Kevin's Watch

As said in the Discussions on the Future thread, I came up with two ideas for P4.

The first idea is Pantheons - deities can band together into a pantheon for additional help, flexibility, and power sharing. On the other hand, deities can remain aloof, sacrificing those benefits for the ability not to be influenced if their allies are weakened, as well as influence sharing.

The second idea is monikers, which are assigned at the end of Phase 1 of the game (and only then), and, based on how the god was played in Phase 1, will color his or her subsequent time in the game.

Since both things are still very much up in the air, here's a nice little poll... to see whether you'd like one, both, or none of these ideas. P4 rules are still in a state of flux, and I'd like the input of those who will be playing with them

If the Pantheons idea is scrapped, deities will be able to interact with each other more freely (as if none belonged to any pantheon at all). If the Monikers idea is scrapped, there will be no built-in advantages and disadvantages individually chosen for each god.

Monikers: Yes
Pantheons: No

I'm leaning against the idea of formalised pantheons. Account for alliances forming in the rules, maybe, but having it as a major game feature marginalises some styles of play (or, as seen in P3, players will go outside of the formal structure in order to form their own groups anyhow, and the system itself becomes marginalised).

Ditto Fist.

Monikers: Yes
Pantheons ("official" ones, anyway): No

I voted for monikers but no pantheons (I've always liked the idea that all the players are part of one pantheon) BUT I'd rather have pantheons than no formal in-game way of managing alliances at all.

I initially voted for monikers and against pantheons, but upon further consideration, I think I like the idea of Pantheons. Sort of. Imagine the Norse gods battling the Greek gods. That's good stuff. The only part about it I don't like is players choosing which Pantheon. I'd rather it be assigned by the GM. I mean, what fun is a whole pantheon always (or even frequently) working together?

Simjen wrote:I initially voted for monikers and against pantheons, but upon further consideration, I think I like the idea of Pantheons. Sort of. Imagine the Norse gods battling the Greek gods. That's good stuff. The only part about it I don't like is players choosing which Pantheon. I'd rather it be assigned by the GM. I mean, what fun is a whole pantheon always (or even frequently) working together?

I toyed with the idea of arbitrarily assigned people to pantheons in order to create interesting situations... this could be implemented, with a modification to allow others to create their own monotheistic religions: players upon creating their god would have to specify whether they wish the god to be monotheistic or not (for these purposes, "monotheistic" would also apply to deities such as The Void initially was - a philosophical concept of atheism - or to deities whose player wishes to represent as impersonal forces rather than sentient beings). After this initial choice, players who have stated their gods do not belong to monotheistic religions would be randomly assigned to different pantheons. Ideally, in this system I envision the possibility of a previously monotheistic god being "absorbed" (willingly or not) in a larger pantheon (for example, by ending up sharing his cities and lands with gods of that pantheon), as well as the possibility of deities from different pantheons "switching allegiances" (for example a deity from pantheon X who started the game in a somewhat remote location and finds himself surrounded by pantheon Y). In both cases, however, there might be a hefty cost in followers (those who believe you are the only god might be a bit pissed off if you "reveal" that you were lying all along and those other fellas are actually also gods or at least equally powerful beings, or if you're coerced into joining them, for example).

I think we might want to borrow a page from the D&D 3.x rules for mandatory pantheons, though. I'm thinking kind of in the Forgotten Realms shape, where there were several different pantheons of gods. Each pantheon had a geographic area, and then each god had a non-geographic domain within that larger pantheon area.

But that kind of assumed a LOT more than 12 total gods in the world.

It seems that random pantheon assignment would end up with people being allied with someone across the globe, but "enemies" with their neighbor. Kind of counter-intuitive.

Could we go with say... three major continents / archipeligos on the map, each with its own pantheon?

--------------

Random thought of the day (just brainstorming the above to the Nth degree):

Add in the idea of an ocean god, and aquatic species... yeah, that gets really complicated really fast. But I like the idea that the ocean zone, with aquatic species, is one pantheon of ocean gods. And the northern continent is a second one. And the southern continent is a third. Then, the ocean god from the northern continent is, to the ocean pantheon really just the god of that continent. Same with the southern continent's god of ocean. That would put those two gods as fence-sitters, both in a land pantheon as an ocean god, and in the ocean pantheon as a "land" god.

The Numen wrote:I think we might want to borrow a page from the D&D 3.x rules for mandatory pantheons, though. I'm thinking kind of in the Forgotten Realms shape, where there were several different pantheons of gods. Each pantheon had a geographic area, and then each god had a non-geographic domain within that larger pantheon area.

But that kind of assumed a LOT more than 12 total gods in the world.

It seems that random pantheon assignment would end up with people being allied with someone across the globe, but "enemies" with their neighbor. Kind of counter-intuitive.

Could we go with say... three major continents / archipeligos on the map, each with its own pantheon?

--------------

Random thought of the day (just brainstorming the above to the Nth degree):

Add in the idea of an ocean god, and aquatic species... yeah, that gets really complicated really fast. But I like the idea that the ocean zone, with aquatic species, is one pantheon of ocean gods. And the northern continent is a second one. And the southern continent is a third. Then, the ocean god from the northern continent is, to the ocean pantheon really just the god of that continent. Same with the southern continent's god of ocean. That would put those two gods as fence-sitters, both in a land pantheon as an ocean god, and in the ocean pantheon as a "land" god.

Keep in mind that "starting areas" will be selected by the players - and pantheon assignments would be given before that point - so that players from the same pantheon would be able to choose where to "fit in". As for assigning specific continents to individual pantheons... that's something I'd rather leave for players to decide if pantheons are utilized, as opposite to establishing additional rules for that.

Xar wrote:Keep in mind that "starting areas" will be selected by the players - and pantheon assignments would be given before that point - so that players from the same pantheon would be able to choose where to "fit in". As for assigning specific continents to individual pantheons... that's something I'd rather leave for players to decide if pantheons are utilized, as opposite to establishing additional rules for that.

Yup, which is why, in the end, I voted against Pantheons. 'Cause either way, it was a complication and a hindrance.

Yes to Monikers, no to pantheons.

seems to me both are somewhat constraining. so that's how i voted, if i even get a vote. (well...i voted, you can count or discount it)

i don't like "assignments", i don't do well with them.

i may or may not play p4 depending on the rules and guidlines, but i am interested.