realms there are divisions in religious sects of the same god.
<3
-Calliope
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 11:59:24 GMT -5
Kind of skimmed through the thread, so do my best:
Shoot to injure, and shoot to kill, are 2 very distinct battle methodologies, be it against man or beast, and certainly a self-aware trigger for practiced archers. Intent is the key here.
A faith may be viewed as Chaotic because "shooting to injure" means you don't really ascribe to more traditional combat.
A faith may be viewed as Evil because you are making something suffer as it struggles to die.
"A faith may be viewed" is up for interpretation, but those options stand.
Furthermore, unless the dogma explicitly conveys 'no', then it can be inferred to be allowed. In the case of Malar's faith, if the dogma doesn't explicitly say, "Don't use ranged weapons" then they should be able to use them. Dogmatic clarity and concerns need to be brought to a(the) DM(s) whom would traditionally simplify such day to day concerns found in dogma's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 12:04:29 GMT -5
To further add, if there feels like there may be ambiguity to dogma's, then it is probably by design. Holy faithful that must ascribe to several compounding rules will note that most faithful are allowed to choose from 3 different alignments, which further testifies the need for ambiguity due to individualized interpretations that may reflect one alignment, better than the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 12:06:50 GMT -5
I wonder if some dogmas in the Forgotten Realms could be oxymorons. For instance, I find Torm's "Bring painful, quick death to traitors" somewhat strange.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 12:10:23 GMT -5
I wonder if some dogmas in the Forgotten Realms could be oxymorons. For instance, I find Torm's "Bring painful, quick death to traitors" somewhat strange. Which is the exact undertoned-opposite of the Malar faith, where they may injure something to let it slowly die. Notice that trend? Torm is what, lawful? Malar is chaotic. The Red Knight dogma also cites ending foes very swiftly. |
|
|
|
Post by Pedantry INC on Aug 7, 2017 12:14:21 GMT -5
Mirrir and Acamas both eschewed bows completely. Acamas never used any clerical spells that might cause death. Mirrir wouldn't even carry bows to sell.
To our interpretation of the faith, it was important to be cast in the blood/gore of ones foes. It was as much a matter of personal pride as it was to honor they prey.
That aside as a note on using ones strengths, Mirrir didn't actively condemn archers.
I think the most important fundamental for Mirrirs RP as a malarite was wrapped not around combat, but strength as a whole in the notion of "Adapt to survive." For only the strong shall survive, a predator that cannot evolve to thrive in their environment is ultimately weak. She went from a furious angry savage to a calculating academic, all as an effort to prove her ability to master the environment she found herself in - and the hunts within it. Not that I'd suggest most malarites to take up her pursuit in the cities hunt, moreso to illustrate. Strength can be interpreted for a lot more than simply brawn, and the hunt can be more than hunting down prey in the woods, but a fundamental part of every action of ones daily life. Improve, grow stronger, achieve more, -learn-.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 12:19:31 GMT -5
And there ya go .. Pedantry caps it with the best of candid reminders ... all about dat RP, y0. The differences' among faithful, even players, isn't a horrible thing, but should be viewed as a good challenge when attempting to cooperate. Besides, faithful 100% getting along is probably not 100% common in the days agendas.
|
|
|
|
Post by malclave on Aug 7, 2017 12:25:21 GMT -5
To shoot an arrow at someone is most definitely an attempt to kill them, when someone is hit with an arrow they get hurt, and it's metagaming to shoot an arrow and "know" that your arrow won't kill that target, that you're just "softening them up". I can't think of any feudal time archer that carried such to "wound" people and not to kill someone. It could be argued that it's not necessarily metagaming, but aiming for the legs or other nonvital area... but even then you run the risk of critting with your Mighty +X bow (must have hit the femoral by mistake). If you're not fighting humans (or the equivalent) it's even less metagaming. An ogre, giant, or dragon isn't going to drop from one arrow. Heck, lay off the fire and acid and a Malarite archer could amuse himself for days with a single troll. |
|
|
|
Post by bloodalchemist on Aug 7, 2017 12:38:53 GMT -5
To shoot an arrow at someone is most definitely an attempt to kill them, when someone is hit with an arrow they get hurt, and it's metagaming to shoot an arrow and "know" that your arrow won't kill that target, that you're just "softening them up". I can't think of any feudal time archer that carried such to "wound" people and not to kill someone. It could be argued that it's not necessarily metagaming, but aiming for the legs or other nonvital area... but even then you run the risk of critting with your Mighty +X bow (must have hit the femoral by mistake). If you're not fighting humans (or the equivalent) it's even less metagaming. An ogre, giant, or dragon isn't going to drop from one arrow. Heck, lay off the fire and acid and a Malarite archer could amuse himself for days with a single troll. This has come up a few times now. There is acctually a mechanic for this, called shot. So, if you wanna be a malarite archer, never fire any arrows that aren't with called shot, if you want to justify your character isnt trying to actively drop their foe. |
|
|
|
Post by quelunia on Aug 7, 2017 13:02:11 GMT -5
I played a malarite Druid a few years back Snow Wolf.. Kai Phalan. I took a view on ranged combat as a no no... Now before any solidly say that's not right.... I had two caveats to this... Darts (throwing dagger) and Hand axes (throwing axes) ... I role played leading into combat throwing my weapons charged ahead with no weapon then unarm combat for a round then equipped a dagger or hand axe. That was the only range combat I did. I took unarmed strike and  ... Sure he used a sword and shield too... But when he was hunting ... It was a very strict one or two thrown weapons then one round unarmed then equip a weapon. I think a bow while a hunters weapon does not meet the standard of Malar as he seeks a bloody battle to the death. Not the safty of range and possibly hiding. Stalking to the prey hiding and moving silent to get a fine angle sure... But once your within counting coup range (aka reach out and touch) Then its time to honor Malar. Poison is a no no ... undead a no no ... Heck... I take it a step farther... myself but that's me. Kai Phalan took the name snow wolf after single handedly killing several White wolves alone and tamed another ... I RP'd that as he took control of the wolf pack. He had the Druid Dire wolf as well ... He took a lot of damage because of my choices. Back a few years ago he got one of those Beetle skin armors. He also got a shield and a scimitar. two hand axes and two daggers. Then I had a stack of throwing axes and a stack of throwing knifes (darts). Honestly and Unarmed strike made him a ton of fun for me. I love that troll comment above haha ... Kai did that once three trolls no torch or fire haha ... he just kept hitting them down ... collapsed on top of them in a bloody heap stabilized and the server reset ... Malar saved him haha. |
|
|
|
Post by hellscream123 on Aug 7, 2017 19:59:19 GMT -5
In fearun a few things are balck and white. Namely alignment. Dogma however is indeed down to interpretation and reaction (dm side) and I'll use Blue to illustrate:
Arician takes a very steen view from Mystra's dogma. See ut has a set of laws more than teaching and preaches them as such when asked. Follows them to their absolute letter as often as he can. In return he's been blessed and praised multiple occassions for his purity of faith. On DMs say so.(amoungst many actions and things better left unsaid on public boards for rp purpose)
Thus anyone can interpret dogma in various means, but its down to the DMs in game to say we're wrong or not. Gods often still grant power to those whom skirt some of their dogma on server as its not a breach of dogma. But a test of faith.
I look at dogma as the stairway to said diety. Follow it more strictly and they might look more favourable. Walk a different stair case. They wont see you. Only take nine tenth the steps. Only reach nine tenth the height. They're mot about to Murder you. They need clerics more than any to keep up the devine struggle. But they might not favour you as much as the more devout guy. Zealotry has stanges.
|
|
Andros
Old School
I only know that I know nothing
Posts: 437
|
Post by Andros on Aug 8, 2017 2:03:11 GMT -5
Well in the real world hunting with a bow and arrow wasn't a one hit kill thing. Since unless you managed to hit the brain (which is a small target and also the part with the thickest bone, so aiming here was setting yourself up for failure) the animal was going to run away wounded (if you missed it was game over, try chasing after a healthy spooked deer and tell me how that goes). So you had to chase after it and only after the animal is tired and weakened from blood loss you get in melee range and finish it off usually with a melee weapon so as to not waste arrows.
So now assuming DnD hunting is immersive and not some magic arrow of death thing (I know this is how it is in game but it's all due to engine limitations, not rulebook). Your malarite hunter stayed true to the letter of the dogma even with a bow since he didn't "killed" from a distance. He might not have been true to the spirit of the rule but that's up to Malar to judge (unless he's clergy then I guess it's up to the DMs if he keeps getting spells or not hah!)
However it seems to me it would be a pain to play a guy that shoots things until they are near death and then gets close and finishes them off. But hey to each their own right?
|
|
|
|
Post by DOT on Aug 8, 2017 2:12:54 GMT -5
What's the reasoning behind no poison?
|
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw on Aug 8, 2017 5:11:22 GMT -5
Part of the problem though is interruption. In the world we live in there are tons of different christian denominations ... I could have sworn I just saw someone compare worship of Malar to Christian faith. 🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by Orchid on Aug 8, 2017 10:26:56 GMT -5
I wonder if some dogmas in the Forgotten Realms could be oxymorons. For instance, I find Torm's "Bring painful, quick death to traitors" somewhat strange. You can absolutely kill someone quick and painfully. I won't go into details because well...this is supposed to be a non-R rating environment. |
|
|
|
Post by Pedantry INC on Aug 8, 2017 11:42:52 GMT -5
Mirrir wouldn't use poisons because she didn't believe in diluting the effect of her own physicality beyond the use of a blade. That said,
I would say there's nothing wrong with poison - poison is naturally occurring, plenty of predators have it. However, how it is applied I think, would matter.
It's disease and sickness that the malarite dogma pursues to cleanse. To my understanding they're protective of the whole - "the hunt" without prey is a failure so..Poisoned weapons on a hunt, fine. Poisoning a well to wipe out people, not fine. Etc.
I suppose I'd also mention that Malars faith is Chaotic, with a view towards might makes right. If you can get away with it.. are you in the wrong? If you can get away with it, justify it, are strong enough to say "this is the way it goes", unless you're breaking the very few exacting tenets (slaying the young, pregnant, deepspawn, spreading disease, etc), you might just get away with it. Mirrir believed spreading lycantrophy as a disease rather than a blessing by the church was a crime, so she hunted down other malarites that committed this crime. She saw them as failurse to adapt to Cormyr's environment, as well as heretics. Of course they probably thought the same of her. She kill them though - not the other way around, in her mind, in faith, her strength proven over them proved her the one in the right.
The beastlords faith is legal in Cormyr, a strictly lawful country, that might bespeak to the adaption I mentioned before. The High Priest was called to Azoun's side when he was poisoned by a gorgon. Source indicates the crown uses malarites to patrol borders, and hunt down criminals in wild areas - though I've never had a DM clarify this on FRC. A main holiday in cormyr follows the tradition of malarites high hunts, dressing up a criminal and setting him free in the city.. - to escape to freedom or.. well, might as well get a little fun out of the execution eh? Chasing of the King they call it.
Faiths are indeed up to interpretation. Most faiths have several orders and they can clash heavily. Take ilmaters Order of the Golden Cup vrs The Companions of Noble Heart - pacifists vrs those known for their fanatical endings of those that cause suffering. Are either one of them wrong? They both have paladins and priests.. so. It goes to say that mortal belief in dogma can outright contradict at times, yet still warrant the gods support.
I think if you have a core concept and you can within the faith see a legitimate reason for it, as a matter of faith rather than mechanics, you're fine.
"My malarite would like to use poison" is fine, but you can also say
"my malarite believes that using poisons is utilizing his own strength in knowing how to handle them and use them to strike"
Maybe he's honoring a particular predator he favors, or somesuch. Or he really does just want to use it. Ultimately the choice is yours!
|
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Aug 8, 2017 11:52:45 GMT -5
Mirrir wouldn't use poisons because she didn't believe in diluting the effect of her own physicality beyond the use of a blade. That said, I would say there's nothing wrong with poison - poison is naturally occurring, plenty of predators have it. However, how it is applied I think, would matter. It's disease and sickness that the malarite dogma pursues to cleanse. To my understanding they're protective of the whole - "the hunt" without prey is a failure so..Poisoned weapons on a hunt, fine. Poisoning a well to wipe out people, not fine. Etc. I suppose I'd also mention that Malars faith is Chaotic, with a view towards might makes right. If you can get away with it.. are you in the wrong? If you can get away with it, justify it, are strong enough to say "this is the way it goes", unless you're breaking the very few exacting tenets (slaying the young, pregnant, deepspawn, spreading disease, etc), you might just get away with it. Mirrir believed spreading lycantrophy as a disease rather than a blessing by the church was a crime, so she hunted down other malarites that committed this crime. She saw them as failurse to adapt to Cormyr's environment, as well as heretics. Of course they probably thought the same of her. She kill them though - not the other way around, in her mind, in faith, her strength proven over them proved her the one in the right. The beastlords faith is legal in Cormyr, a strictly lawful country, that might bespeak to the adaption I mentioned before. The High Priest was called to Azoun's side when he was poisoned by a gorgon. Source indicates the crown uses malarites to patrol borders, and hunt down criminals in wild areas - though I've never had a DM clarify this on FRC. A main holiday in cormyr follows the tradition of malarites high hunts, dressing up a criminal and setting him free in the city.. - to escape to freedom or.. well, might as well get a little fun out of the execution eh? Chasing of the King they call it. Faiths are indeed up to interpretation. Most faiths have several orders and they can clash heavily. Take ilmaters Order of the Golden Cup vrs The Companions of Noble Heart - pacifists vrs those known for their fanatical endings of those that cause suffering. Are either one of them wrong? They both have paladins and priests.. so. It goes to say that mortal belief in dogma can outright contradict at times, yet still warrant the gods support. I think if you have a core concept and you can within the faith see a legitimate reason for it, as a matter of faith rather than mechanics, you're fine. "My malarite would like to use poison" is fine, but you can also say "my malarite believes that using poisons is utilizing his own strength in knowing how to handle them and use them to strike" Maybe he's honoring a particular predator he favors, or somesuch. Or he really does just want to use it. Ultimately the choice is yours! Just a small semantic, theres a difference between poison and venom! Heres a nifty guide for that!  Point being, its a bit different to attest to be paying homage to a certain predator through use of poisoning your blade. Perhaps if you used exclusively that poison in an interesting way, ala an injection dagger which can inject the poison like a bite. But using any and all poison i feel isnt quite the same as a homage. Some poisons cause instand death while others cause a drain to specific stats. Would you be paying the cobra respects by using iron golem poison or pitfiend venom? Im fun at parties, right? |
|
... Sure he used a sword and shield too... But when he was hunting ... It was a very strict one or two thrown weapons then one round unarmed then equip a weapon. 
