Pantheon - Discussions on the Future

Moderator: Xar

User avatar
I'm Murrin
Are you?
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 1:09 pm
Location: North East, UK
Contact:

Post by I'm Murrin »

Not hacing any control over your alignment, but being restricted to only share power with those of your alignment, prevents playing to your domain if you get, say, and evil god matched in a house full of good gods.
User avatar
stonemaybe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4836
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:37 am
Location: Wallowing in the Zider Zee

Post by stonemaybe »

I believe that the Courts (pantheons) should NOT be limited to gods of similar outlooks. I don't think outlook/domain etc should matter. For example, Odin and Loki are associated with wisdom and trickery, not domains that you'd expect to interact well. But Odin would ally with Loki before he'd ally with Zeus, who is a much more similar type of god.

I think it would entail a radical shift of our thought processes, but it is the proper way to go if we are to have Courts at all.

I also like the idea of membership being random, but I suspect that that may be a step too far!

Doing the courts this way would make the 'Game Thread' a little bit odd, though. Each Court should have a Game Thread, but the idea of let's say an Indian deity arguing with a Roman deity over a crusade, seems wrong!

Edit - If alignment is a big issue to people, you could have something like AD&D with a square of alignments. Good at the top, evil at the bottom, lawful to the left, chaotic to the right. Each corner could be a court and your deity have access to two of them depending on his/her alignment. Whether your deity actually interacted with both would be optional. That way everyone has two groups of gods that they could be allied with.
Aglithophile and conniptionist and spectacular moonbow beholder 16Jul11

(:/>
User avatar
I'm Murrin
Are you?
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 1:09 pm
Location: North East, UK
Contact:

Post by I'm Murrin »

I don't want the Court I am assigned to require me to redesign my character just to be able to get anywhere.
User avatar
Menolly
A Lowly Harper
Posts: 24066
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times
Contact:

Post by Menolly »

Agreeing with Murrin.

I don't like the idea, if we must play something like courts or pantheons again, of having a choice of what deity or players we are matched up with at all.

Either make it entirely random, if a player states they want to be part of a forced alignment by joining a pantheon, or as has been done prior to the Third Age, let the player decide for themselves who they ally with and/or donate their own power to.
Image
User avatar
Xar
Lord
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Watching over the Pantheon...

Post by Xar »

Pantheons, even in the real world, are rarely if ever composed entirely of deities with the same ethical outlook. Take the Hindu pantheon of deities: in terms of our morality, we would define deities such as Kali or avatars such as Kalkin to be evil and destructive, while perhaps deities such as Shiva would be seen as dangerous but morally gray, and others such as Brahma or Vishnu would be good. Still, they are all members of the same pantheon, worshippers pay homage to all of them in different circumstances, and so on.

In this sense, a Court would not "mandate" alliances any more than any other arbitrary grouping would. Just because you can't share power with deities from other Courts, or neutral ones for that matter, that doesn't mean you can't help each other. Similarly, just because you're evil but aligned with a good Court, that doesn't mean you'll be obliterated immediately. You might end up being considered the equivalent of the Devil in that pantheon, or perhaps the Court would develop into a loose congregation of deities where everyone does what he or she wants, reaping only the passive benefits of the Court in exchange for freedom from moral obligations. Consider for example how the Greek deities tended to fight with each other and/or deal with mortals at their leisure; Poseidon and Athena's battle for the city of Athens, for example, or on a more epic note, the gods taking sides during the war of Troy. In other words, belonging to a Court would simply mean belonging to a Court: it would be up to the deities within it to define their relationships to each other and to the Court as a whole. If Jimmy of Biscuits, Joe of Milkshakes and Bob of Rotten Pizza ended up in the same Court, they could decide to be only loosely bound to each other (with each of them essentially acting "solo", but gaining power from the prayers of the worshippers of the others, being part of the same pantheon) or they could decide to form, for example, a highly hierarchical Court (like the Jade Emperor and his Celestial Bureaucracy). And there would be roleplaying hooks too: for example, if you know that the evil god in your pantheon is poised to gain a major influx of power, and you know that a fraction of that power will become yours automatically as well... will you still try to stop him, or will you watch and do nothing, or will you even help him and thus betray your principles?

On the other hand, I invite you all to consider the concept of Courts as empowering rather than limiting: it is not mandatory to belong to a Court (you can specify whether you would like to do so or not when you create your character), but the presence of Courts would give players who like the idea of playing deities in a polytheistic belief system the chance to do so in a manner that brings in-game benefits, while giving players who want to play monotheistic deities or aloof deities (I'm thinking of gods such as Etzlicoatl, or the Void, or Aarklar to make a few examples from P3) the possibility to do so as well within a framework that not only brings in-game benefits as well (so they are not penalized just because their concept does not include the existence of other gods), but that also offers a lot of roleplaying hooks.

I should also point out that the beliefs of mortals concerning the existence and nature of other powers beside those they worship (for example, what mortals worshiping the Court of Cheese think of all gods not affiliated with it) would depend entirely by the deity's (or Court's) stated attitude towards those same powers - but still, all deities would objectively exist in the game world, so deities from different Courts (or neutral ones) could argue and talk to each other, regardless. Alliances could therefore still be made, the only difference being that divine power could not be used as payment or as collateral (and I see this, too, as an empowering feature of this system: it forces you to think of alternate methods of paying for a favor, encouraging roleplaying - i.e. "I'll have my Champion defeat that rampaging dragon for you, if you ensure my people have a good harvest").

Incidentally, some of you are working under two misapprehensions... there will NOT be any Divine Right in the P4 Courts. Additionally, as mentioned some time ago, Houses will no longer be tied to elements but rather to seasons, and they will define turn order as well.

This is a radical shift I have considered from the previous Pantheon games: instead of having a single deadline for everyone every two/three weeks, we would have different deadlines for different Houses who can therefore react to what the previous Houses did. In other words, to make an example: if at first a turn would last 1 year, each House would have a deadline covering three months of that turn (say, Winter sends results in a few days; then Spring sends results a few days after that, once they see what Winter did; and so on). This way players can react immediately to threat, while each player still has one deadline every two weeks (roughly).
User avatar
I'm Murrin
Are you?
Posts: 15840
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 1:09 pm
Location: North East, UK
Contact:

Post by I'm Murrin »

I guess it's kind of hard to put across what comes to mind when I'm thinking of the Pantheons matching up, in a sense. Think of it less as Zeus and Hades sharing a Pantheon, and more like having Athena and Cronos thrown together. One is a civilised, city-oriented type of god, while the other is more primal. And you wouldn't have, say, Isis and Norn in the same Pantheon either.

They may not all agree with one another, but the gods in each Pantheon shared certain elements derived from their culture or origin that could make them very distinct.

Either the culture of our followers must be dictated to us, or randomly assigned Pantheons will be a mish mash of assorted ideas that don't really fit together the way your Court power-sharing model suggests.
User avatar
Creator
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:51 am
Location: Oak Ridge, NC

Post by Creator »

Xar wrote:This is a radical shift I have considered from the previous Pantheon games: instead of having a single deadline for everyone every two/three weeks, we would have different deadlines for different Houses who can therefore react to what the previous Houses did. In other words, to make an example: if at first a turn would last 1 year, each House would have a deadline covering three months of that turn (say, Winter sends results in a few days; then Spring sends results a few days after that, once they see what Winter did; and so on). This way players can react immediately to threat, while each player still has one deadline every two weeks (roughly).
This would seem to be VERY demanding on you! (although in smaller pieces.) To keep the playing 'rythm' equitable, each turn processing time would have to be comparable. it would be more disruptive to have one House waiting for 2 weeks while another waits for 6 weeks due to vacation timing.
He/She who dies with the most toys wins! Wait a minute ... I can't die!!!
User avatar
stonemaybe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4836
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:37 am
Location: Wallowing in the Zider Zee

Post by stonemaybe »

Murrin wrote:I guess it's kind of hard to put across what comes to mind when I'm thinking of the Pantheons matching up, in a sense. Think of it less as Zeus and Hades sharing a Pantheon, and more like having Athena and Cronos thrown together. One is a civilised, city-oriented type of god, while the other is more primal. And you wouldn't have, say, Isis and Norn in the same Pantheon either.

They may not all agree with one another, but the gods in each Pantheon shared certain elements derived from their culture or origin that could make them very distinct.

Either the culture of our followers must be dictated to us, or randomly assigned Pantheons will be a mish mash of assorted ideas that don't really fit together the way your Court power-sharing model suggests.
But Cronos was part of the same Pantheon as Athena! - he was her grandfather. They probably never featured on the same side in any of the stories, but the same mortals would have acknowledged both their existences.
Aglithophile and conniptionist and spectacular moonbow beholder 16Jul11

(:/>
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

I'd view the Titans as one pantheon, and the Olympians as another. But all things can go either way. :lol:

Anyway, I'm not gonna say more on this. Xar, you've heard plenty of opinions, and you've got four years of experience with three different Pantheon games. I'm sure you have something good in mind, so go ahead and do it.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Menolly
A Lowly Harper
Posts: 24066
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times
Contact:

Post by Menolly »

Fist and Faith wrote:Anyway, I'm not gonna say more on this. Xar, you've heard plenty of opinions, and you've got four years of experience with three different Pantheon games. I'm sure you have something good in mind, so go ahead and do it.
Image

I don't like the Courts; I don't like the idea of being grouped where I can not donate power to others except within the group I choose to belong to. But it is your game Xar, and though I have been frustrated and extremely sad or angry at times, I can not imagine doing without.

While I despise change and will groan and moan as I am dragged through it...
An ye harm none,
do as ye will.
Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

You're such a drama queen. :lol: Threatening to quit every turn. Won't play P4 if it's not on Eiran, or at least if you can't play a character from Eiran. But you sure have a lot to say about P4. hehe
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Madadeva
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:35 pm

Post by Madadeva »

You are WRONG!!! She is a drama Goddess!

:biggrin:
User avatar
Zephyr
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:21 pm

Post by Zephyr »

:LOLS:
Image
User avatar
O-gon-cho
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:36 pm
Location: And closing of the eyes - true vision, The Light within became...Within the Light

Post by O-gon-cho »

Fist and Faith wrote:You're such a drama queen. :lol: Threatening to quit every turn. Won't play P4 if it's not on Eiran, or at least if you can't play a character from Eiran. But you sure have a lot to say about P4. hehe
I refer all yet again to my titles above my avatar, not the titles bestowed upon me in the stats...
Image
User avatar
Xar
Lord
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Watching over the Pantheon...

Post by Xar »

Murrin wrote:I guess it's kind of hard to put across what comes to mind when I'm thinking of the Pantheons matching up, in a sense. Think of it less as Zeus and Hades sharing a Pantheon, and more like having Athena and Cronos thrown together. One is a civilised, city-oriented type of god, while the other is more primal. And you wouldn't have, say, Isis and Norn in the same Pantheon either.

They may not all agree with one another, but the gods in each Pantheon shared certain elements derived from their culture or origin that could make them very distinct.

Either the culture of our followers must be dictated to us, or randomly assigned Pantheons will be a mish mash of assorted ideas that don't really fit together the way your Court power-sharing model suggests.
I see what you mean, however I would believe that someone playing a primal, perhaps even savage god would probably not choose to join a Court in the first place. In any case, the "mish mash" could be at least minimized by the sequence of deity creation - i.e. every player would create their deity and introduce him/her, and could choose whether to join a Court or not after seeing who else is around, and who else is looking for Courts. In the end the problem, I think, is self-solving: if no one wants to be a part of a Court, then the Court system will be de facto removed from the game.

Another consideration I had was that Courts could be assigned not necessarily before the game begins, but rather coalesce afterwards; since starting areas would be assigned randomly, depending on Bill the God of Wine's interaction with Martha the Goddess of Barbecues, his neighbour, mortals could think that Bill and Martha are part of the same pantheon and essentially nudge them towards forming a Court (of course, if either Bill or Martha proclaim to be the only god(dess) and say that the other is a demon, then this is not going to happen).

Mainly, the reason why I want Courts is to get rid of the usual in-game alliances, or at least to encourage people to explore other alliances, rather than always joining forces with the same players because they know each other. This trend - allying with another god because one knows the player, and often even before the two gods have interacted much with each other - is something that has popped up in P2 and P3, and often to the detriment of other possible alliances and interactions. I won't mention names here, but it is easy to see that trend in many interactions with deities still around in P3, and even deities who left. Since it's impossible to keep player identities secret, and I can't arbitrarily tell players "no, you can't ally with him", then systems such as Courts would at least offer a positive encouragement. Besides, a revamped Court system would be, in my opinion, better than the P3 situation. After all, in P3, mortals consider all the gods to be part of the same pantheon (with the exception of those gods who declare to be monotheistic - Etzlicoatl calling other gods "demons", the Void claiming there are no gods, and so on). in P4 terms, it would be as if all the P3 gods are members of the same Court. As far as I can see it, the new revamped Court system would actually allow more variety of pantheons, not less.

Then again, it's merely a matter of semantics. As for Menolly's comment about disliking the inability to send power to whoever one wants... where exactly is the problem, if you can still swap favors and use your power to help the other deity? Considering that you won't have that much divine power in P4, and that what power you have derives from your worshippers, I believe it would make more sense if you couldn't give your worshippers-based power to deities your worshippers don't believe exist.

Regarding Creator's comment about the turns - yes, it might be demanding, but the big problem with processing has always been the large volume of stuff to process at once. If we have one deadline per week, say, with three gods submitting each time, it's easier to process things. And because the deadlines would be cyclical, one could always take a holiday at the end of a cycle (say, after releasing the Autumn results if Winter was the group that began the game).
User avatar
Argothoth
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:43 pm

Post by Argothoth »

Since i never spoke in this thread and someone could not know me already i'll write some self-evidence...

I think we are talking about two different games... something like AD&D and D&D.
The two game share the same thoghts, the same mood, but don't follow the same rules.

However, as for AD&D and D&D, i think we could simply do what we did in the previous version of the game with different rules. Obvioulsy something you did previously may not be done, something else completly new may be done...

I think it is up to us to find the way to play with the rule we have. Furthermore, IMO, the rules must be only the framework on which we have to build the action we want to do in the game... we have to use the rules to do what we want; we don't have to feel them as they were constrictions.
Obvioulsy if you don't like the game you don't have to play it :D

My last consideration is about the new rules (i hope i understood what was said thus far):
The new court system seems more realistic than the previous one. I'm sure the RolePlaying hooks will be much more. I agreed about the fact that simply pass DRPs to other gods isn't much fun...
having a system that force you to find a way to describe what are you doing to help another god seems funnier and much more interesting.

Xar said that the most of the alliance are de facto the same since the last era. I agree with him, although i don't see it like something "bad". I see it like we are different teams that play the same game, like a football teams or a risiko teams (maybe closer to our game). It doesn't mean i didn't meet other players or i didn't act against my "best friends".

In the prespective of, playing with my "best friends" is part of the funny of the game... I'm sure Xar knows the difference between playing D&D with me and our other friend and playing it with "new meet" friends.
I'd like the middle between the two borders.

If i'll be able to chose my court i'll be much happier.
I think at two or more players that want to create a court similar to the egyptian one... scattering them on the map and forcing them to be in a different court won't allow such kind of Role Play Hook. So i think we should allow the players to chose whether to be randomly placed or to chose his court with a particular theme...

Speaking of which...
What if we allow the player to propose the court themes before the start of the game? We could then chose between a small amount of them after a pool, for istance... the court must have a name, a favourite season, a concept... share the beginning of the world and the end of it, how the souls will be created, moved or reincarated when the bodies die... i see many, many RPG ideas leaving to the player chose the side in which play.
In that way old friends could build something very interesting, and it will be always enough room for new comers!

That is all for the moment!

I hope what i wrote is understendable (italian guy's speaking here) :P
Death is the threshold through which life eternal is reached.
Saving Eiran is the main reason for existing.
Embrace Death as the best means towards this goal.

The most powerful god in Eiran Pantheon 2.0
Divine Rank: 11
Total Worshipers and Prevalent Race: 2.411.443 (undead humans)
User avatar
Xar
Lord
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Watching over the Pantheon...

Post by Xar »

Argothoth wrote:If i'll be able to chose my court i'll be much happier.
I think at two or more players that want to create a court similar to the egyptian one... scattering them on the map and forcing them to be in a different court won't allow such kind of Role Play Hook. So i think we should allow the players to chose whether to be randomly placed or to chose his court with a particular theme...

Speaking of which...
What if we allow the player to propose the court themes before the start of the game? We could then chose between a small amount of them after a pool, for istance... the court must have a name, a favourite season, a concept... share the beginning of the world and the end of it, how the souls will be created, moved or reincarated when the bodies die... i see many, many RPG ideas leaving to the player chose the side in which play.
In that way old friends could build something very interesting, and it will be always enough room for new comers!

That is all for the moment!

I hope what i wrote is understendable (italian guy's speaking here) :P
The way I see it, this is a concept that would work if one had a lot of players, but with a maximum of 12, having people suggest Court concepts might lead to 12 mini-Courts rather than one or two relatively big ones. But consider how, in real life as well, deities from one pantheon have been subsumed into another, while not losing their core identity. While never a part of the core Roman pantheon, worship of Isis occurred throughout the Roman empire at some point; similarly, the god Mithra was imported and his cult taken up by soldiers. In this sense, I do not think that Court membership mandates a strict series of guidelines regarding character concepts: for example, a shared eschatology and creation myth could make sense if the pantheon is strongly centralized, with a hierarchy and common goals, but if the pantheon is a loose group of deities who are united only marginally, then these concepts are not going to arise.

One possible compromise would be to avoid having two randomized assignments (location and Court) but rather only one; in other words, you'd state upon character creation whether you'd like to be a member of a Court or not, and then after starting locations are randomized, players who said they wanted to be in a Court and who find themselves neighbours will coalesce into a shared Court. If some neighbours chose to remain neutral, this wouldn't affect them in the least - although it would lead to interesting situations, I think.

Again - even if two friends aren't in the same Court, that doesn't mean they have to hate each other or hinder each other; they can still ally and work together, they only have some additional considerations to keep in mind when doing so.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

The worry some have about the clique/alliance is actually a non-issue. In three games, I have only had two alliances of any importance. Meaning we did things together, and exchanged power and/or favors at least a few times. With Avatar, Argothoth, and Amplarx in P1, and with Jove in P2. Bhakti/Jove was an amazing thing, and far stronger than the P1 alliance. The only other alliance I'm aware of that compares to that is the Eclipse Alliance. Those three were serious about it!

Other than that, I've been on generally good terms with many of you. That is, we generally leave each other alone.

As I've told many, the Eclipse Court is not an alliance. We have done almost nothing for ourselves together. For examle, Aarklar found some Love Pollen from the 1st Age, and Bhakti bought it for 1 DRP.

Even the Grand Alliance of P2 was just a group of us who talked relatively freely about what we were up to.

OTOH, I've gotten donations of DRPs from VERY surprising sources in P3. At least two sources that people would probably not guess.

But I've actually tried to have other alliances. I badly wanted one with Norn in P2, since we shared a continent, and tried to make it happen. But she shot me down. (Her daughter made it clear right off that she wasn't gonna be friends. :lol: But at least we're not enemies.) Murrin's characters won't often so much as talk to mine, much less have alliances. But there were at least a couple times when they used my power to do things for me. And, of course, Brid is... confusing. No possibility of an alliance there. But Undine and Bhakti were on very good terms. Forestals went to Thellarr to help Undine harvest wood. (Turns out we weren't watching carefully enough, and the forest was stripped bare before I could do anything about it. :lol:)
Last edited by Fist and Faith on Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Menolly
A Lowly Harper
Posts: 24066
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times
Contact:

Post by Menolly »

Xar wrote:Then again, it's merely a matter of semantics. As for Menolly's comment about disliking the inability to send power to whoever one wants... where exactly is the problem, if you can still swap favors and use your power to help the other deity? Considering that you won't have that much divine power in P4, and that what power you have derives from your worshippers, I believe it would make more sense if you couldn't give your worshippers-based power to deities your worshippers don't believe exist.
What you are saying makes sense for the role playing aspect. The problem I see is that many times a deity does not need a favor from the domain of the requesting deity. Being able to directly donate power so the one doing the favor does not have to call upon their own power enables the potential of helping each other.

And the idea of seeing all outsiders as devils or demons just does not sit well with the way I tend to play.

...yeah, yeah, yeah.
Stretch and grow as a player.
I've heard that far too often over the course of this game.
... even though I did start as a total n00b.
Image
User avatar
Xar
Lord
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Watching over the Pantheon...

Post by Xar »

Menolly wrote:
Xar wrote:Then again, it's merely a matter of semantics. As for Menolly's comment about disliking the inability to send power to whoever one wants... where exactly is the problem, if you can still swap favors and use your power to help the other deity? Considering that you won't have that much divine power in P4, and that what power you have derives from your worshippers, I believe it would make more sense if you couldn't give your worshippers-based power to deities your worshippers don't believe exist.
What you are saying makes sense for the role playing aspect. The problem I see is that many times a deity does not need a favor from the domain of the requesting deity. Being able to directly donate power so the one doing the favor does not have to call upon their own power enables the potential of helping each other.
Ah, but that's exactly the point: deprived of the ability to repay your debt using the belief of your worshippers, we move into a more roleplaying-heavy situation where the god who just helped you may not need a favor from you now, but he may choose to ask such a favor later (perhaps at an inconvenient time to you, whether consciously or not) and then it's up to you to comply or refuse (I can imagine that some sly and devious gods would do the latter). Plus, favors can become a "universal currency" (i.e. the God of Biscuits has no need of favors from the Goddess of Pizza, so he "trades" the favor she owes him to the God of Appetite, in exchange for a favor from the latter).
Post Reply

Return to “Pantheon”