Kevin's Watch

Xar wrote:Furthermore, being free gives you two major disadvantages when compared to the Courts: you cannot access the Divine Right (so a Court member likely has more available power than you do, all other things being equal)

Oh, they won't be giving it to me anyway.

Xar wrote:and you cannot access the Oracle (which can be very helpful if you're about to try something big, and it can even offer suggestions as to how to accomplish your stated goals).

I predict a lot of warnings about unforseen consequences. And, again, they're not gonna waste a visit to the Oracle on me. Heh.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Xar wrote:Furthermore, being free gives you two major disadvantages when compared to the Courts: you cannot access the Divine Right (so a Court member likely has more available power than you do, all other things being equal)

Oh, they won't be giving it to me anyway.

Xar wrote:and you cannot access the Oracle (which can be very helpful if you're about to try something big, and it can even offer suggestions as to how to accomplish your stated goals).

I predict a lot of warnings about unforseen consequences. And, again, they're not gonna waste a visit to the Oracle on me. Heh.

Ah, but if you become the Master of the Court, then YOU could decide both, couldn't you?

Murrin wrote:

All in all, the system of Courts and Houses exists because it should hopefully generate more inter-deity conflict, thereby reducing the necessity for random events. As you probably saw yourselves, the best moments in the Pantheon 2.0 game always involved deities fighting each other...

Yes. The problem is, everyone has seen the same problem and decided they'll deal with it: you by creating this system, and the players by all going out and creating gods who'll be more antagonistic than in the last game. Unfortunately, the gods and the system seem to have ended up clashing a little.

The gods in Pantheon 2.0 seemed antagonistic as well, but they somehow all changed to become friends, with only two or three exceptions. Witness Maeror's darker appearance and the war between him and Adomorn, resolved after one turn by Maeror's change of heart; or AK's bluster and then mellowing in the first few turns of his existence. The fact that a player creates an antagonistic god is not a guarantee of inter-deity conflict; frankly, this is a situation which showed up both in Pantheon 1.0 and 2.0. Even if one makes a potentially antagonistic deity, he/she most likely changes the deity's outlook afterwards in order to play along with the others. Again, note how before the AK-Mox-Argothoth triad, and especially in the first 10-15 turns of the game, the overwhelming majority of gods were good or allied with the good ones, and only one (Nor Yekith) was potentially hostile - with the result that when he wanted to make his move, he found he would have the whole Pantheon against him. That ends up crippling the game - no evil character will act if all others are good, and vice versa. The Courts and Houses should help in this and create some interesting moral conundrums (if an evil god in your Court is attacking the world, avoiding harm to your people, should you - a good deity - oppose him even though it means weakening your Court, and even though his attack harms other evil deities too?).

Xar...is there then no possibility for a deity to remain peaceful in your vision for the new Game? Especially if they choose to be a member of one of the Courts?

I really prefer not being in an antagonistic relationship with anyone, no matter which deity I wind up playing. Even though that will again probably slow down any potential growth.

Xar said nothing to suggest you can't be peaceful. In fact, my character encourages it wholeheartedly.

You can be peaceful; what I'm talking about, however, is that I'd like to avoid for all deities to work harmoniously no matter their area of influence, also because, frankly, inter-deity conflict (overt or not) is the best part of the game and it reduces the chances of random events that could cripple your people

Xar wrote:You can be peaceful; what I'm talking about, however, is that I'd like to avoid for all deities to work harmoniously no matter their area of influence,

Yeah, that's pretty obvious.

Xar wrote:also because, frankly, inter-deity conflict (overt or not) is the best part of the game

Isn't that a choice each player should make? I don't find inter-deity conflict to be the best part of the Game. I understand I am in the minority in regards to this, but conflict is not what makes the Game fun for me. I like planning and working together to build and improve things. Constantly being concerned that someone will turn against me does not a fun game make for me.

Xar wrote:and it reduces the chances of random events that could cripple your people

This is the only point I will outright concede, since you as the Game Master have obviously decided it to be so.

I apologise Xar. Perhaps it is my lack of RPG experience talking. By I do not find world building and cooperation stagnating nor boring.

Murrin wrote:And only six of them in Courts. In the system Xar has set up, nine unaligned gods just doesn't seem right. Kind of misses the point.

It is odd, however, it would be ridiculous for my God to join a Court. No god which advertised itself the One True God, and all others are just charlatans, would concede to join a conglomeration of other gods. That would suggest equality, which is hardly a monotheistic trait.

I understand--your character does need to be a loner.
My god Bel began life as a monotheist. I later decided he would accept others if they could be brought to admit they were lesser beings and he their rightful master. I have since dropped much of that side of him, though the ego remains.

Montressor wrote:

Murrin wrote:And only six of them in Courts. In the system Xar has set up, nine unaligned gods just doesn't seem right. Kind of misses the point.

It is odd, however, it would be ridiculous for my God to join a Court. No god which advertised itself the One True God, and all others are just charlatans, would concede to join a conglomeration of other gods. That would suggest equality, which is hardly a monotheistic trait.

Unless you called the neutral gods and the gods from the other Court "demons" and you called the gods of your Court "reformed demons" who help you

Xar wrote:
Unless you called the neutral gods and the gods from the other Court "demons" and you called the gods of your Court "reformed demons" who help you

Mmm...but if one of those 'demons' was the head of the court and, thus, my 'boss' it would be rather humiliating for the One God...

Montressor wrote:

Xar wrote:
Unless you called the neutral gods and the gods from the other Court "demons" and you called the gods of your Court "reformed demons" who help you

Mmm...but if one of those 'demons' was the head of the court and, thus, my 'boss' it would be rather humiliating for the One God...

Then you'd have to make sure you'd be the Master of the Court yourself, shouldn't you? Lording it over your reformed demons...

Also, about the non-court gods, they might be waiting for the whole rule set before deciding anything.

Is P3 definitely going to be on Eiran?

Fist and Faith wrote:Is P3 definitely going to be on Eiran?

Very likely, yes. It saves me a lot of work, it gives me lots to work from, and it grants returning players the chance to notice in-jokes and to use their knowledge of previous Ages in creative ways (such as in contests and the like), especially if their deity existed in Pantheon 2.0 or in Pantheon 1.0.

*sigh* OK then. Vrees will not be around. Honestly, I can't bear to do to Eiran what Vrees would be doing. I really do have a problem of some sort, because I feel more strongly for Eiran than is entirely healthy. Poor caam has had to listen to me go back and forth with this for weeks now. But that's my final answer, Regis.

Xar wrote:and only one (Nor Yekith) was potentially hostile - with the result that when he wanted to make his move, he found he would have the whole Pantheon against him. That ends up crippling the game - no evil character will act if all others are good, and vice versa.

That was my main issue with pantheon 2. I loved playing Nor Yekith, but at the end, I felt I was being punished for attempting to give the world a truly frightening foe. Had there been courts then, Nor Yekith would have had a better chance.

Nor Yekith has not forgotten . . .

Fist and Faith wrote:*sigh* OK then. Vrees will not be around. Honestly, I can't bear to do to Eiran what Vrees would be doing. I really do have a problem of some sort, because I feel more strongly for Eiran than is entirely healthy. Poor caam has had to listen to me go back and forth with this for weeks now. But that's my final answer, Regis.

So are we going to to see a Bhakti the Third instead?

Loremaster wrote:That was my main issue with pantheon 2. I loved playing Nor Yekith, but at the end, I felt I was being punished for attempting to give the world a truly frightening foe.

What's the alternative? Not punishing a truly frightening foe? Anyway, Nor Yekith was never punished.

Loremaster wrote:Had there been courts then, Nor Yekith would have had a better chance.

What kinds of legal restrictions would Nor Yekith have submitted to?

Xar wrote:So are we going to to see a Bhakti the Third instead?

See anybody familiar?

most likely