Cormyr and the Dalelands

Changing deities for characters has been a touchy subject... especially where divine casters are concerned.  I'm open to hearing feedback/input from players on the subject.  My personal input/thoughts to consider:

1) Should level be a factor?
2) How would you like to see conversions handled when falling is not a factor (i.e. closely allied/similar deities, no alignment changes, etc.)?
3) The PHB2 had a process detailed for conversion/retraining to a new deity.  To summarize, the process involved only a few events (rather than the year-long process that has occurred here in the past).  Should our process more closely mirror this?
4) What would you (ideally) see as the process for changing deities?

To be clear, my intent here is to open discussion on the topic which may or may not influence how we approach this as a server.

I would say it depends on how much they rely on said deity. A fighter or barbarian? Rogue? They could likely change, in reality, their faith in as long as it takes to learn of a new deity that fits them. (Though the deities might not look too kindly on it.) High or low level, if a character doesn't get much from the gods, I don't think changing deities would make a -huge- difference except on their RP.

In that same vein, I rather like the idea that a cleric or paladin or divine whatever changing deity should have a lot of trouble doing so. They need to renounce their old deity. And prove to the new one that they will stay with them. (Maybe a limit on how many times a cleric can change  deity. After one or two, who would ever accept their service again?) The closer they are to their deity, the harder the change. If you have an epic cleric wanting to change their faith, it should be one hell of a task to change gods. Something that would have to encapsulate everything they did for their original deity and then some.

Trying to keep my thoughts brief, though I might come back to this.

tl:DR - I think it should be based on class and level. Divine classes should have a harder, and limited ability to change their deity. Possible quest material or the like to change. Exponentially harder with level gain. Non-divine classes, much easier time, but still perhaps a bit more trouble depending on how they play their dependence on their god.

~BR

For nondivine classes, it should be fairly trivial as long as the new diety isn't directly opposed to the old one.

We sometimes forget, due to the game mechanics of dieties, that Faerun is highly polytheistic as a culture.  You have your patron God sure, but you still want to show respect to others too.  You want to pray to Shaundakul before a long trip.  You pray to Kelemvor when a loved one passes, to guard over their soul.  And heck, even good characters are advised to leave a little something at a shrine to Umberlee before sailing in rough weather....not because they like her, but to try and appease the crazy bitch so she leaves you be! 

Given that day-to-day honoring of many of the Gods, shifting from one patron to another isn't so unusual for the common man, due to self-reflection, or major life events.  Only those borrowing magic from the divines have to be so tied to a single God.

Level is definitely a factor. When you're first starting out and coming up with a character concept, it's fairly easy for the character identity to shift and change from what you may have expected once you actually start playing them. I'm pretty sure everybody here can identify with that. So even for a divine caster character, a low-level deity shift shouldn't be a big deal IMO - "in-character", at that level it's not a big stretch to say that they've worshiped their new choice of deity all along, so it's not ACTUALLY a patron change, just a bookkeeping adjustment. Doubly so if the character has not been particularly open or vocal about their divine affiliation.

Higher-level characters obviously are more established, and would have had plenty of time to discover this sort of mistake before (because that's what it is - a mistake in defining the nature and identity of the character at creation) and correct it, and chosen not to for whatever reason. It also increases the likelihood that the character's affiliation is more publicly recognized, unless they've taken great pains to hide it, which is of itself a method of RPing one's connection.

I'd personally consider 10-12 - the point where RP XP becomes enough that you can't just breeze through levels and get by the XP caps with in-game quests - the cutting-off point for allowing free-and-easy character concept retcons like this.

Just to retype the quote Bella's referring to, for folks that don't have their PHB2 handy.


- PHB2, p193

Left unanswered is the question of whether "the benefit of an atonement spell" also includes the 500xp penalty for "deliberate transgressions" contained in the spell description for the Atonement spell (PHB). A very literal reading would suggest the answer is no; after all, an xp penalty isn't a "benefit" at all. Personally though, I can see how it makes conceptual sense for the 500 xp penalty to be payed in cases where the two deities are enemies and/or of differing alignments.

It should also be noted that this quote from the PHB2 is not FR-specific. Thus, the quote only refers to clerics, because in most settings only clerics (and not classes like druids) are required to have a specific patron. Thus, in most settings druids etc. could change deities as easily as any other class. A reasonable adaptation of this rule to Forgotten Realms would stipulate that this is /also/ the only way that the classes FR requires to have a patron deity (like druids) can change patron deities. Note that the druid or other divine caster would have to find a CLERIC of the new faith - another druid would not suffice because geas/quest is not on the druid spell list. And... it turns out this is pretty similar to what FRCS says.

-FRCS

It's also obvious that the difficulty and duration of the quest should scale with the level of the divine spellcaster. The difficulty is compounded for clerics and druids especially, who will have to complete the quest while handicapped from the loss of many of their class features. To make matters worse, the divine spellcaster may have trouble obtaining allies for the quest because many of the divine spellcasters's former allies may shun him or her if the alignment/ethos difference is significant - and worshipers of the new deity may be leery to assist someone who has yet to prove themselves. There's a lot of material for human drama and story wrapped up in this, regardless of whether the cleric is a PC or an NPC.

There doesn't appear to be any mechanical penalty associated with changing patron deities for someone who isn't a divine spellcaster, but it does stand to reason that some of the roleplay issues (being considered a turncoat by the old faith and unproven by the new faith) may come into play, especially for highly prominent individuals such as nobility or famous adventurers.

Also I did a bit of googling around, and someone on RPG stack exchange pointed to an interesting additional example. Exemplars of Evil, pages 80-84, depicts an example of an elven fallen cleric adopting a new deity essentially by divine fiat of the new deity (Lolth). Personally though, I don't like the idea of divine fiat being decisive for a PC (but that's an entirely personal bias).

So RAW is fairly straightforward on the issue; the question is whether C-D ought to have a different houserule.

There are plenty of canonical examples of characters (including divine spellcasters) changing their nature as a result of the story. Character development is a good thing, and it's definitely not always a "mistake"!

That said, you do bring up a second, and in my view distinct, issue. Namely, a player makes a mistake on character generation and wants to correct it later on to better fit their concept. This second issue doesn't apply just to deities: it can be ability scores, feats, or any number of other things that wind up not quite fitting the character concept. A quick glance through the LETO forums shows plenty of precedent of this type of mistake happening. I'd like to think that C-D is the kind of community where people aren't raked over the coals for an honest mistake (is there anyone here who can say they've never made an honest mistake?) I guess the other question that comes to my mind, if you're talking about a high level player, is "why doesn't the DM team just say something sooner?" If a player is making an honest mistake (as opposed to a deliberate exploit), I do think that the DM team as a whole has some responsibility to detect it and let them know.

That's sort of incidental, though.

In more extreme cases, the DM team might try to work it into the story, and make it into interesting plot material. There are plenty of canonical examples throughout FR's history of one deity (or powerful nondeity entity) trying to 'impersonate' a deity, granting divine abilities in said deity's name, for all kinds of different reasons. Maybe that explains why the character had divine powers before, despite not fitting their old deity's tenants? That's just one example that took me about 30 seconds to come up with. I'm sure you guys can come up with something even better. A huge part of being a good improvisational actor, roleplayer, or especially dungeon master, is being creative and flexible enough to take whatever you have to work with, roll with it, and make it into something that is interesting and fun.

I'm in favor of the "up to X level" idea. Concepts can change vastly as soon as they actually start being played, and a PC shouldn't be penalized for the player not getting the idea perfectly right the first time, especially when you can request a rebuild for just about any other reason with no trouble. Now, a change due to story and character development...that's a different story.

While true, that's also completely not what I was talking about. I thought I went well out of my way to make that clear.

I don't think level matters as much, really. Not -that- much. It should impact the severity of the roleplay and create a harder dilemma for the divine caster who has more favor with their patron. But the formula for conversion should be similiar regardless of level(edit: I mean looking at it from a 40 year old level 3 cleric changing deity and a 19 year old level 20). It should be a philosophically life changing event. It may even change alignment over time as it seems that the characters consciousness is what's changing--their outlook on everything.

I think the mechanics are the easiest part. Reflecting the moral dilemma in-game properly both player side and topside would be the difficult part. But I've always been more of an interpersonal story teller. My process would be an investigation into whether or not the character is struggling morally, consciously, behaviorally, or reflecting a fundamental change within themselves and others around them foremost. If they aren't, then I would start to investigate out of character motivations and see if they are reasonable enough.

IE: A player joins the server and makes a character just to test the waters. They are a cleric of selune. They begin getting along with a group of Sunites and after a few months, they find themselves only roleplaying with said group. Said group begins to get quests and the player doesn't feel involved enough and wants to change their patron to Sune, but their character doesn't change in terms of personality, outlook on the world around them, consciously or anything--they just want to be more included. I would suggest to the player to delve deeper into the situation and reflect it through their roleplay first, as it is an opportunity for their group to experience their character and character's story in a way otherwise avoided. If they didn't want to, I would consider the player's livelihood itself and if this decision was important for keeping the player in the server.

The mechanical issue is an easy enough fix all around. Players can gate themselves fine through roleplay. As far as exploiting letoes and rebuilds, well, policing that is a nightmare. There have been several people using rebuilds to get a -bit- more DMXP per relevel to push them further to cap for a while and for other build-exclusive reasons. But that debate goes into how one wants to play the server, and that conversation never ends well.

But level *does* matter. Level tells how much play a character has had and therefore how much roleplay evidence there is for a change. I don't think you're understanding that. A lowbie is more malleable than a near-epic with an established history, and that does need to be taken into account.

I agree with that. I don't know if there should be a completely different way of evaluating the character for approval, though. In short, I would answer OP question 1 with: Yes. But I would add as long as the process is similar for all divine casters in the situation. If anything higher level casters could be evaluated easier than mid-range leveled ones since they are more established.

Because here's the angle I'm approaching it from.

I'm an utter noob to FR. I've only played Pathfinder in PnP. I know very little about the server's lore and am working to learn. So let's say I have a theurge concept, and I misread what Azuth's doctrine was like, only to realize Oghma suited how I played the character. Nothing is changing except the deity, which should have been their patron all along. I just made a PEBKAC error, which happens.

Would it be fair to a player in that situation to have to roleplay out a request for a rebuild? Their reasons are entirely roleplay-based. I've been on enough of the internet to know people might take that as a punishment - not because they're anti-RP but because the entire catalyst for the rebuild is to stay true to the roleplay, however little, they have established. If they're a low-enough level that they can be seen as still getting a feel for where the character is going, especially, I'd okay it.

And again, this is not the same situation as "My character has undergone a long-standing change of heart and needs to convert." That should probably have quests and the like and a more formal process than just helping out an early-levels mistake.

I think it's fair, and it would rob you at a chance for interesting roleplay, not only for yourself, but for the other players and characters who want to get to know your character. It's a chance for some characters to help you in game with your OOC knowledge if any of them are well learned. I just disagree with a level cap to rebuilding. I can see the logic with your situation, I just disagree with it and think it's better handled on a RP server through RP.

But they've DONE the RP. It feels like getting double-charged, and I could very easily see people getting very upset.

If they get upset, I would ask the player and consider the OOC implications I mentioned. If it feels like you might lose a player over this, then I think that should be considered over IC actions. But I would suggest RPing it out first.

I would bring up a few points, with the first being that there are examples of people switching almost often. Fzoul is the best example, of someone literally deity shopping. I think in a case like this, the other consideration, which isn't often discussed, is "how useful is the convert?"

The other point I'd look at, is "the nature of the faith in question". By this I mean, the size of the following, the nature of the deity. Shaundakul, as an example, sends his avatar to walk through the ruins of Myth Drannor, to aid those who get in over their heads, and personally approaches those he seeks to turn to his faith.

While I understand the one size fits all fair approach, I think that there's a lot of room for flexibility. The major thing I would say we want to avoid, is long durations, of months, of waiting for the change to be done. Does it make sense? Maybe. Is it fun? No. No I can't imagine it is.

Putting myself in that situation, I don't see it as interesting or entertaining RP. I see it as "this is what the character should have been all along, I'm just fixing a mistake". No different than saying "Oh I can't get into the class I wanted because I didn't realize I needed a higher (insert stat here) score than I started with" and requesting a relevel or LETO to fix. It's an OOC error that lead to the character not working the way the player envisioned, or discovering after playing a bit that the character works differently than originally thought.

Having to RP out a change from something the character never should have been to something they were supposed to be from day one - even if it took a little time for the player to notice the error - is not my idea of fun. It's annoying, frustrating, and troublesome.

I've played a character who's had to switch deities due to in-game actions, spent almost nine months as a "fallen" character without their deity-related abilities. It was frustrating, but in a completely different way, and it was enjoyable because the character was going through a struggle that was a result of her actual actions and choices in-game. (Though I still think the time scale was ridiculous, and doubly so for people who have ended up having to wait a year or even longer in some cases.)

THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.

This is not the character choosing to change. This is not the character having an in-character revelation, discovery, or change of heart. This is not a reaction to an RP scenario.

This is a player discovering, via the way they've played the character, that things do not match up to their original idea for the concept. This is an ERROR. And frankly, being told that I should stick with an error and just play it out with it, potentially for a long-term situation, is more likely to have me just shelve the character or request a deletion and restart from level 3. Especially in the situation we're discussing - a relatively-new character who on paper looked to work and act one way, but when the player brought them in-game and played them for a few levels realized they didn't match up quite like they thought they did.

I just worry it would make for stagnant rehashings of characterization in the scenarios I've advised. If it's a player error that isn't hinged on something in-game but on interpretation of lore, then there's nothing to gain from forcing them to RP out the change of heart that isn't really a factor in the rebuild - the rebuild is mechanical only and meant to better suit the characterization. If anything, it might restrict people from letting that character move forward on their own initiative because they'd be stuck with a build that doesn't suit their concept until some arbitrary measure had been met.

Now, a story-driven rebuild, on the other hand, RP all the way, quest it up.

Yep! Check the very next sentence, I agree that the issue you are bringing up is distinct! Those first two sentences were just to help make explicit what that distinction was.

Sorry if I was confusing.

It's more that they were kind of unnecessary. I'm more than aware that people change religions and such. It was rather irrelevant to my point, and distracting, and came off as a kind of patronizing "well you know it's not ALWAYS a mistake".

I don't think ANYONE here really thinks that characters who go through an actual character-changing shift of morality, ethics, and/or religion need to have that RPed out over a period of time - it's just the amount of that period that's really in question. On the fact that the change needs to be displayed in-game, I think we're all agreed.

The disagreement, here, seems to hinge on whether lower-level characters who the player feels belong better associated with a different faction over the one they created the character with need to have that change, also, displayed over time in-game, or if they should be allowed to just retcon their character so that they have always belonged to the new faction/religion/whatever.

Ah, ok. I thought we were just speaking in general terms. Admin specifically went out of their way to solicit the opinions of the players, so I gave my opinion (though I can totally see how people might see things differently than I do; I don't imagine that my opinions are anything more than just opinions!)

It sounds like you are really more talking about one particular instance or situation now though, so the players can't really offer you very meaningful opinions in response to the admins' solicitation for opinions, because we don't know the actual details of that situation.

Really, the best way to do this is going to be to categorize it as a build error versus a development conversion.

If it's an error, hell, make it a LETO request. Everything else is allowed. Imagine if you made someone RP out learning their shiny new Power Attack before they were allowed to take it. I don't think it's feasible or sensible.

If it's a conversion based on development - say someone fell in with a bad crowd and slowly started converting to, I dunno, Cyric. That needs to be done via RP and should probably be put in as a request as soon as the player has a feeling that the conversion may be happening so they can log what they do for proof of concept.

Two different setups, two different solutions. Level cutoff should definitely be taken into account so someone doesn't try to cheese it by skating into mid-epics and then realizing they can admit an error for better domain spells. By that point, given it takes months to accrue enough faery xp to level, the error should have been realized long ago and is now in the realm of a conversion rather than an oopsie.

See my reply to your other comment, I explained it a bit there. It's not just one situation, it's happened a few times, but yeah it's a fairly specific set of scenarios.

Sorry about that! I didn't mean to offend anyone! I'll try to copy edit my posts more carefully in the future to cut down excess verbiage.

I'm just weighing in in general. I've a few divine concepts, and I'm worried I might make a stupid error somewhere along the line. I know I'm not the only one struggling with lore, what with the various editions and changes.

No worries. Text-based medium and all that.

This is also a major point, ESPECIALLY when it comes to in-game factions and religions.

Not everyone who plays here is super-familiar with FR, or even that big of an FR fan; I personally have a few things I really like about the setting, but the grand majority of it I do not much care for, for various reasons. I'm here more for the community, the fun toys the game has for us thanks to the hak community and Vincent's code work, the player interactions, and the ability to tell stories as a DM.

At the time CD started, my PnP group was pretty exclusively in Greyhawk or in homebrew settings. We played one FR game and abandoned the setting after that. Nowadays we play pretty exclusively in our homebrew setting, having little to no interest in various published worlds except as sources of things to steal and incorporate. If I'd had more say in the beginning of the server, I probably would have pushed for a different setting to put it in, or encouraged coming up with a custom homebrew one of our own. FW and Vincent have expressed similar regrets in hindsight. But at the time we made CD, we had enough FR fans in the original founding group, as well as an understanding that FR attracted more players than other settings, that those options were never really offered or explored.

Players who don't know the setting, the organizations, the locations, the pantheon, etc. etc. etc. backwards and forwards like really dedicated fans or long-term players do are going to make mistakes like this. They're going to read a short summary of one of the above, think it suits the character, then at a later point when they do more research it's going to reveal things don't quite match up, either because the (insert thing here) wasn't what they thought it was, or because actually playing the character revealed they don't fit together with their faction or religion the way the player thought they would. That's not an exclusively new-player problem either, but admittedly long-term fans are probably going to have it happen less often.

In my mind, it doesn't seem right to penalize players who make this sort of mistake by forcing them to stick with it when it's clearly not what the player wants, especially when they haven't been playing the character for an extended period of time.

I think that makes sense after speaking with the player and being transparent with time frames. Let them know out of the gate how long certain things may take in terms of scheduling and effort to avoid frustration. There are two different circumstances for sure. I wouldn't penalize a level three person who is unfamiliar if they weren't comfortable with a decision, but I think rp should be offered, even if it's a one time event introducing the character to pcs, npcs, the dogma or whatever.

Here, allow me to put it into a specific scenario:

Waaaaaaaaay back on MD, there was an early decision to make the Tentaziones Cyricists.  Prior to this, they had always just been "Chaosites."  (Long story, but basically I was more used to the way Greyhawk handled deities/divine spellcasting and didn't know at the time that just serving an ideal wasn't a thing in FR.)

Problem was, Edge and I knew zilch about Cyric other than "god of murder and lies."  We shrugged, said okay, and proceeded to RP our characters as Chaos-followers that happened to worship Cyric.

Fast forward two months, and Lia has lost divine spells because we weren't "RPing Cyric's dogma."  We didn't -know- Cyric's dogma, and had only gone off of what some staff members at the time had told us.  We go look up the dogma and ended up realizing that his dogma not only didn't suit the characters, it never had.  Due to misinformation, and a lack of setting knowledge, Lia was deemed "fallen" for not being MORE EVIL or MORE EXCLUSIVE (insisting that Cyric is the one true god or some such).  There was no RP change, no reflection or change of heart, the character was still the same (at the time) CE Chaos-serving character she was since the start.

We were level 12.

Hence, among other things, why Lia has been a Talassan ever since we came to CD, rather than a Cyricist like she was on MD.

So... from what I'm reading... we have two different cases we're looking at:  the in-character conversion and the ooc change/misinformation.

An -in character- conversion should involve at least some degree of difficulty?  The quest for the faith, and finding an appropriate cleric to cast atonement, should be sufficient?  Again, how much should level play a factor in this (if at all)?

OOC fixes should likely have a level cap where, beyond that, the character's RP is considered established and requires an actual conversion.  Yay/nay?

Can I add here, DM time and availability needs to be a factor here, the process can be complicated and time consuming if in such cases of a high level cleric the attention of a DM can be assured, preferably for all, if not, then it needs to be far simpler, because otherwise, your going to have a two tier system, where the Player who can get that DM attention gets through the process and those who don't for whatever reason (DM taking a break or whatever) is left feeling very frustrated. Being a spell less high level cleric is not fun if it stays that way for sometime, and there is no sense of progress. Being a spell less High Level Cleric who is having to deal with situations based around their conversion anyway, could be very much awesome and fun on the other hand forcing the player/character to find new ways to deal with what would otherwise be much simpler problems.

So yes being a complicated process can be fun, but it can also back fire hideously and leave players feeling left out. I'd also say whatever system is agreed on needs to be the same for all players, because if two Clerics of similar level convert and one guy gets an epic quest out of it and the other is waved through it can feel like the one being waved through is missing out, and their characters growth and change being ignored. Or being treated as just not as interesting as the other persons, which is... yeah not going to be fun for folks. 

On the one hand, Darvins, I agree with you about the frustration.

However, when a conversion (I assume we're dealing with the in-character situation) occurs, there's a marked difference between someone not needing to change alignments to follow their new deity and one who does.  Those that also need alignment switches would need to demonstrate their change of heart through actions in the quest for their new faith (ideally).  

And yeah on early char misunderstandings of the diety I'm agreeing with just making it oocly simple and folks pretending it never happened early levels can be a period of discovery for a player even experienced in the setting players can be surprised by the way the char turns out. Look at Iyanna, when I first imagined her she was going to be cold distant and serious I think most people would agree I failed utterly in making her that.... I don't think early levels should be cast in stone, and think the point where your needing more Roleplay XP than combat is a good line in the sand for that discovering the character period.

On actual roleplayed conversions
I'd agree with that so can I add in case of extreme switches, as I said making it something that has to be really earned is not a bad idea in itself, as long as people can be sure of the DM support being there, in fact with that assurance it offers a lot of good role play chances and fun quests that could bring back the real sense of danger that can at times be lost or at least be far harder to achieve when you get high level. As long as the system is tight enough to catch people so they don't get forgotten, or feel left out, or that their characters roleplay is being viewed as less important than someone elses... Then make it long and complicated for those big switches, but make sure that the process of earning it never feels like it was forgotten. If that can be done it would make for awesome, rewarding and plain fun roleplay for all involved I think anyway...

I'd agree with the idea of needing a cap on the OOC fixes at a certain level for deity. Once you hit ascension, you've been playing the character for -months-. Gotten into the different events. Met people. Made your mark. And if you're a cleric or paladin, you should really know at least the general idea of your faith by that point. Even if you don't know the deity by heart, it really isn't hard to Google the names, at least, and read some of the entries such as on Wikipedia.

After a certain point, there really isn't an excuse for saying 'Oh, I goofed OOCly." That would be like hitting level 30 as a fighter build and going 'Oh, my character's really a spellcaster. I fucked up on creation." and remaking them from level 1 to be a Theruge, and asking to be put back up to 30.

~BR

As I said before, the logical cutoff point is really around 10-12. Those would be the levels where you've had some time to get the feel of the character and determine if the concept at creation matches with how they're being played and how they look to develop, you've got a decent handle on their ensuing mechanics, and at the same time the character is still relatively new - considering you can get to those levels with very little RP XP involved, mostly just by hunting and doing in-game quests, rarely needing much if any actual DM questing - and has not had a sufficient amount of time to really establish themselves and their association with any deity or faction.

My thoughts on this discussion.

1) Should level be a factor?

Yes.  As many have pointed out, people do not always know what a character will be like until they start playing it.  Being someone who wanted Daeatria to have been a concept that was initially "banned/severely restricted," and then finding out she was very different in her beginnings, I do not think it fair to make people "stick" with their errors in those first ten levels.  I think on some servers, people do not require a biography of a character until they reach level ten or so for this reason.  

In my personal ruling, I would not be stringent on a character's deity or even chosen path until they are level 10 - this goes for standard and exotic races.  

2) How would you like to see conversions handled when falling is not a factor (i.e. closely allied/similar deities, no alignment changes, etc.)?

I think the Player's Handbook ideas for this are sufficient.  If we wanted to be even more specific, though, I would do something like the following once they reached level ten or higher...

If a character is 'falling' drastically from the path of their original deity (e.g., going from an evil to good deity), and converts to an opposing/very opposite deity as a cleric, I would probably only require a minimum of four quests before they can use spells again, showing their worth.  This way, it is not a "one year" sort of scenario. Multiple DMs can be involved in this, as well, to speed up the process.  No one DM should monopolize something like this unless the player consents or only wants specific DM styles involved (we all know we have our preferences).

If a character converts to a deity who is either similar in concept or an ally to their original deity, I would acknowledge them being two separate scenarios, but likely only suggest maybe 1-2 quests minimum before clerics can cast spells again.  I would still like to think that these sort of conversions are not going to have the same stakes as, say, a worshiper of Bahamut falling and worshiping Tiamat. 

It is not a perfect system, but I think it would work to serve its purposes. 

3) The PHB2 had a process detailed for conversion/retraining to a new deity.  To summarize, the process involved only a few events (rather than the year-long process that has occurred here in the past).  Should our process more closely mirror this?

Definitely.  Please see above for some ideas! 

4) What would you (ideally) see as the process for changing deities?

A combination of the above. If characters are below level 10, I really do not think we need to be strict on stuff changing, since...again, people are still having a feel of the characters.  Once they get past that point, and there is a more solid roleplay established, -then- we start using the system above, which satisfies what the source material suggests, anyway (bar with more specific numbers).

My thoughts.

Sincerely,
Arya

Did this ever get decided, out of curiosity?

It seems to me that most of the agreement comes from - It's okay to change a deity up until level 10-12 or so, when the character is getting more established/important/known/played.

So could a cleric or other character change their deity at that point (But not after) without too much fuss, as long as they keep within (General) alignment and all to match the character?

~BR

I'll chime in.

Should level be a factor?
If you are cleric, paladin, blackguard, divine champion, divine seeker, ranger, or druid (maybe less so for druid depending) then the character's amount of service to their deity (vs. level) should come into play. If the character's story has been tightly bound to a particular religion then they change their deity that could have ripple effects on other's that should be considered and maybe DM shepherded. This is more for the character's around the transition than for the character themselves.

What should the process be?
Since it can't really be a one size fits all scenario, I'd propose the following outline:
1) Mistake or lack of knowledge of FR lore (below level 10, give or take) - This shouldn't require much. Initially I'd say staff should interface with the player making sure they understand the new deities doctrine and that the character's behavior aligns with it. Ideally a small ceremony to 'indoctrinate' the character into the new faith, sort of like the ascension of an 'acolyte or novice' to the full faith.

2) For levels 10 and above, I'd say the atonement spell of someone within the faith with a small quest (and or offering) attached is probably the best way to handle it.

Notice I didn't address fallen scenarios. That is a different thing, IMO, if staff decides someone meets the criteria of a fall, they need to work with the player to determine how to fix it. I don't think this will come up here aside in the most egregious scenarios.

A decision is being made, thank you for the input.

Sometime in the next few weeks, I will post guidelines regarding deity changes and atonements.