Pantheon 2.0 - Rules and Comments Thread

[I'm Murrin]

I wasn't exactly thinking of the defensive side when I picked my example; I was just using it as an action that, while not to a god's benefit, did not do him or his followers harm. To what extent is it considered a negative action, and what return might it provoke? The question being more directed toward Xar than yourself, as these are the kind of decisions he will have to make every turn from now on.

[Hedra Iren]

Maybe somewhat. It is my gift afterall. It's not like balance is implicitly woven into Mox's flute. Conversely, as the Goddess of Law and the Lawful nature of the gift, balance must be considered.

But consider this: "good" and "evil" are relative terms, are they not? So are "positive" and "negative." For this reason, intent is left to the Allfather to decide and is explicitly determined by being beneficial or detrimental to its recipient. Just because the God of Happiness thinks it would be great for everyone in the world to be happy, doesn't mean the God of Anger would be... er, happy about it (for this reason the Law of Return takes into account who is affected the most). Much evil has been accomplished by those who thought their actions were good, and the reverse may also hold true.

[Mistress Cathy]

Maybe somewhat. It is my gift afterall. It's not like balance is implicitly woven into Mox's flute. Conversely, as the Goddess of Law and the Lawful nature of the gift, balance must be considered.

Yes, and it is a good gift. I personally like balance and fairness. Please don't take offense because none is intended and I am sorry if it is coming through like that.

Funny that you mention Mox's gift because had I been the goddess of Song, I would have my gift alter his. Kind of like the three good faries in the Disney classic Sleeping Beauty. The evil witch curses Sleeping Beauty with death but the one fairy changes it to be sleep.

But consider this: "good" and "evil" are relative terms, are they not? So are "positive" and "negative." For this reason, intent is left to the Allfather to decide and is explicitly determined by being beneficial or detrimental to its recipient. Just because the God of Happiness thinks it would be great for everyone in the world to be happy, doesn't mean the God of Anger would be... er, happy about it (for this reason the Law of Return takes into account who is affected the most). Much evil has been accomplished by those who thought their actions were good, and the reverse may also hold true.

So ultimately, it is up to Xar to determine if there is any return?

[I'm Murrin]

Maybe somewhat. It is my gift afterall. It's not like balance is implicitly woven into Mox's flute. Conversely, as the Goddess of Law and the Lawful nature of the gift, balance must be considered.

But consider this: "good" and "evil" are relative terms, are they not? So are "positive" and "negative." For this reason, intent is left to the Allfather to decide and is explicitly determined by being beneficial or detrimental to its recipient. Just because the God of Happiness thinks it would be great for everyone in the world to be happy, doesn't mean the God of Anger would be... er, happy about it (for this reason the Law of Return takes into account who is affected the most). Much evil has been accomplished by those who thought their actions were good, and the reverse may also hold true.

Of course. I just like to poke and prod at these things when I learn of them so that I understand them better.

[balon!]

I both like and dislike it. Adomorn likes it. Tawhiri-matea does not.

Course I've always wanted more elbow room than I seem to be able to garner for my actions.

[Hedra Iren]

No offense taken, Jove, nor anyone else. I expect and welcome debate (though the final word is still mine ). Anything that makes the gift stronger or better is good by my reckoning.

Yes, ultimately it is up to Xar. I can't presume to tell him what to do in the game, only hope to give him a new tool to use. Now if I could just get him on MSN messenger...

[Mistress Cathy]

Hedra, I pm'd you....

[O-gon-cho]

Funny that you mention Mox's gift because had I been the goddess of Song, I would have my gift alter his. Kind of like the three good faries in the Disney classic Sleeping Beauty. The evil witch curses Sleeping Beauty with death but the one fairy changes it to be sleep.

Trust me, m'lady. I considered it. I came to the conclusion that I believe it is not my place to interfere with the Gift of another.

[Benito Alvarez]

Trust me, m'lady. I considered it. I came to the conclusion that I believe it is not my place to interfere with the Gift of another.

HAHA.

All this game IS is meddling.

[O-gon-cho]

*sigh*

I'll learn.

..but I prefer to have some honor...

[balon!]

[lucimay]

Vern: If I can only have one food for the rest of my life? That's easy. Pez. Cherry flavored Pez. No question about it.

[stonemaybe]

I probably have no place saying this, but I honestly think that The Law of Return will make Pantheon nearly unworkable for Xar.

Not only has every action to be judged whether it affects the law, but an appropriate return has to be designed, of the appropriate strength. And what if Xar judges a return to be a certain 'strength' but the 'victim' of it doesn't realise and wastes more DRP to contain it, or else uses too little and reaps a catastrophic return instead of say a moderate return.

And THEN, how many PMs will Xar be getting every turn: 'if I do this, will it break the law' then 'but what if i do it this way' and so on and on and on and on!

And I can foresee those followers of less-than-good deities changing the game into one big effort to try and forestall nasty consequences that the player has not initiated in the first place!

Also, we all have negative random events generated occasionally. These can adversely affect other players too. So now potentially , negative events will have a double-whammy of the first hit and then the law of return hit.

While I do agree with the idea behind the Law looking back upon P2, I agree with those above that it will unbalance the game too far in favour of those dieties with a 'good' domain.

(I'll cool down later, I'm sure, but Brid is going to be furious when I tell her! she's got a persecution complex already you know!)

[Fist and Faith]

I doubt Xar will feel obligated to follow the Law of Return to the letter.

[Xar]

I doubt Xar will feel obligated to follow the Law of Return to the letter.

Nevertheless, I admit that Undine's reasoning is sound - something like the Law of Return SHOULD be followed carefully, or otherwise it voids the significance of granting players the chance to give gifts to the world. In other words, if I didn't follow that Law or only applied it when I wanted, then I would be basically disregarding the import of Hedra's gift to the world of Eiran, and it wouldn't be fair to do it with hers but not with the others. And admittedly, you can practically bet that turn processing times will skyrocket with this kind of law, especially when players become powerful enough to attempt several actions at the same time.

See, this is why I said you should run things by me first... anyway, didn't almost all of you agree that for laws to be written into the Book they need to be approved by a majority of gods?

[Creator]

Perhaps Hedra can leave chaches of Dwarrow Ale around Eiran!!

But more seriously, I understand and think the attempt at codifying good behaivor is admirable. I would question whether it is needed. The two major crisis AK played in seemed to work out for the side of 'good' ultimately.

1) Nor, by mutating the lower half of Immeril showed himself a global threat. It galvanized the universal alliance against him - and we all know what happened.

2) The recent axis of 'evil' - the SCREECH did much the same against argothoth, AK, Mox, and MV and we ended the age much reduced.

The gameplay itself (ably helped by a GM ) can keep play balanced but still fun for 'good' and 'bad' alike.

Lastly, anything that SKYROCKETS turn processing is frightening.

I would respectfully request that Hedra consult with Xar on something that is at least neutral to his Turn processing. All other comments are of course advice to use or disgard as her player sees fit!

*bows*

[O-gon-cho]

2) The recent axis of 'evil' - the SCREECH did much the same against argothoth, AK, Mox, and MV and we ended the age much reduced.

And yet...

Argothoth and MV have yet to submit their gifts. For them, the age is not yet ended. I envision powerful actions from both.

AK's abyss appears as though it will cause much chaos upon Eiran.
*nods in acknowledgment of its creator.

And I foresee much mischief with Mox's flute.

Mayhaps somewhat reduced in DRP at the end of the age but definitely not reduced in influence and memory.

I salute all of you. Well played.

[Hedra Iren]

I probably have no place saying this, but I honestly think that The Law of Return will make Pantheon nearly unworkable for Xar.

And I honestly think you guys are overthinking it. Sure, the law as written is somewhat complex, but that's mainly to avoid nitpicking. The premise is simple : what you do against another god can come back at you. It's a concept almost universal through major religions, be it in the form of heavenly reward or damnation, karma, or the wiccan rule of three. If anything, it's a very slimmed down version that should make it easy to apply to game mechanics.

Not only has every action to be judged whether it affects the law, but an appropriate return has to be designed, of the appropriate strength.

First, not every action has to be judged. Only those that purposely affect a player. Second, the wording gives Xar more than enough leeway to decide when and how an appropriate response happens.

And what if Xar judges a return to be a certain 'strength' but the 'victim' of it doesn't realise and wastes more DRP to contain it, or else uses too little and reaps a catastrophic return instead of say a moderate return.

I think you'll have to be a little more clear, perhaps give a specific example. As I'm reading it, though, I don't see the difference between how things normally happen. If your events tell you that you're followers are suffering from plague, how do you know how much to spend fighting it? You could ask the god of healing's help, spending a DRP or more, or you could just tell your prophet to have your people spend more attention on hygiene. *shrug*

And THEN, how many PMs will Xar be getting every turn: 'if I do this, will it break the law' then 'but what if i do it this way' and so on and on and on and on!

How many PMs does Xar get a turn already? Nothing different, except that my law is very clearly written out. By this logic, things like courts and houses should've been left out, since they too complicate things.

And I can foresee those followers of less-than-good deities changing the game into one big effort to try and forestall nasty consequences that the player has not initiated in the first place!

They do this already, planning on how they can get away with things (even I do, and I've played 'good' deities throughout). It just adds another aspect to think about. And isn't planning half the fun? Besides, forestalling 'nasty consequences' is pretty easy. Start small and the consequence will be small. Then you're pretty much free to do whatever you want.

And there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding about the law. It affects 'good' deities interfering with 'bad' ones just as much as the other way around. It just helps keep gods from messing with eachother, and I don't see any reason why that should be easy. Should a god not build any defenses just because another might want to attack him?

Also, we all have negative random events generated occasionally. These can adversely affect other players too. So now potentially , negative events will have a double-whammy of the first hit and then the law of return hit.

Again, an example would be helpful. If my followers blow up your city, shouldn't I have some responsibility? I've yet to see Xar throw anything at us in random events that we can't handle. And under the law, when an event is handled, repurcussion isn't an issue. Or if my kid starts a fire and burns down my house and my neighbor's, just because it sucks that I lost my house, it doesn't take away my responsibility to my neighbor.

...I agree with those above that it will unbalance the game too far in favour of those dieties with a 'good' domain.

No, it will just unbalance the game towards gods who are determined to mess with others. Those gods could be good or evil.

Take, for example, the God of War (neither good nor evil, IMO). He can still wage war defensively, even offensively if he accepts the consequences. He can also wage war among non-aligned mortals, cleverly instigate wars, grant blessings of war to deities already involved in wars, and so forth. Consider, the God of Fire wouldn't be allowed to burn another god's city just because he's the God of Fire.

I admit that Undine's reasoning is sound - something like the Law of Return SHOULD be followed carefully, or otherwise it voids the significance of granting players the chance to give gifts to the world.

I don't follow. How would the application of the law or lack of interefere with gods granting gifts to the world? And, from my frame of reference, I don't see gods granting gifts to the world. They're granting gifts for their perpetuity, or for that of their followers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but with the exception of Bhakti, I don't see a whole lot of noble purpose yet (and to be fair, it looks like Bhakti's is just for his forest). If I gave the dwarrow a gift that allowed them to know every language, it may be a gift on Eiran, but it's not really that much of a gift for Eiran.

In other words, if I didn't follow that Law or only applied it when I wanted, then I would be basically disregarding the import of Hedra's gift to the world of Eiran, and it wouldn't be fair to do it with hers but not with the others.

On that I can agree. But the law is not intended to be all that difficult to implement. And as stated in the law, there is no problem with you deciding that in some instances, the application of the law would be detrimental. I put a lot of work into making sure it allowed plenty of leeway and flexibility.

And admittedly, you can practically bet that turn processing times will skyrocket with this kind of law, especially when players become powerful enough to attempt several actions at the same time.

It will add a slight addition to some moves, sure. I don't see how hard it would be to put a tick mark next to a god's name denoting he has something positive or negative coming his way, though. If positive and negative events are already generated randomly... And I don't get how many moves a player can make matters, when it's only the first one that counts, at least for the negative ones. If a player makes more than one negative action towards a single player in one turn, just consider it in a bulk term. Against more than one, then just whichever one comes first.

If you want to strike the exceptions for weaker players to make it easier, then fine. I thought it would be good for the game, though, to give a bonus for helping weaker players and a disincentive for harming weaker players.

See, this is why I said you should run things by me first... anyway, didn't almost all of you agree that for laws to be written into the Book they need to be approved by a majority of gods?

I've been looking for you on MSN messenger for the last few days. And if you remember, I did mention that I was considering making Karma my gift. You didn't gainsay it then, so I saw no reason not to go ahead with it.

As for the Book, you also said that if enough DRP was used, consensus isn't necessary. My book, my strength, my domain, and my gift. And I have put the committee in place to give everyone (including you, Xar, who along with myself has final word) a chance to help craft it. So far, though, there's just been complaints.

I understand and think the attempt at codifying good behaivor is admirable. I would question whether it is needed. The two major crisis AK played in seemed to work out for the side of 'good' ultimately.

1) Nor, by mutating the lower half of Immeril showed himself a global threat. It galvanized the universal alliance against him - and we all know what happened.

2) The recent axis of 'evil' - the SCREECH did much the same against argothoth, AK, Mox, and MV and we ended the age much reduced.

Again, 'good' behavior is a misnomer. The law pays no attention to good or evil. It does pay attention to helpful or harmful as it relates to other players (and other players only).

As for how things worked out with evil and good, I disagree. The world has been broken twice now. Millions, if not billions of mortals have been driven insane. There have been uncountable deaths in wars, people unwillingly raised from the dead, and so on. Tell me what good has been wrought on Eiran that equals the evil and destruction? If you ask me, Eiran gets pretty f'd up when gods show up.

You guys may have ended up reduced, but you weren't eradicated. And how much 'good' could've been done with the effort it took to stop you? How much more death and destruction happened in the effort?

Of course, that's not really the issue. The law wouldn't have prevented your plans. If anything, the law kind of increases the cycle of destruction, it just makes it less one-sided at first.

And supposedly, the Law (capital L) should already be a factor in that kind of thing. I haven't seen any evidence of it (just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not there. But you'd think that if any god was going to see it...), even when I Lawed the hell out of Nephirthos, but... *shrug*

I'm sorry if I seem overly defensive, but I worked pretty damn hard on this. I've even opened it up to outside input (which nobody else seems to be doing for their gifts), but so far... just complaints, no suggestions. I admit it's bold, but c'mon, don't hate.

[stonemaybe]

I'm sorry if I seem overly defensive, but I worked pretty damn hard on this. I've even opened it up to outside input (which nobody else seems to be doing for their gifts), but so far... just complaints, no suggestions. I admit it's bold, but c'mon, don't hate.

Acknowledged - I for one can see that you have thought about it long and hard and tried to foresee all the various consequences and how they might pan out and glitches that have to be covered.

AND, as I said in my first post, I totally applaud the sentiment behind the idea and wish it had been part of P2.

Now I'm at home, glass of wine in hand and a little bit more chilled out, I'll try and explain some of my reservations more clearly (OOC by the way), and maybe even offer some suggestions.

From the outset of P3 (and before), I think it's been clear that Xar feels there should be more inter-deity conflict in P3 . When I say 'conflict' I don't necessarily mean all-out war, but certainly more progress-at-the-expense-of-others.
-Look at the Courts - why else have they been initiated?
-Also, I think he has replied to numerous complaints about negative random events, that if we'd been causing more trouble for eachother, there wouldn't be so many random disasters.

Now, I think as players we have taken this onboard, and the new lot of deities in P3 seem a whole lot more confrontational. Players have designed their characters to be confrontational and at odds with others. Ideas and storylines and characters are probably bursting to get out! But the Law of Return alters (IMO) the whole set-up of P3. That is why my first post may have seemed over-critical (I hope this one doesn't, I'm just trying to explain myself), because I'd just foreseen a whole raft of crap coming my way because I'll be trying to play in character - and Brid is very likely to annoy other characters (though on reflection perhaps not 'harm' them as such).

Suggestion time.
Perhaps there could be some sort of fuse (not sure that's the right word) on the Law of Return.
So it only kicks in if for example a player(s) uses 3 or more DRP on an act to directly help/harm another? So a minor act would fall under the radar of the Law, but concerted action or an all-out attack (physical or not) would be picked up?
A benefit of this would be that we have time to get used to the Law and its ramifications, and it only really kicks in when the game has got well and truly underway, players are confident in their abilities, their allies, and their enemies.

(and I apologise Xar, if I've picked up your intentions for P3 wrongly)

[Hedra Iren]

The need to maintain conflict makes sense, and it's certainly something that should be considered. But I don't think the law precludes it, even if it does make starting it a little harder.

It may sound callous, but how players designed their gods for the next game doesn't concern me much. Some were making baddies before anything about the new game was announced. My next god will have very little to do with direct conflict, I hope, but the law will certainly complicate his plans as well. And just because Xar wants more conflict, it doesn't mean we all have to be instigators, either. If my god wants to pick flowers and raise puppies while everyone else goes around putting pointy objects in each other's followers, it's my right.

Besides, there's still a lot of gray area to work with. If I send a vision to the unaligned mortals of God X's major city saying that God X is twisted and their followers scum, that's alright. Compelling them to actually do harm would probably cross the line, but just because I can't do that with impunity, doesn't mean I can't make things hard for God X. But I strongly believe that it should not be easy for any god to directly interfere with another god's stuff.

The fuse isn't a bad idea, as it does keep a major concern of a god sending some major sneak attack and keeping the upper hand. But it also severely guts most practical application of the law. It would also guarantee that any trigger of it would invoke fairly large consequences, which is not what I had in mind.