Birthright: Chimaeron

Why not invert it - and those who are Thieves/Bards of the specific God must select from a subset of Kits?
Herald obviously should include the Herald Kit for his bards for example.

If you want to be a generic ranger or paladin you are already inferior to the faith-empowered ones. You could instead say if you are a Ranger/Paladin of Faith X/Y you may only select from Kits A/B/C.

Assassin may not have a mechanical restriction to be adherents of the Brother, but is might be societally enforced. Like mages in Khinasi, if you are not part of the team then you are hunted.

Could be the same as Apollyon, anyone can be a guilder but maybe merchants refuse to trade with you cause you are not a union shop. Could easily allow a reskin of the Quasit/Imp to present as cherubs,lantern archons, or mephits. It's not a mandatory ability in any case.

For Thieves of Maulok, perhaps it's just that all those in that profession earn the god's attention. Those that don't pay him his dues, give him credit, or make life interesting are going to get the wrong kind of attention.


Ultimately, if class/deity version is the required version of that class, what does a fallen bard/guilder/thief etc look like?

You aren't an Assassin - you are a murderer. I can see them making that distinction.

MD - Mishrak wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:13 pm

Why not invert it - and those who are Thieves/Bards of the specific God must select from a subset of Kits?
Herald obviously should include the Herald Kit for his bards for example.

If you want to be a generic ranger or paladin you are already inferior to the faith-empowered ones. You could instead say if you are a Ranger/Paladin of Faith X/Y you may only select from Kits A/B/C.

I could see that for paladins and rangers if they had arcane spells -- they could draw magic from the meibheigl of the land. That their magic draws from divine spell lists says to me that they need a divine patron to make their magic work.

Bards I could go either way. They're sort of like magicians, which we mostly ignore.

i'm not a fan of it, as classes are determined by the mortals and religion is gifting ontop of that, it pigeon holes alot of creativity and variety, it will also make it that if two people want to work together but their religions are incompatable it will make it hard to work together. "all paladins are X and all theives are Y" it feels like an antithesis of dnd

What does ‘being a member of that religion’ imply?

It seems logic that a guilder would call upon the patron god of guilders to bless him with the deal at hand? Or the thief thats whispers a short prayer to the patron god of thieves before attempting to disarm that trap..

But I’d imagine it would be possible for a mage to worship Hircine, even though based on his profession/class he would call upon the god of magic.. and just maybe that practicing ones trade is like indirect worship?

I think only those with a divine connection should be forced to be part of a religion. Of course you may need to pay lip service to religion regardless of class, simply in order to avoid the church (and not the deity) launching an inquisition on your behind.

Just look at Guilder. Though Apollyon might be the favored of the greedy, I could easily see another guilder dedicated to Maulok if their methods may not always be skirting within the law. A Fae or Goblin guilder could follow Verdaloth, the Patreon for their race. A Guilder might be from a family of artisans, or perhaps be a woman, who is patron of skilled artisans and women.

I also assume since First Brother is mentioned, who is not on the God list, other of the deities from the game before will also be in the game. Such as Ishka, the Dragon God, who amongst other things gave bonuses to merchants.

I like the idea of demanding adherence to a religion for anything beyond the 4 core classes.