Pantheon 2.0 - Rules and Comments Thread

[Loredoctor]

War in Iraq - War in Nor Pupae. That makes you the George. W. Bush of the Pantheon. That's quite accurate!

[balon!]

War in Iraq - War in Nor Pupae. That makes you the George. W. Bush of the Pantheon. That's quite accurate!

Now, see... this War...uhh....this is really *squint eyes* a FIGHT of Honor....against....uhh.....Black worm things.

[Loredoctor]

War in Iraq - War in Nor Pupae. That makes you the George. W. Bush of the Pantheon. That's quite accurate!

Now, see... this War...uhh....this is really *squint eyes* a FIGHT of Honor....against....uhh.....Black worm things.

"Weapons of Mass Mutation were not found in Nor Pupae."

[balon!]

We are going to FINISH. THE. JOB. in Nor Pupae.

[Loredoctor]

We are going to FINISH. THE. JOB. in Nor Pupae.

Just don't get caught up fighting insurgents.

[Xar]

Nevertheless, while these consequences are certainly severe, they are all that is holding him back - unless of course we also speak of roleplaying issues, which vary from player to player, naturally.

Should the Pantheon form a forum, similar to the United Nations, that would authorize Adomorn to lauch an assault on Nor Yekith after he airs his grievances, would he then be breaking the Law? Would we need to have the power of Law behind it? Or would the AllFather take a different view on what Adomorn had done, and still possibly strike him with a Crises of the Faith, regardless of what the forum may decide?

Would the entire Pantheon be subject to the AllFather's displeasure if such authorization, despite the apparent non-justification of such an assault on Nor Yekith, be given to Adomorn?

:::enquiring minds want to know:::

The fact is that the forum you propose, while certainly an interesting idea, would still not address the issue of protecting minority players. A pantheon in which 70% of the gods are good would easily authorize a good god to wage war on an evil one, and so we'd be back to square one. That's why I insisted on such a high majority in order for Adomorn to change the Law; this ensures that neither side can simply stand up and say "I change the law to my benefit".
Besides, it's not a matter of my displeasure: If Adomorn goes against law, he suffers the consequences because of the domain he chose. If Asta did the same, he would likely even get a boost in power - but would very likely face much more law-sanctioned opposition than Adomorn would.

[Astavyastataa Kadna]

War in Iraq - War in Nor Pupae. That makes you the George. W. Bush of the Pantheon. That's quite accurate!

Now, see... this War...uhh....this is really *squint eyes* a FIGHT of Honor....against....uhh.....Black worm things.

"Weapons of Mass Mutation were not found in Nor Pupae."

[O-gon-cho]

The fact is that the forum you propose, while certainly an interesting idea, would still not address the issue of protecting minority players. A pantheon in which 70% of the gods are good would easily authorize a good god to wage war on an evil one, and so we'd be back to square one. That's why I insisted on such a high majority in order for Adomorn to change the Law; this ensures that neither side can simply stand up and say "I change the law to my benefit".
Besides, it's not a matter of my displeasure: If Adomorn goes against law, he suffers the consequences because of the domain he chose. If Asta did the same, he would likely even get a boost in power - but would very likely face much more law-sanctioned opposition than Adomorn would.

:::bowing head:::

Again, thank you for being so forthcoming, AllFather. It is appreciated.

Nor Yekith's apology letter to Bhakti

Oh my G-ds...

This right after the "Bushisms..."



::: oh, my sides hurt:::

[Bhakti]

Thanks for pointing that out! I never would have seen it!




Regarding this:

The fact is that the forum you propose, while certainly an interesting idea, would still not address the issue of protecting minority players. A pantheon in which 70% of the gods are good would easily authorize a good god to wage war on an evil one, and so we'd be back to square one.

I disagree with this line of thinking. It doesn't work this way in rl, where it's even more important to keep evil at bay. The good guys know that they can't just snuff out people, even the ones they know to be evil, without becoming evil. And then there's the fear of war. And so we have Nazi Germany, the USSR, communist China, and on and on.

An evil deity could join the game now, as a 1, and begin attacking everybody. That would be stupid. They'd be kept down, so their followers couldn't grow, and taken out when immunity wears off.

Or, an evil deity could join, play it cool, stay entirely within their own borders, build and build, form secret alliances, and eventually get to the point where they could do serious damage. All without even a threat. (Although the usual, "I'm gonna rule the world!!!" kind of stuff would be nice now and then. )

*shrug* I just disagree with the point at which good is morally justified to kill. When we know evil is going to do something specific, I don't have any qualms about beating the crap out of them.

And I guess I'll stop now. I've said my piece a few times. Don't worry, I'm done.

[Menolly]

Thanks for pointing that out! I never would have seen it!

[Xar]

Thanks for pointing that out! I never would have seen it!




Regarding this:

The fact is that the forum you propose, while certainly an interesting idea, would still not address the issue of protecting minority players. A pantheon in which 70% of the gods are good would easily authorize a good god to wage war on an evil one, and so we'd be back to square one.

I disagree with this line of thinking. It doesn't work this way in rl, where it's even more important to keep evil at bay. The good guys know that they can't just snuff out people, even the ones they know to be evil, without becoming evil. And then there's the fear of war. And so we have Nazi Germany, the USSR, communist China, and on and on.

The difference is that in the real world, "playing it fair" is not really an argument there

An evil deity could join the game now, as a 1, and begin attacking everybody. That would be stupid. They'd be kept down, so their followers couldn't grow, and taken out when immunity wears off.

Or, an evil deity could join, play it cool, stay entirely within their own borders, build and build, form secret alliances, and eventually get to the point where they could do serious damage. All without even a threat. (Although the usual, "I'm gonna rule the world!!!" kind of stuff would be nice now and then. )

True, but on the other hand, this would limit players creating evil deities. For instance, Asta made various threats as soon as he got in the game: that was perfectly in nature with a god of chaos (and an arrogant one at that!), but if there were no rules preventing gods from attacking him on the basis of threats alone, then why bother? Any god could have claimed to feel that his threats meant business, and attacked him as soon as immunity wore off, killing him. In the end, something like this would ensure only that players who want to play deities from the "disadvantaged" side would have to play meek or very quiet deities, or be faced with destruction four turns after their entrance in the world. That wouldn't be fair to the players, and it wouldn't be fun for them either.

*shrug* I just disagree with the point at which good is morally justified to kill. When we know evil is going to do something specific, I don't have any qualms about beating the crap out of them.

I see your point, but again, there's knowing and knowing. The former is just a "hunch", based perhaps on words said here and there, but with no evidence to back it up; the latter has evidence of the suspected wrongdoing. Even in our world a person is innocent until proven guilty; similarly, assaulting another god because you think he'll attack you later - even if you think you have reason to believe that - would not be justice.
To put it in our world's terms: if someone came up to you, threatened you several times, and from time to time had "accidents" which coincidentally damaged you or your friends, but none of you ever managed to have any real proof that he's doing it on purpose... and you suspected this person were about to set fire on your house, let's say... would the law justify you if you went there and killed the guy before he burned your house down? Or would you still get locked up in jail? The truth is that morality is not the same as law, because law is not meant to favor "good" people or "evil" people, but to ensure that all are treated equally. It is meant to favor society, and a society in which everybody could go to his or her neighbour and shoot him in the face just because you felt threatened by him would be anarchy.

[lucimay]

yay anarchy!

[Astavyastataa Kadna]

yay anarchy!

I LIKE anarchy!!

[I'm Murrin]

An evil deity could join the game now, as a 1, and begin attacking everybody. That would be stupid. They'd be kept down, so their followers couldn't grow, and taken out when immunity wears off.

Or, an evil deity could join, play it cool, stay entirely within their own borders, build and build, form secret alliances, and eventually get to the point where they could do serious damage. All without even a threat. (Although the usual, "I'm gonna rule the world!!!" kind of stuff would be nice now and then. )

True, but on the other hand, this would limit players creating evil deities. For instance, Asta made various threats as soon as he got in the game: that was perfectly in nature with a god of chaos (and an arrogant one at that!), but if there were no rules preventing gods from attacking him on the basis of threats alone, then why bother? Any god could have claimed to feel that his threats meant business, and attacked him as soon as immunity wore off, killing him. In the end, something like this would ensure only that players who want to play deities from the "disadvantaged" side would have to play meek or very quiet deities, or be faced with destruction four turns after their entrance in the world. That wouldn't be fair to the players, and it wouldn't be fun for them either.

After Asta voided his immunity, I was going to eliminate his followers as thoroughly as I could. Other threats, and some behind the scenes bargaining, made me agree to leave him alone for the foreseeable future, despite the fact I intend some day to deal with him. So even when there is reason and allowance for attacking the 'evil' gods, other factors will be accounted in whether they do or not. It is not to be taken that not being restricted from doing these things will mean they will be done; they tend to sort themselves out in many different ways, without having to tie anyone's hands behind their back.

[O-gon-cho]

An evil deity could join the game now, as a 1, and begin attacking everybody. That would be stupid. They'd be kept down, so their followers couldn't grow, and taken out when immunity wears off.

Or, an evil deity could join, play it cool, stay entirely within their own borders, build and build, form secret alliances, and eventually get to the point where they could do serious damage. All without even a threat. (Although the usual, "I'm gonna rule the world!!!" kind of stuff would be nice now and then. )

True, but on the other hand, this would limit players creating evil deities. For instance, Asta made various threats as soon as he got in the game: that was perfectly in nature with a god of chaos (and an arrogant one at that!), but if there were no rules preventing gods from attacking him on the basis of threats alone, then why bother? Any god could have claimed to feel that his threats meant business, and attacked him as soon as immunity wore off, killing him. In the end, something like this would ensure only that players who want to play deities from the "disadvantaged" side would have to play meek or very quiet deities, or be faced with destruction four turns after their entrance in the world. That wouldn't be fair to the players, and it wouldn't be fun for them either.

After Asta voided his immunity, I was going to eliminate his followers as thoroughly as I could. Other threats, and some behind the scenes bargaining, made me agree to leave him alone for the foreseeable future, despite the fact I intend some day to deal with him. So even when there is reason and allowance for attacking the 'evil' gods, other factors will be accounted in whether they do or not. It is not to be taken that not being restricted from doing these things will mean they will be done; they tend to sort themselves out in many different ways, without having to tie anyone's hands behind their back.

Well said, Sister/Brother.

[Xar]

An evil deity could join the game now, as a 1, and begin attacking everybody. That would be stupid. They'd be kept down, so their followers couldn't grow, and taken out when immunity wears off.

Or, an evil deity could join, play it cool, stay entirely within their own borders, build and build, form secret alliances, and eventually get to the point where they could do serious damage. All without even a threat. (Although the usual, "I'm gonna rule the world!!!" kind of stuff would be nice now and then. )

True, but on the other hand, this would limit players creating evil deities. For instance, Asta made various threats as soon as he got in the game: that was perfectly in nature with a god of chaos (and an arrogant one at that!), but if there were no rules preventing gods from attacking him on the basis of threats alone, then why bother? Any god could have claimed to feel that his threats meant business, and attacked him as soon as immunity wore off, killing him. In the end, something like this would ensure only that players who want to play deities from the "disadvantaged" side would have to play meek or very quiet deities, or be faced with destruction four turns after their entrance in the world. That wouldn't be fair to the players, and it wouldn't be fun for them either.

After Asta voided his immunity, I was going to eliminate his followers as thoroughly as I could. Other threats, and some behind the scenes bargaining, made me agree to leave him alone for the foreseeable future, despite the fact I intend some day to deal with him. So even when there is reason and allowance for attacking the 'evil' gods, other factors will be accounted in whether they do or not. It is not to be taken that not being restricted from doing these things will mean they will be done; they tend to sort themselves out in many different ways, without having to tie anyone's hands behind their back.

Let me put it another way: if, instead of Asta, Nor Yekith had been in that position - or, for that matter, Nephirthos - how many of the good gods would have been willing to negotiate with him or bargain with him, and how many would have jumped at the chance to go to war with him (or at least to help those who would war with him?).

[O-gon-cho]

Let me put it another way: if, instead of Asta, Nor Yekith had been in that position - or, for that matter, Nephirthos - how many of the good gods would have been willing to negotiate with him or bargain with him, and how many would have jumped at the chance to go to war with him (or at least to help those who would war with him?).

AllFather, would not the potentiality of the good deities jumping at the chance to endorse others to attack one of the bad deities have led to negotiations and bargains long before such a vote would ever occur, so the Pantheon could move on beyond empty threats? So that an "evil" deity could come out and show their true colors, instead of implying them for the majority of the Game?

One way or another, the Pantheon could move past the standoffs. I truly believe negotiation would win out way before the authorization to declare war would ever be given.

[Loredoctor]

I do not believe negotiation will help now. Some of us are far beyond that point. I believe Lord Adamorn wants this more, but the cost will be high.

[I'm Murrin]

Knowing that most of the time Nor Yekith would stand to gain more by saying out of trouble--which is something that holds for all of us unless we reach a point where we can feel confident of withstanding opposition--I'd still negotiate. I'd even trust Nor to hold to his word more than I do Astavyastataa.

Of course, the game has moved beyond that stage now, where Nor is concerned.

[O-gon-cho]

I do not believe negotiation will help now. Some of us are far beyond that point. I believe Lord Adamorn wants this more, but the cost will be high.

Sad, but true for now. However, for future events, could not the potentiality of authorization to declare War cause all deities to enter into negotiations in good faith?