Pantheon 2.0 - Rules and Comments Thread

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:26 am

Yeah, good one.

Post by **Creator** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:25 am

Mithyaat Vam wrote:The Dreams of Astavyastataa Kadna
...
good night sweet prince, and angels sing thee to thy rest.

To sleep, perchance to dream - my deepest thanks for my dearest wife!!

Lord Adomorn wrote:... As Asta would put it, the Alpha and the Omega, although he is only a cheap imitation...

Cheap imitation indeed!! Ya tin godling!!

Very good gift and exit, friend Balon! Very good indeed!! *bows*

Jove wrote:
Goodnight, Asta.

Perhaps we can banter in the afterlife.

And of course Wench! I am sure AK will be looking for your banter!!

Bhakti wrote:never liked him anyway...

May your roots rot ya whiner!!

Post by **balon!** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:36 am

Thanks guys!

Post by **[Syl]** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:57 am

Pretty cool. Ra'ev in Hebrew means "hungry," btw.

Post by **balon!** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:58 am

Syl wrote:Pretty cool. Ra'ev in Hebrew means "hungry," btw.

I got "Fury" in Estonian.

So there.

Post by **Creator** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:20 am

I guess the sword is hungry for the fury!

Post by **balon!** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:51 am

Creator wrote:I guess the sword is hungry for the fury!

It channels the wielders righteous fury, you bloodthirsty brute!

Post by **Creator** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:58 am

Not me!!! That other guy!!

Look at the angelic face in my Av ... does THAT look like a bloodthirsty brute!!?

Post by **balon!** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:00 am

Creator wrote:Not me!!! That other guy!!

Look at the angelic face in my Av ... does THAT look like a bloodthirsty brute!!?

She's about to STRIKE!

Post by **Creator** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:02 am

awww ... chip off the old grandpa!!

papa's little cosmic warrior!!

Post by **Creator** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:36 pm

Hedra Iren wrote:The Law of Return
Written into the Book of Law in the summer of the sixth year of the Second Age, Being the final act of Hedra Iren..

Otherwise known as the "what goes around comes around" Law!!

Poor Xar ... more calculations to keep track of!! He'll need a cosmic Karma accounting system!!

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:19 pm

Doesn't that law effectively prevent anyone from doing anything of consequence outside of their own followers?

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:32 pm

It looks like it depends on if they want positive or negative effects to come back to them.

If you do a positive action upon another, you should reap a positive result the next Turn. Or so I am reading it.

A negative action will generate a negative result.

Post by **Hedra Iren** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:54 pm

Murrin wrote:Doesn't that law effectively prevent anyone from doing anything of consequence outside of their own followers?

(f) The Law of Return is not intended to prohibit creative negativity, only to provide a measure of protection via retribution against its onset. If your nature requires you to do evil, start small and do not give out more, at least at first, than you are willing to receive.

It doesn't prevent anything. What is done is done. But it does keep a god wary of causing harm to others' followers or effects, lest that god find himself reaping consequences as well.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:24 pm

So, for any action performed against any other player, players followers, etc, in the game, Xar will perform a corresponding action of equal or greater strength against the acting player.

I was going to protest the aspect that allowed a negatively acting god to be punished to any extent by any party without consequence for a year, until I noticed the part that seemed to say that the same god would be able to act consequence free during that period--is that the correct reading of this part?

Protection will remain forfeit until a full year has passed. However, his or her actions, negative or positive, will no longer trigger the Law of Return during this time.

I notice a small loophole provided by that particular part, but on the surface it seems fair.

Post by **Hedra Iren** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:07 pm

Murrin wrote:So, for any action performed against any other player, players followers, etc, in the game, Xar will perform a corresponding action of equal or greater strength against the acting player.

That is correct. Though how and when the corresponding action occurs is up to Xar, though I imagine the timelier the better. Xar can even choose not to enact a return, though I hope such instances are rare.

I was going to protest the aspect that allowed a negatively acting god to be punished to any extent by any party without consequence for a year, until I noticed the part that seemed to say that the same god would be able to act consequence free during that period--is that the correct reading of this part?

Yes, that's correct. It was a tough decision (I've been writing this damn law for days, and I'm still not done putting in my own edits). The alternative, as I saw it, was for the negatively acting god to continue receiving negative returns. I thought that would be too debilitating, so I went with one and done, for good or bad.

I've thought of a couple loopholes myself, but nothing so far that has violated the spirit of the law or Eiran's intrinsic or inevitable theomachy (thank you, SRD). I would be interested in hearing anything anyone else comes up with, and I would be appreciative of any suggestions to improve it.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:34 pm

Well, I quite like the loophole I spotted, so I'm not going to make any suggestions regarding it.

The law seems fine, Hedra, now that I've read it a little more fully and thought about what it means.

I suppose the nature of the return will have to take into account the nature of the action. For example, my use of a barrier to move Adomorn's troops thwarted his plans, but did the troops no harm--it is negative, with 1DRP strength, but what kind of negative return would Xar have assigned me for it were this law in effect at the time?
We're assuming that two of us were at equal strength, and that his action sending the army to attack me invoked no return.

Post by **Mistress Cathy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:41 pm

That was along the lines of what I was thinking, Murrin.

If it is a defensive move, is that god punished? For example, if a god just takes a dislike to another god and starts war, is the god on the recieving end in danger of this law if he/she retaliates?

Or what if one god does something that unknowingly causes harm on another? I'm sure that happened plenty in P2.

I appreciate what the law is trying to do but I think it is too restrictive.

This law almost forces the players to be good.

Please explain for those of us who may not be understanding this thoroughly.

Post by **Hedra Iren** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:01 pm

If it's a truly defensive move, the offending god should already be forfeit under the Law of Return, though just because a god believes it's defensive doesn't necessarily make it so. If a god employs a purely defensive action and another god later sends his followers to break his teeth on it, I don't think the result would trigger a return against the god who put up the defense, though the offending god might still be liable to repurcussions.

I believe Murrin's actions against Argothoth would have been fine, since Argothoth had attacked prior to that. Of course, if Murrin waited a year to respond, then maybe not. Now if Murrin had employed that shield unprovoked, I think that would be considered affecting Argothoth's divine party and would result in a negative return.

Post by **Mistress Cathy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:12 pm

Ok, that makes sense.

But, I added onto my post when you responded so could you explain this to me a little more please?

I just fear that this rule - while very good - will force everyone to be good. It is a good thing for those of us who play good dieties, hehe, but it makes the game unbalanced as it was in P2, doesn't it?

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Pantheon 2.0 - Rules and Comments Thread