What CR should a god be?

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Umbran mate!

To each their own. If I'm going to play a worshipper, that worshipper is going to be a unique individual, separate from the god. Rabbi Levi is not YHWH (or a small part fo YHWH) stuffed into a human suit.

Obviously you can expand on characterisation as you see fit, but philosophically the characters will be similar to the extent that you always have a basic identity template to start with.

Yes, but if i only play a given character for a session or two, there aren't all that many situations he's reacting to. And I certianly dont have much time to develop and grow the character in response to his situations if it's only one adventure. Hopping about does not give one much time to explore who the person is.

But look at it from the point of view of the deity. Each action wherein you control a worshipper or a servant is (by proxy) an extension of the deities character.

Just like every action, regardless of how small, affects how the deity is perceived and worshipped.

And that's not even considering the fact that for anything better thana mid-level character, a single adventure isn't really even enough to explore the character's abilities within the rules.

Naturally the more powerful the servant/worshipper the more often they are likely to be called upon.

You're the one who has been suggesting that there's something wrong with my cutting off the game when I think it is done.

I am not opposed to discontinuing games if people aren't enjoying themselves, but I am opposed to people discontinuing games because they have simply reached a set level (if indeed all concerned are having fun).

While I don't want to put words in anyones mouth, I seem to recall reading a post a while back by Piratecat whereby he had always considered restarting his campaign when the characters approached 20th-level, but they were having so much fun they decided to carry on into epic levels.

I've been playing RPGs for over 20 years. I've already tried lots and lots of campaign styles. I still like to expore entirely new systems, and I like to play an occasional one-shot. But for the dedication of time I need to make for a full campaign, I want something more focused. I prefer to get deeper into the psyche and long-term development of a single character than to hop around.

I can't imagine a way of getting deeper into the psyche than roleplaying a deity in the manner I described.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey S'mon!

"Cheapen"? Naw. When they started using avatars in the 1e Greyhawk Adventures book, most of them were ca 12th level!

Yes, but remember this was 1st Edition where Lolth had 66 hit points (or 122 on her home plane*).

*

They were never intended to be unbeatable by mortal non-epic foes.

Well, Solars, Balors and Titans are not unbeatable by non-epic foes.

IMC many deities don't even use avatars, those that do typically have a need for powerful servants that remain under the radar of rival deities - since as you know, direct intervention by a god usually results in catastrophic escalation of the conflict, your 'nuke' analogy.

Theres a good example of this at the end of the Gary Gygax, Gord the Rogue novel Sea of Death.

 

[S'mon]

Well, Solars, Balors and Titans are not unbeatable by non-epic foes.

1e Solars pretty much were unbeatable by normal PCs, being much tougher than mere demon lords! They got the shaft in 2e of course.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kamikaze Midget!

The only way a character mortal should win against a god is when it serves some overreaching mythographical purpose.

Thus, you have Herc winning in a wresting match. Herc is Strength Incarnate -- he's the strongest ever, and should be able to win.

But, you also have Aphrodite Stabbed -- love goddesses just cain't fight a war.

And you have Jacob's Arm Wrestling -- he's the Great Forefather, a refiner of humankind.

So yeah, in general, the gods are unapproachable figures who can crush your face a thousand different ways.

But if my PC's are going up in a beauty contest against Augus (god of Agriculture and War), they're prolly gonna win. Same way if they try to wrestle the Goddess of Beauty.

How can you adjudicate that sort of thing though (without stats that is)?

I mean isn't it somewhat black and white? More a story than an adventure?

 

[Umbran]

Obviously you can expand on characterisation as you see fit, but philosophically the characters will be similar to the extent that you always have a basic identity template to start with.

If you walk into a Catholic church today, and talk to two priests, do you talk to two people with the same basic identity? No. You talk to two unique individuals. They each have different fears and aspirations, they each have their own unique reasons for joining the Mother Church. And, under stress, they'll not generally react at all in the same manner.

So, you may go ahead and play your minions that way. I would find it lacking.

But look at it from the point of view of the deity. Each action wherein you control a worshipper or a servant is (by proxy) an extension of the deities character.

I'd be far more interested in investigating the psycology and growth of a free willed devotee with his own personality than I would be interested in playing a god who grabs the strings of various meat puppets over time.

Naturally the more powerful the servant/worshipper the more often they are likely to be called upon.

"More often" isn't good enough. I live in a busy and complicated Real World. I manage to play RPGs once or twice a month, at best. I often go a month or two without playing a single session. If I were to scatter that over multiple characters, I would not become particularly familiar with each of their abilities. No one of them would see any growth. For me, that would be sub-optimal enough that I'd not bother with the campaign.

I am not opposed to discontinuing games if people aren't enjoying themselves, but I am opposed to people discontinuing games because they have simply reached a set level (if indeed all concerned are having fun).

While I don't want to put words in anyones mouth, I seem to recall reading a post a while back by Piratecat

Yes, but you're responding to me, not to P-cat. I didn't mention cutting the game off at a particular level. I mentioned cutting the game off when it had reached a particularly high climax, beyond which I'd find it difficult to keep the game from being anti-climatic. And I specifically mentioned that I would not be having much fun. So I fill neither of your criteria for opposition.

I can't imagine a way of getting deeper into the psyche than roleplaying a deity in the manner I described.

The limits of your imagination are not what I'd call a compelling reason to play a particular type of game, when the description doesn't grab me. If my friends and I had unlimited leisure time, I'd be happy to give anything a shot. But that's not the way the world works.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again!

If you walk into a Catholic church today, and talk to two priests, do you talk to two people with the same basic identity? No. You talk to two unique individuals.

If I quizzed them both on points of philosophy and general world perspective I think their responses could be similar enough to conform to an initial stereotype giving you a base to work from. Further study would no doubt yield their differences and those could be explored over time.

They each have different fears and aspirations, they each have their own unique reasons for joining the Mother Church. And, under stress, they'll not generally react at all in the same manner.

Of course, and thats something you could explore over time.

Either way the tasks they are set are still a reflection upon the deity itself.

So, you may go ahead and play your minions that way. I would find it lacking.

Remember that your (deity) character is still the focus, despite any occasional diversions.

I'd be far more interested in investigating the psycology and growth of a free willed devotee with his own personality than I would be interested in playing a god who grabs the strings of various meat puppets over time.

Haven't you just given an analogy of roleplaying in general there though?

In that a person grabs the strings of various characters over time.

"More often" isn't good enough. I live in a busy and complicated Real World. I manage to play RPGs once or twice a month, at best. I often go a month or two without playing a single session. If I were to scatter that over multiple characters, I would not become particularly familiar with each of their abilities. No one of them would see any growth. For me, that would be sub-optimal enough that I'd not bother with the campaign.

I see the multiple characters as ultimately working towards one goal though (that of growth of the central character), so I don't have the same reservations as you.

Yes, but you're responding to me, not to P-cat.

I was merely using an example that would be familiar to most people on these boards.

I didn't mention cutting the game off at a particular level. I mentioned cutting the game off when it had reached a particularly high climax, beyond which I'd find it difficult to keep the game from being anti-climatic.

Seemingly both our imaginations must be limited then.

And I specifically mentioned that I would not be having much fun. So I fill neither of your criteria for opposition.

Well, as I mentioned, I wouldn't want to force anyone to do something against their will. But as you have mentioned above, part of your problem is keeping the game from being anticlimatic (at such levels), and I think that is easily solved, in part, by breaking up the level of play.

The limits of your imagination are not what I'd call a compelling reason to play a particular type of game, when the description doesn't grab me.

Thats certainly your prerogative.

If my friends and I had unlimited leisure time, I'd be happy to give anything a shot. But that's not the way the world works.

Well you only get out of roleplaying what you put into it.