Kevin's Watch

The character that I hope to play doesn't really lend themselves exclusively to either, so would most likely start neutral. Remaining neutral however, will be a different story.

I've decided that the trick with neutrality is to avoid becoming good simply because you have no reason to do evil.

Or vice versa with evil. There is no reason to do good.

I personally like being neutral (even though I lean towards good) because I can be unpredictable.

Being evil certainly gives a freedom that I envy!! And any consequences fit right in with your domains: Malice, War, Destruction, etc. Any evil plans that don't go according to plan will still increase those things. I get a shiver just thinking about being evil!!!

Bhakti wrote:Being evil certainly gives a freedom that I envy!! And any consequences fit right in with your domains: Malice, War, Destruction, etc. Any evil plans that don't go according to plan will still increase those things. I get a shiver just thinking about being evil!!!

Evil's not as cracked up as you think, but CRAZY, that's the money state of being.

Norn wrote:The character that I hope to play doesn't really lend themselves exclusively to either, so would most likely start neutral. Remaining neutral however, will be a different story.

I've decided that the trick with neutrality is to avoid becoming good simply because you have no reason to do evil.

post of the year.

Why thank you.

As it gets closer, I wanted to put in my (cause I can't remember if I did or not.)

I don't mind if 3.0 is set in Erian, as long as it's not in the same style as 2.0, that is, the people still remember what it was like with the old gods, wondering if we'll make the same mistakes, etc...

I like that now that two games have gone by there is a lot of depth and details that have been built and created (and I still want to see the Player and the Shade come into the game ) but I would rather if 3.0 were set far enough into the future to make the old gods more like myth's and legends than old religions. Like Zeus was a god, but there was also the Sky myth, right? Ancient, but not religious? If that makes sense?

Anyway, I would like to keep the richness we've all created, but not the dogma. A completely fresh start in terms of the new characters we're creating.

:EDIT:

On the other hand, with an all new character, those details and such wouldn't have any bearing on me. Hmmm..

I guess I'm neutral.

Balon wrote:As it gets closer, I wanted to put in my (cause I can't remember if I did or not.)

I don't mind if 3.0 is set in Erian, as long as it's not in the same style as 2.0, that is, the people still remember what it was like with the old gods, wondering if we'll make the same mistakes, etc...

I like that now that two games have gone by there is a lot of depth and details that have been built and created (and I still want to see the Player and the Shade come into the game ) but I would rather if 3.0 were set far enough into the future to make the old gods more like myth's and legends than old religions. Like Zeus was a god, but there was also the Sky myth, right? Ancient, but not religious? If that makes sense?

Anyway, I would like to keep the richness we've all created, but not the dogma. A completely fresh start in terms of the new characters we're creating.

:EDIT:

On the other hand, with an all new character, those details and such wouldn't have any bearing on me. Hmmm..

I guess I'm neutral.

The main reason why, if possible, I would like to keep Eiran is because it has a history now... it has legendary characters, it has ancient artifacts, old "civilizations", unique races, possible threats and protections, and so on... it's all stuff that can easily be used in Pantheon 3.0 to add more depth and to link the two. For instance, several players from Pantheon 1.0 know that during Pantheon 2.0 we had instances of characters from 1.0 popping up again (Odal is a good example), or artifacts created during 1.0 , or even just names from 1.0. It was even possible for some of them to look at the map of 2.0 and figure out where the cities of 1.0 used to stand. It's less work for me, it grants more opportunities to you, and it ensures continuity... even though the deity rules will change a bit.

I'm beginning to get an idea of who I'd like to be in P3. No-one has 'dibs' on Outcasts do they?

P3 question please!

Can a character join or leave a court after the game has started? I really like the idea of the courts, but as my character will be goddess of outcasts, I'm not sure she'll want to be in a 'club'. Will joining a court count against me as it seems to be contrary to my character's nature? If I justify it somehow, would that be ok? But I can't justify it until i see the workings of the courts.

I think who gets to use the Divine Right might become a point of contention within Courts...

Good question

Stonemaybe wrote:P3 question please!

Can a character join or leave a court after the game has started? I really like the idea of the courts, but as my character will be goddess of outcasts, I'm not sure she'll want to be in a 'club'. Will joining a court count against me as it seems to be contrary to my character's nature? If I justify it somehow, would that be ok? But I can't justify it until i see the workings of the courts.

I wouldn't see why not. Although joining once the game starts would probably require the permission of the Court at large.

The list of domains seems a little unbalanced. Could we add Harmony (to balance Discord) and Pleasure (to balance Pain), and remove Strife (too similar to Discord)?

Stonemaybe wrote:P3 question please!

Can a character join or leave a court after the game has started? I really like the idea of the courts, but as my character will be goddess of outcasts, I'm not sure she'll want to be in a 'club'. Will joining a court count against me as it seems to be contrary to my character's nature? If I justify it somehow, would that be ok? But I can't justify it until i see the workings of the courts.

Yes, it is possible to join or leave a Court after the game starts. However, you can't leave a Court and join the other in the same turn: what you can do is to go from Court A to neutral in the first turn, and then from neutral to Court B in the second turn. The Master of Court B may deny you access to the Court, however.

Access to the Divine Right is also regulated by the Master of the Court - he/she decides how other deities can access it. While there MUST be a way for deities to access it (i.e. the Master can't keep the Divine Right to himself), he/she can request that a deity who wishes to use Divine Right send him a request for permission, or he can choose a certain number of deities each year and "split" the Divine Right among them alone, or he can grant everyone access to the Divine Right without requesting permission.

As you can see, there's lots of incentives towards becoming the Master of a Court...

If I manage to get my hands on the divine gavel can I usurp whoever is master of my court?

There's a question: how will leader be decided, if the members of the Court can't agree on it? I mean, if they can't even decide on the method of deciding.

He who has his hand upon the Speaking Staff...

A Court that cannot agree on a leader is rather crippled, since it can't access the Oracle nor change the access to the Divine Right. The "default" Master is the most powerful god in the Court - so a Master won't arise for two or three turns, under normal circumstances. However, even during the first turn players from a Court could convene and decide to elect one of them as Master; if they do, they can either change the criteria of Master election (through a majority vote) or they can just keep the elected Master until he dies/steps out of office, and then elect a new one.