Priests and Faiths

[Horace]

Just an issue I'd like to bring up, with an alternative I feel is productive.

The way faiths are set up now, takes entirely too long to become faithed. The process is subjective, with entirely different standards and ideals held by separate players and imms/admins. One faith can take less than 50 hours of total game time, the other you can play for 800 hours and you won't get anywhere.

In the howto section regarding applications for faith, it suggests you shouldn't even bother applying if you can finger the faith manager and they've been logged on less than six months ago...that is 1/4th of an associate's degree. Do we really expect this of people?

Where does it leave a person if someone stops playing? Where the system in place relies so heavily on player characters that you'd literally have to wait 6 months or just dump the faith all together (which requires another application).

This obviously effects priests the most, because it hamstrings the spells they're able to cast. Where as other classes, it basically just doesn't give you the bonuses for favor and supplicated items/abilities.

What I propose is a system that is much like the system wizards have. An academic setting that goes over the fine points of divine casting and the different gods and pantheons on Faerun - quests similar to the school of wonder, but with a divine flavor. Then at the end of the quest you choose you're faith. Boom, you get a symbol and you're out the door.

Not only would this greatly alleviate the pain in the rear it is to become a priest in certain faiths, it would also make it easy for imms to promote the next FM when a player of a current FM becomes disenfranchised or unable to play (which would help new hopefuls to get faithed). Faiths come to a screeching halt when an FM isn't able to be found, and frankly it's damaging to the game in more ways than to just priests. I truly believe this would remove some of that responsibility from the shoulders of players, and make the game more fluid.

Pros:

1.All faiths can be equally represented by PC priests without outside factors like player availability effecting the game.

2. Immortals/Administrators will have a list of priests they can choose from to fill in the role of FM when a player becomes inactive or a player loses interest in a PC...instead of being forced to ignore the situation because more priests can't come into existence in faith for another 6 months when applications will be accepted.

3. The faith quest for all priests will be standardized, and not involving subjective measures of judgment of what a priest in the faith should be (which is incredibly important because of the weight coded faith has on the cleric/druid classes).

Cons:

1. FM's may not like some of the priests.

2. Priests will receive their faith more quickly than other classes, and with less dependence on a peer's playing time.

3. Less role playing for the priest to become a faithed priest

----------
So before I go I just want to address the obvious cons (since I pretty much sold the pros in how they were written .

1. FM's not liking some priests, I believe, is dynamic and can inspire interesting roleplays of priests trying to dethrone other FM's in certain faiths. The system could also cause multiple FM's - which is a /good/ thing. There are already multiple FM's coded in game with npc's, there may as well be with players as well. It only increases availability, and thus, rp and player enjoyment.

2. While this will be undeniably so, we see it this way because of the current stagnant system we're in with faithing people. I'm certain there are people who wish to create a character with a faith in mind, but get frustrated because of time issues, and ultimately wind up in a different faith that doesn't suit how they envisioned their PC as well as the original. Players notice what gods are active, what faiths have fm's that are active, what faiths have priests that are active that can help them get in contact with fm's...and we wind up with a spread of players in bundled faiths because FM's get burned out or real life happens. We can fix that by allowing priests to an express lane that allows them to get out and do what they were meant to do.

3. As all coded quests, it will be less roleplaying than player issued quests. But as a result we'll actually have priests represented in faiths that totally lack representation currently - which will stimulate the setting and make it feel more real.

Anyway, my post is quickly approaching the too effin long category of posts. I hope you all see the ultimate benefit of the proposal, and I'm more than willing to try and address any concerns - and if I'm unable to, amend my idea. I feel like sometimes we, as a player base, get stuck in a mindset of "we've always done it this way" and use backwards reasoning off that to defend not changing things.

I'd be more than willing to soft code this area and the quests, if the players and admins seem to find it acceptable.

[Layna]

I think my concern here, in a nutshell, would be that you'd end up with priests that don't really understand the nuances of their chosen god/ess, which would definitely not enrich the MUD. While the current situation is frustrating (believe me, I know!) it does allow for a PC to say to a new hopeful "Well... you're making a start, but I don't think you're quite getting this. Let's have another chat, shall we?".

For me, playing a priest is always a roleplay choice (though to be fair, as this is an RPI MUD, all choices are roleplay driven) and while codewise having the ability to just do a quest and Bob's your uncle would be easier, I think I'd feel a bit cheated when it comes to the roleplay side.

We have a lot of faiths in game, plus uncoded deities, so you're right that we can't really expect the Imms to have to juggle every single one of them. From the posts on the 'nooby experience' thread we've seen that leaping in with a priest can lead to new players become disillusioned. So something probably does need to be done to help keep faiths moving, but I'm not sure that making it a code matter is the right choice.

(apologies if this doesn't make sense - I am typing this at work!)

[Horace]

That is a big concern, and one that could only be corrected after the fact - and hopefully by those who know what they're talking about.

But I don't think it's really any better with our current system. I mean at some point you have to put some responsibility on the player's shoulders to do some kind of research besides learning everything from the temple religion quest. If the PC isn't representing the faith well - a simple solution can be being embarrassed by a rival priest, pointing out how unorthodox they're acting...or the FM can chastise them. Either way, the FM will never be forced to promote a cleric who "just doesn't get it" - and after trying to right the ship, if it's just an absolute failure, the player can be spoken to by an IMM or FM out of character to see if there can be a solution to irrational behavior.

But I sincerely believe this wouldn't be the norm. Any more so than player's of priests already not understanding their faiths. If a player of a priest is honestly making the effort to play a priest of so and so, I don't believe it should be blocked because of something as simple as the player maybe taking a little longer to understand than most. Long enough that FM's quit on them, totally removing a playable class from their options.

Not to mention the vast majority of the players on Fk, I believe, don't require such tutoring.

This is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for though - and I know I likely won't be able to persuade you in something that is a personal concern based on one's own experiences. All i can best do is hope you agree that both ways don't guarantee anything based on the subjective nature of current faithing, and that at least this way there will be priests that have potential to improve as opposed to no priests at all, in a faith.

[Dalvyn]

Great! You just started a thread about something I wanted to discuss too (though I was going to wait a bit longer before bringing yet another "hot topic" discussion).

My current position in a few words:

(1) I admit that there's a need for more dynamic churches (i.e., missing/mostly absent FMs get replaced and more active imms to quest and faith pepole). That is actually something we are discussing and working on "behind the scenes".

(2) I am thoroughly opposed to automatic faithing. This is, actually, one of the LAST/FEW things that require interacting with other players/imms. Besides, for non-clerics, there's no real rush: they can take their time, they can even roleplay worshiping a deity if they want. The only things they might miss at first is: special equipment and faith items.

(3) Now, for clerics - and this is where I agree very much with Layna -, it is true that they are more or less stuck while they are not faithed, but having to interact with other faithfuls in order to get faithed is also a very good way to make sure that they know what they are talking about.

There is a (unfortunately rather common) misconception about faithing: it is that faith is just a character choice just like your alignment and your guild. In some part, it is: you get to choose which faith you want your character to follow. But this is not something that "the mud" owes you; it is not something that you HAVE to be given no matter what. And this is a message that an automatic faithing process would convey (that explains why I do not want such a system).

More explicitly, when you choose a faith - and especially if you are a priest -, you should know more than just what nifty spells/equipment you are going to gain. The least you should do is get to know the basic tenets of the faith (once again, especially as a priest). In my opinion, "priest" is a class very much apart. ICly, your character can choose to train as a fighter, or as a rogue, or even as a wizard. But (s)he can't choose to train as a cleric; the choice is in your deity's hands, not in yours! That means that, if you (the player) "chooses" to make a cleric (i.e., if you choose to make a character who would be granted some powers by his/her god), then you should make a character that a god would have good reasons to consider as worthy of becoming a priest.

A few examples to be even clearer. A would-be priest of Tempus who flees constantly from battle, advises others to flee from battle, and finds nothing wrong with it (*). That's wrong in so many way: such a character wouldn't even exist, because Tempus wouldn't grant them any power. A would-be priest of Mystra who thinks it's all fine to use spells for any minor inconvenience and tells others that it is fine to do so. A would-be priest of Gruumsh who gets all friendly with an elf (played by OOC friend) for a vague reason. And so on and so on.

(*) It's all fine, and it can even be interesting to roleplay a priest of Tempus who is basically a coward, but who knows that this is not what his god expects of him/her.

An automatic system would bring along such characters. That's why I would really avoid it.

Now, I also admit that not faithing those players who haven't invested time in learning about their chosen god and letting them wait for hours on is not a good solution. A better solution would be to have FMs and "faith trainers" who have and take the time to teach them. That's part of a different problem (which we are addressing): the current undermanning of the mud.

[Layna]

I do get where you're coming from. Some faiths are very under represented, and I'm never sure if this is because they're simply not popular, or because they're harder to get into. Of course, if there were more active faith members roleplaying, then it would likely attract the interest of new people, and that would be grand. I do think that faiths have the potential to be the launch pads for some rich roleplay when you consider the various relationships they have with one another and the desire for the faithful to enact the will of their patron.

The solution you're proposing would require a lot more micromanagement of faiths - not a problem if, as you say, we ensure that there are people at the head of each church that are active.

If there were to be a quest system to get faithed (as I believe there is for drow?), and I'm still not convinced but I'm happy to discuss the issue and see if my mind can be changed, I would really REALLY not want to see it be a case of 'here's some info on the gods, now pick one'. If anything, it should be, at the least, a series of quests - an initial overview and then some faith specific quests that really get down to the nitty gritty of dogma.

But that brings me to another point - a priest, or any follower really, should have more behind them than a good knowledge of the dogma and there's no way a quest can check for just *WHY* a particular deity calls to you. I'd hate to see players choosing a god simply because they sound cool, without having any IC backup to that. But then... right now I'd hate to see players choosing a god simply because they have an active deity or faith manager to get them in - or on the flip side - because there isn't a faith manager and they fancy the white title.

As you say, all these things could be vetted after the event, and would probably give more roleplay opportunities, but they still rely on Imm/FM intervention. And let's not forget that a FM doesn't HAVE to be a priest, so having a larger pool of priests to pick from wouldn't necessarily matter...

Really, when it boils down to it, more active FMs are the solution to all our woes - but we know that RL always comes first and can't be relied upon to run smoothly and not interfere with our gaming time! I know it's pretty crap for players when their FM isn't around, but then I'd hate to have FMs have to drop out of the game for a while and return to find out they've been replaced. It's a thorny one...

[Mele]

There are really honestly very few undermanned faiths these days. Infact, I know for sure one faith manager sat herself in Zhentil Keep for -five hours- for someone who never made their way there. I myself have sat in a Westgate Altar room for a hopeful for hours on end that never came about.

My point is - what faiths don't have representation Oghma has worked his tail off to keep MOSTLY on track, and while for the time being it's not quick enough or whatnot, it's also a big sign too that the problem is not soley lack of management. I don't mean to say that we don't need more - we do. I just mean we cannot call an entire system flawed when essentially it's not. It's just slower than some desire.

If you have a hopeful of an evil or neutral god, Waterdeep will probably not be the place you're going to find your faith manager. It probably won't be the place an immortal brings an npc of said god to make faithing magic.

Sorry if I'm derailing, I think it's important though, to point that out.

[Horace]

Then on the flip side of all this, is that there are plenty of players on this game who are perfectly capable - right now, this instant, of playing a priest from every faith in the game. I honest to god see these players as being the norm, and the players who make obvious mistakes like Dalvyn pointed out as being the minority.

The difference being, the minority can be taught - with a wiki article - more efficiently than a PC trying to explain the ins and out of a faith entirely in character. That sort of roleplay is way too taxing to be the sole information on the faith (especially when player availability is limited). You have to put some responsibility on the player to know what they are playing. And if they are ridiculously off base on what they think their faith is, a simple ooc tell with the wiki page should fix the majority of those problems.

Obviously the concern is valid, and the largest draw back of what I proposed. I just see players who have nothing significant ooc to learn from any FM of any faith, being forced to go through things that take real life months.

And the system has worked. I remember when I first started here the majority of players didn't even know Corellon was in a different pantheon than Talos, for a made up example. But it's gotten to a point where the information has caught up to the privilege, and I don't think we'd lose much by putting in an express lane for those that give the quests.

Regardless, I'm happy to hear it's being talked about. The other system I was going to propose besides what I went with (i thought it'd be better received) was to separate cleric/druid early on and give them the full 1-9 base spells. With the benefit of being faithed being domain spells, unique temple trainers.

The down side with that one, is that it doesn't help nonpriests get faithed any faster - which, as you pointed out Dalvyn, has very small mechanical effect on their pc's.

[Horace]

Mele, you're making my point.

You have a very set idea of what an FM is expected to do. This idea is subjective - and not at all universal for all FM's...leaving the player based confused on what they should expect of an FM, and what the FM expects of them. The system is entirely dependent on individuals who have different ideas on how it should be done. And for quite a few faiths now, some entirely without anyone who can faith anybody...until the 6 months prereq passes.

[Mele]

If a set idea is saying an evil faith manager is not going to waltz into the Waterdeep Market where they're well known to be unwelcome to pick up hopefuls then okay...

I'm saying it's push and pull. That it seems people think if they just hang out in Waterdeep Market they'll get faithed. But that's not going to happen for evil faiths.

No one ever says "I'm not getting faithed because I didn't make the effort to go somewhere relevant to my faith, or alignment, to find my FM." they always just turn it right to faith managers, or lack thereof.

My goal is to point out it's not always that. We may lack some, but we have many FM's who are around as they can be, and an immortal who happily takes applications for the faiths w/o FM's. As well as all uncoded.

[Horace]

There are lots of FM's who get on when they can. But many times they're 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th characters, who seemingly only get time logged on to keep the cogs turning in the faith now and then...but not played out of the enjoyment of playing that character in roleplays. (and these aren't the problem, the problem are the no shows/rare shows)

That's sad! There shouldn't be that burden on FM's. You shouldn't only play a PC because of an OOC burden to keep a faith moving, they should be played because the players enjoys playing that character. And when you get sick of a character to let someone else come in, and burn out their character.

Waterdeep = Good ZK = Evil, is good vs. evil base syndrome from a time that encouraged it. Thankfully that time has mostly passed, at least in my eyes. Just logging on to log on and then talk about how much time you log on, without trying to make the situation better in the scenario, is fruitless. Low level characters or nonfaithed can't be expected to contact "da frickin pope" about getting faithed.

But speaking of fruitless, this off tangent conversation we're having certainly is.

My point isn't that the FM's are doing poorly in the system. My point is that the system is set up for the FM's to fail - and everything can always be made better. Priests being faithed being my current agenda, since I've worn their shoes recently.

[Mele]

If you're so devoted to a god you want to be a cleric ... how is it you are not expected to contact your faith manager?? O.O That blows my mind..

[Horace]

A faith manager is one in a million. Not exactly the guy who takes applications.

At least, ideally, in a game world that makes sense. But the system forces that sort of paradox, where eventually you do have to do that. I'd always prefer it to be more naturally flowing, where someone already in introduces you, as opposed to sending a letter to the pope saying howdy. This especially being true with evil gods who value secrecy/secrets. Which was one of my concerns, with some passion, for the idea of only FM/inner circles seeing faith lists.

------------------

Could another solution perhaps be - clerics can be faithed by anyone in the current faith? With a few faiths this would still be difficult, but certainly doable in a reasonable amount of time.

Or when priest class "quest complete"s (or whatever the syntax is) an alert goes to imms/fms?

[Glim]

I would tend to hate automatic faithing, I think. It would feel like a very hollow experience to me. The interaction that occurs during faithing is a very good thing. It allows both parties to delve into discussions of faith and explore their deities and learn more about them. I tend to always learn at least something interesting when I am faithing someone, or it might just make me think down a different path I haven't before.

Also, that face to face interaction tells me a lot about their character's knowledge and how they will be roleplaying them and what I can expect. That faithing interaction is invaluable to me as a FM.

Then on the flip side of all this, is that there are plenty of players on this game who are perfectly capable - right now, this instant, of playing a priest from every faith in the game.

I would agree with you as far as ability goes. But I don't think there are enough players that would truly enjoy and be able to keep with that character. If they were made to play a priest that they didn't really enjoy or lead a faith that they didn't, then it would begin to stop feeling like a game and more like a burden. That is never any fun.

The difference being, the minority can be taught - with a wiki article - more efficiently than a PC trying to explain the ins and out of a faith entirely in character. That sort of roleplay is way too taxing to be the sole information on the faith (especially when player availability is limited). You have to put some responsibility on the player to know what they are playing. And if they are ridiculously off base on what they think their faith is, a simple ooc tell with the wiki page should fix the majority of those problems.

See, this kind of bothers me. I don't think a wiki article could ever explain a faith's workings and howtodos as well as an active knowledgeable priest that can answer questions and teach what you are lacking. Not to mention it is much more fun that way.

Obviously the concern is valid, and the largest draw back of what I proposed. I just see players who have nothing significant ooc to learn from any FM of any faith, being forced to go through things that take real life months.

If you are playing a priest, their lives devoted to a god, I don't think you can ever stop learning about the faith and your deity. It would worry me a bit if a priest thought that they had nothing else to learn about their faith. But that might just be the philosopher in me coming out.

[Horace]

If you are playing a priest, their lives devoted to a god, I don't think you can ever stop learning about the faith and your deity. It would worry me a bit if a priest thought that they had nothing else to learn about their faith. But that might just be the philosopher in me coming out.

You're looking at a lot of this from an in character stand point, where I was using an out of character perspective. Obviously in character you can always learn more - but out of character we only have a finite amount of information on the gods nature, the gods laws, and the gods general relationship with others. You can learn all this from a page on the internet, and any questions you have about that god, that isn't answered in that page, you can formulate with critical thinking the likely answer.

I don't think there is any fault in a player doing their own research, which can easily be represented in "off screen" research. You just can't get more comprehensive, IC, than the information at our (the players) hands. That doesn't mean you don't roleplay, it just means I don't think you should base all your information off of what you learn in roleplay. My original theory was that with more priests being played, more players would be prompted to learn more of their god from an OOC standpoint, to be represented in character.

The concern (valid) is that it isn't believed this would be done by the players of the priests. And that would cause more confusion because of lack of tutoring.

[Erwyth]

My two cents:

I must agree that some FMs are never online, that things take time. But, in the case of Erwyth, his intensive roleplay has caused him to "wander off and his his demons" by which I just don't log him on, and if I do I remove his comm amulet to keep his roleplay going.

I believe SOME, not all, people are just TOO hasty in their character creation. Fer stayed at lvl 38, which was obtained by accident due to RPing, for almost a year in game; until his app was approved and he was surprised when he received his initiation into the rangers as well.

In my opinion, some people are just... too hasty? Ever seen an unfaithed priest at lvl 40? I have... And I think to myself... your lucky you were given healing spells at all.

I'm a new player to the game. I started in July? Both of my characters are either quested or questing. This is in fact due to the IMMs. Perhaps instead of burdening the IMMs with veteran characters, who *should* understand the patience needed, the new players can be faithed faster, which allows for MUCH more diversity.

Also.... in my opinion, veteran players who are creating priests and falling under a faith, just because it has an FM, shows me they aren't trying to ACTUALLY create a unique / individual character. They're just trying to make a character as fast as possible, for who knows what reason?

Point I'm making: Quality over Quantity, where are the unique characters?

[Lerytha]

I'll give my own view here, as a one-time sole FM, and now dual-FM (which believe me, is actually a lot more fun, because you can have "leader meetings", to discuss how to move the faith forward, its brilliant. And it stops your character from getting up themselves! ).

1. I think FMs should still have full responsibility for faithing.

As a Faith Manager, although I struggled (and sometimes still do) with availability, I always took the time to meet the faithful, and speak with them. I then worked out what "made the character tick", their strengths, their weaknesses, their views, etc. And then I sat down and thought of something that would be fun for the player, to give them a chance to "show off" those character strengths. Without blowing my own trumpet, some of the quests I gave really helped with roleplay, and almost always contributed something to the game (either a published book, or an event, or something). The point I make here is meant to be my most compelling: remove the need for FMs to quest someone, and you remove all the knock-on affects of the RP. I know most FMs I have seen often give quests that require people to seek out other people. If a player is a newbie, giving them a quest to speak to people can only be beneficial to them. It may be annoying that they can't be faithed fairly quickly, but at the same time, it does introduce them to the game, and to people.

But now comes my however. I don't think it is fair to let people wait months. Heck, I'd say one month maximum for the whole process, depending on how fast the quest is done and how often the seeker can log on. So, possible solutions that don't involve removing faithing from the FMs?

1. Allow Inner Circle to faith advance

Now, this might make people squeal as they imagine Inner Circle characters seizing control from the FMs. Alas, I do not mean that. Basically, depending on the IC nature of the faith, systems would be put in place to work out what the Inner Circle of that faith are permitted to do. So, I'll talk about the Oghman faith, which I and Ynaura manage. It may be a bad example, since we have two FMs which really means the work is spread around (largely onto Ynaura's shoulders, but... err... oops!). So, if Inner Circle could faith, what would Lerytha want the "system" to be? Probably that the Inner Circle would have to contact the FM to let them know what they've done (what quest was given, when they were advanced). This includes over PMs and emails by the way, so that the player of an FM, if they feel the quest given or the character advanced was awful, they can move in and give a new one (which is their prerogative as FM). If they agree however, they can just reply back and say thank you to the Inner Circle for taking one load off their busy duties.

As it is, the FM has to advance characters to the Inner Circle, so it is not a question of the characters/players being unreliable. Yes, there may be "dead weight" in the Inner Circle, or people in the Inner Circle loyal to your predecessor, but that's what faith politics is about. If the FM cannot work with older Inner Circles, maybe they can use the demote command. But then what is the effect on the faith if that happens? Will there be a mild revolution where a break-off shoot appears? I think intra-faith RP could open up far more... even if that isn't really the point to this thread.

So, the benefits to allowing the Inner Circle to faith would remove some of the waiting time for faiths with less active FMs. But it would keep intact a) the power of the FM faithwise, and b) the roleplay-requirement for faith quests which I feel is a requirement of the MUD.

2: Faith Drive ONLY for unFMd Faiths

I love Faith Drives, but I tend not to like the way we let everyone into every faith. I'd rather focus on the faiths that have less players, and if anyone wants to join them, they can. As it is, having a faith drive in which loads more people join Corellon's faith isn't exactly helping... I don't know... Torm's faith, or something. So, what does this do? Well, by focusing people into unFMd Faiths, it means eventually, one of the new priests (or other class) could be considered for FM. Once they are FM, they can spend more time recruiting, and then the list of unFMd faiths is reduced but the Drives continue.

3: Introduce a six-month absence rule for FMs

Its brutal, but fair. If an FM is absent for more than six months without any contact at all, remove them. Obviously only if someone is there who can do the job when they replace them, because there's no point removing an FM after six months, finding there is nobody suitable below them, having the FM log on say a week later and the faith seizing up into paralysis. But if there's one regularly logging, reliable, interested and dogma-fluent priest and then there's an FM who hasn't logged for six months, the answer is (to my mind) obvious.

And although I logged on at least more than six months during my "problems", I still would not have objected if Oghma had asked (politely, it all has to be polite) for me to remove myself as FM. Because during those times when I was struggling with RL issues, I felt guilty that I wasn't doing the job properly. It doesn't have to be an unbendable rule, either. Maybe the FM really wants to stay on and just explains that they have one month left of a really important contract? In which case fine. But if no word has been heard of a reason, I say remove them.

And I think those three suggestions could make up for Horace's suggestion. Which is a good suggestion, but one that I would never want to be implemented, largely because I think sometimes people underestimate just how much RP the faith quests generate. It is (at least in my faith, and I know most others) one of the few specifically tailored quests for your character, probably the most important one, something that means something... removing that for an auto-symbol would cheapen that. Sorry, Horace!

Anyway, let me know what you think.

~Ol

[Horace]

Perhaps instead of burdening the IMMs with veteran characters, who *should* understand the patience needed

I've always seen the patience argument as a necessity because of the system - not in place because it makes it makes the system better.

Also.... in my opinion, veteran players who are creating priests and falling under a faith, just because it has an FM, shows me they aren't trying to ACTUALLY create a unique / individual character. They're just trying to make a character as fast as possible, for who knows what reason?

See, you've only been playing a month and you see the most inherent flaw. The gravity around an active FM is huge - which is sort of good. But ultimately just leads to ducks in a row, instead of many faiths being represented.

[Saranya]

Great thread! Thanks for bringing this up!

I dislike the idea of automated faithing, though I would like to see more faith-into quests. I think that standarized info is important to create a common bond of knowledge through the faith, and get that "grounding" every faith member should have.

But we do have a problem. Instead of putting more burden on the imms to cover FM duties, can we not just grant certain FM privs to more members of the faith? I know of one faith that has co-FM's. It doesn't seem to me that one very top person should need to make all the faithing calls for a faith. That also reduces the bruised feelings of people who we don't want to lose as FMs (we value them!) but gives them some help.

Many organizations rotate through to keep active people in slots where they are needed. I think if there was more acceptability for sharing FM duties instead of it being a "sole status" thing, everyone would be happier in the long run.

(I just read this over and I'm not sure it makes any sense. This is what I get for posting before coffee. )

[Glim]

Obviously in character you can always learn more - but out of character we only have a finite amount of information on the gods nature, the gods laws, and the gods general relationship with others. You can learn all this from a page on the internet, and any questions you have about that god, that isn't answered in that page, you can formulate with critical thinking the likely answer.

Yes, you can learn almost everything that you said on a web page or sourcebook. But should that really be all that is expected of a priest? I would expect even non-priests to know those basics of a faith or to be taught them before they are faithed. But I assumed we held priests to a bit higher of a standard of roleplaying when it came to understanding their faith.

I don't think there is any fault in a player doing their own research, which can easily be represented in "off screen" research. You just can't get more comprehensive, IC, than the information at our (the players) hands. That doesn't mean you don't roleplay, it just means I don't think you should base all your information off of what you learn in roleplay. My original theory was that with more priests being played, more players would be prompted to learn more of their god from an OOC standpoint, to be represented in character.

The concern (valid) is that it isn't believed this would be done by the players of the priests. And that would cause more confusion because of lack of tutoring.

Bolded the statement there just to show that I might have misunderstood what you meant, but if I didn't, then I highly disagree. A well-played priest of a deity will always be a much better resource on a faith than their entry in a sourcebook (such as the Forgotten Reams Campaign Guide, for instance), in my opinion.

Also, I think, OOC research on a god is a completely optional choice for many. Mainly because many people enjoy that roleplay where they actually learn about the god from the other players. I know I wouldn't mind either way if someone came to me with the knowledge they obviously got from a sourcebook or if they know absolutely nothing and wanted to learn. Both are valid ways to RP learning of that faith.

[Glim]

Also, just to clear up any misconceptions, I am fairly sure that Inner Circle can codewise quest Hopefuls and Inquirers. Once the quest has been completed, it takes the FM to actually advance them to Initiate.