Gods and the Worshippers That Love Them

GlassEye · Apr 17, 2012

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
Speaking as a disinterested outsider, 38 deities doesn't seem like a lot to me.

It's not. And particularly considering the creation or source of deities in our setting. I've looked and it seems it hasn't been fully ported/explained from the old social group but there are seven beings (archetypes; powerful well beyond the level of gods, more along the lines of cosmic forces) that can only manifest a facet (aspect) of their power when interacting with the material. Mortal perceptions of these aspects define the gods/pantheons of the world.

Mowgli said:
Some of these - such as Kaven and the other Gnomish deities - are likely on the old Social Group but never got ported over to the Wiki. I've put this one on the Wiki under Tal Hallow.

I didn't put them on the wiki because I don't think they were ever fully approved by judge vote. My recollection is that a couple of judges voted 'yes' but not enough for full approval. (I felt they needed further looking over.)

Systole said:
Before any of this goes anywhere, there's a biiiiiiig question that LPF needs to answer. And that's specifically: Do you want to define the world because it's there, or do you want to leave it as open as possible until someone needs it?

Considering the above background I don't think it is necessary to define all the gods or even desirable to do so. I think we could fill out and define some major pantheons, sure, but I like leaving a bit of openness.

Satin Knights said:
The deities needs something built and hashed out for balance...

That which affects tens of thousands of inhabitants should be fleshed out so we have a good idea which way the prevailing wind is taking us while writing. Deities fall in that category, as we have no small gods. Or do we?

The big part right now is that some races have their pantheon all built up, while others don't have much done at all.

We only need something built if someone plays a character that receives some sort of boon from a deity (spells, powers, etc.). I think having a few major detailed pantheons is enough, especially if we leave the field open for additional deities.

I don't necessarily believe that all the races need separate pantheons. Dwarves and Elves, in particular, seem to me to be tapped into the 'true' background of the planes. However, since both are 'fallen' (or at least have some members that are fallen) they could have pantheons of deities.

Systole said:
When I wrote Serroth, I was under the impression that Landadel had tons and tons of small-ish gods, almost like Shinto or at the very least like ancient Greece/Rome, since a full pantheon hadn't been fleshed out. Or even proposed, really. And there's the impression in Penk's writeup that worship varies quite a lot from place to place.

Looking at many of the pantheons as they stand, I'm not sure they're complete enough for full fleshing out. And I'm not sure that potential munchkinism is really a problem, because that's what judge approval is for.

I think it might be a good idea to tag which pantheons are 'Open' and which are 'Closed,' though. Is the Venzan religion accepting applications, or is it full?

Since the Landadel Baronies have tons and tons of small nation-states I think it is only logical that they have tons and tons of deities. The idea was that there are a multitude of cultural groups (each with their own gods probably) so that players could have a bit of free reign in defining where their characters came from. Players haven't really taken advantage of that like I thought they might, though. I guess there is uncertainty on what is allowed and so people go with what exists or create only brief additions or vague locations. The openness also gives DMs a bit more leeway in their creations; the problem now is that much of the stuff that has come up in games hasn't been added to the wiki.

Many of the 'pantheons' are incomplete because of the open creation method we used in the past. People usually only created what they needed. A few people went on to flesh out things more fully (the gnomish pantheon, for example) and most of those were discussed and voted on. The incomplete pantheons, the casual references to deities by non-divine casters, none of that was fleshed out or voted on.

As far as Open and Closed pantheons, my belief is that they are all open within limits. The Venzan pantheon has all the major players sketched out and so I think it would be difficult to bring in another major god without significantly altering relationships that have already been created. But, I think there is room to fill the holes with lesser deities, saints, divine servants, etc. Just as an example, the Stormlords, Hinotheus, and (to a lesser extent) Penk were added to the pantheon after the major players were designed and took on roles and filled out deity storylines.

GlassEye · Apr 24, 2012

I didn't mean to kill off the discussion. :erm:

What do you all think is lacking in our current collection of gods?

Qik · Apr 24, 2012

This is a rather limited input, but I've had an idea for a diety named Oso for a bit now. Sort of comparable to Golarion's Irori, in that he's a Lawful Neutral god focused on self-knowledge; a good monk god. I haven't found anything like that in the current pantheon.

GlassEye · Apr 24, 2012

We do have the Green Circle which includes the concepts of self-knowledge/perfection of the self. Doesn't mean there isn't room for Oso somewhere.

DalkonCledwin · Apr 24, 2012

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
Speaking as a disinterested outsider, 38 deities doesn't seem like a lot to me.

That said, if you wanted help fleshing them out, I'd be happy to help, provided someone did a search of all the references to the gods in questions on the boards previously, so that the new stuff aligned with the old.

It could be argued that the number of deities that are present on the Wiki simply represents the vast majority of the deities actually worshiped within the main continent and by proxy the currently active player character population.

Additionally I would argue that one of the prime reason that many of those deities on the list are not fleshed out is that they have not been used as of yet.

Satin Knights said:
The deities needs something built and hashed out for balance. Otherwise, you will get someone that will come along and worship Mistress Ivy, the ruling treant of luckily deceptive travel. Stringing Law, Luck, Travel, Plant and Trickery all together so their monk/cleric can get the best bonuses.

That which affects tens of thousands of inhabitants should be fleshed out so we have a good idea which way the prevailing wind is taking us while writing. Deities fall in that category, as we have no small gods. Or do we? The example of the Boraga House is on the small scale side of things.

The big part right now is that some races have their pantheon all built up, while others don't have much done at all.

I courteously disagree Satin. This line of reasoning is the same line of reasoning that would have us map out the entire world of E'n simply because the world as a whole affects tens of thousands of inhabitants. It is further the same logical fallacy that would have us chart the in game weather patterns and seismological events and various other minutia that we really couldn't be bothered tracking if we were really honest with ourselves outside of how they affect a given adventure. Whether something affects some random no-name NPC on the other side of the world from Venza really doesn't affect either of my characters, so I really don't see how it matters if the information pertaining to that no-name NPC is fleshed out or not. That is until someone decides to take that no-name NPC, give them a name and turn them into either a major recurring NPC or a Player Character itself.

Fleshing out too much too quickly will ultimately overwhelm any game designer. I mean you will notice that in most video role playing games (even the Massively Multi-player Online Roleplaying Variety) they don't tell you what the NPC's are doing at any given moment of the in-game day... Nor do they usually give you a fully comprehensive world map or world history.

Maidhc O Casain · Apr 24, 2012

Satin Knights said:
The deities needs something built and hashed out for balance. Otherwise, you will get someone that will come along and worship Mistress Ivy, the ruling treant of luckily deceptive travel. Stringing Law, Luck, Travel, Plant and Trickery all together so their monk/cleric can get the best bonuses.

That which affects tens of thousands of inhabitants should be fleshed out so we have a good idea which way the prevailing wind is taking us while writing. Deities fall in that category, as we have no small gods. Or do we? The example of the Boraga House is on the small scale side of things.

The big part right now is that some races have their pantheon all built up, while others don't have much done at all.

DalkonCledwin said:
I courteously disagree Satin. This line of reasoning is the same line of reasoning that would have us map out the entire world of E'n simply because the world as a whole affects tens of thousands of inhabitants. It is further the same logical fallacy that would have us chart the in game weather patterns and seismological events and various other minutia that we really couldn't be bothered tracking if we were really honest with ourselves outside of how they affect a given adventure. Whether something affects some random no-name NPC on the other side of the world from Venza really doesn't affect either of my characters, so I really don't see how it matters if the information pertaining to that no-name NPC is fleshed out or not. That is until someone decides to take that no-name NPC, give them a name and turn them into either a major recurring NPC or a Player Character itself.

Fleshing out too much too quickly will ultimately overwhelm any game designer. I mean you will notice that in most video role playing games (even the Massively Multi-player Online Roleplaying Variety) they don't tell you what the NPC's are doing at any given moment of the in-game day... Nor do they usually give you a fully comprehensive world map or world history.

But the world map is completed . . . just becaused the players don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. However, that's just me playing devil's advocate, and doesn't really pertain to the discussion of deities.

SK's argument mirrors my concerns almost exactly. Depending on your views, Gods are either created by their worshippers or they create their worshippers. But either way, it strains credibility for me that there will be a specific god for every worshipper that has exactly the portfolio and domain set that will maximize benefits for that worshipper. Yet that's exactly the system we have.

I don't think I'm making my argument very well, but I'm not sure how else to say it.

I'm not arguing that we should make our list, put everyone on it that we're going to allow and then close it off. But there does need to be some system or guideline. We've taken a step in disallowing exotic weapons as favored weapons of the deity (at least I think I recall that discussion correctly from the old days of the social group). I'm not sure what guidelines we could put in place to ensure that every character with access to domains doesn't hand-craft a deity so that they can cherry pick the domain(s) to maximize their character and then fill in the backstory/history of the deity to match . . . but there needs to be something.

DalkonCledwin · Apr 24, 2012

so then you have both the entirety of the main continent, the world underneath the ground which Drow, Dwarves and Mindflayers inhabit, as well as the entirety of the oceans bottom completely mapped out? Because unless you do then you do not have the entire game world mapped out.[/QUOTE]

Sorry - that remark was meant to apply to your reference to MMORPGs. The worlds in those games are completely mapped, just undiscovered by the PCs.

mfloyd3 · Apr 24, 2012

There's another issue for both clerics and paladins, which is that unless the gods are fairly clearly fleshed out their principles are not clear. Remember that these classes are supposed to lose their abilities if they violate their deity's tenets.

Not all of the gods are sufficiently fleshed out to judge that. For instance, the gods of Rhat'matanis have their domains fleshed out and some information on their symbols, etc. , and in terms of game play, I think they are reasonably balanced. But there is not enough information to judge if a worshipper has fallen. Here is something I am thinking of proposing for Anor-Akim:
___
Tenets of Anor-Akim (uncorrupted):

ORDER: As the sun rises in the sky, everything in the world has its place. There is no greater crime than sundering that order by abrogating one's responsibilities. Those who fulfill their duties well will be rewarded with a new life of higher station.

JUSTICE: The priesthood of Anor-Akim is bound to preserve the order that Anor-Akim has created. The church is the last route of appeal to those who believe the system has treated them unfairly, and the clergy have the right to confront peasant and aristocrat alike.

THE ROLE OF MAGIC: Magic in its own right is a wild and untamed force. The priests of Anor-Akim are bound to channel it into a form where it supports the order of the world rather than undermining it.
___

Now the rules about falling have some teeth. A cleric or paladin now has to confront some problems. They cannot ignore a thief; they have an obligation to stop him and return the stolen item. They might also be obligated to deal with a powerful sorceror who is a threat to the local community. I don't argue that GMs should push power loss very hard -- that's an awkward thing to do in a PBP game, where there is no guarantee a GM will be available for an Atonement spell-driven quest -- But it should be there for role-playing and the GM would be well within his rights to remind the player that it's there.

Should we be worried about this?

Qik · Apr 24, 2012

GlassEye said:
We do have the Green Circle which includes the concepts of self-knowledge/perfection of the self. Doesn't mean there isn't room for Oso somewhere.

I guess the difference for me is that the Green Circle just screams "druid," implicitly (to me), at the expense of others. But it still is comparable enough that it might be worth tying Oso into it anyway. E'n's conception of deities as being a rather limited collection that then "prism" into a more diverse group makes that doable.

I'll have a think. I wasn't in any rush to submit Oso, anyway.

jkason · Apr 24, 2012

DalkonCledwin said:
II courteously disagree Satin. This line of reasoning is the same line of reasoning that would have us map out the entire world of E'n simply because the world as a whole affects tens of thousands of inhabitants. It is further the same logical fallacy that would have us chart the in game weather patterns and seismological events and various other minutia that we really couldn't be bothered tracking if we were really honest with ourselves outside of how they affect a given adventure.

I think deities are a special exception in that they have very specific game mechanics impact for divine casters. Since I don't believe we've added any region feats or traits, there's far less game-imbalancing impact to leaving some areas of the map undefined / open for further development (secondarily, see further down this post for my thoughts on god-fluff)

Mowgli said:
I'm not arguing that we should make our list, put everyone on it that we're going to allow and then close it off. But there does need to be some system or guideline. We've taken a step in disallowing exotic weapons as favored weapons of the deity (at least I think I recall that discussion correctly from the old days of the social group). I'm not sure what guidelines we could put in place to ensure that every character with access to domains doesn't hand-craft a deity so that they can cherry pick the domain(s) to maximize their character and then fill in the backstory/history of the deity to match . . . but there needs to be something.

Other than laying out the portfolios of existing deities, it seems sufficient to me that new deities require a proposal / approval before their portfolios are available for divine casters. If someone is clearly putting together a shoddy deity concept just to get the right powergame combo, it's easy enough to nix at the approval stage; if someone actually puts real effort into coming up with an interesting god, though, I think it's at least worth considering.

I think my general tendency may be different than some others, though, in that I'm a big fan of leaving as much undefined as possible. Some broad strokes to help guide creative endeavors, sure, but I think one of the fun things about a Living world (or what I've experienced between this and LEW) is the ability for everyone to have a hand in shaping it (Houses Gabbiano and Boraga are, I think, good examples of that). The more that's pre-defined, the harder it is for players or GM's to do that.

My personal guideline tends to fall around 'do I have a plan for using it?' I try to define as much as I need to add to the Story of E'n, and try to leave loose threads as I can for others to weave as they see fit. Others may see it differently, wanting to avoid too much hodge-podge / continuity collisions, but I sort of think that's what's fun about all this.

So, from a character-building standpoint, named gods need at least their mechanics. But I tend to feel that, barring strongly-held notions on the part of others, leaving all but the broadest strokes of a faith's tenets up to those players and GMs that want to explore the deity, and seeing what they (as the more directly inspired) come up with.

My semi-coherent 2 cents, at least.