1 Guest viewing this page
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Cyclone
Raw
GM
Avatar of Cyclone

Cyclone POWERFUL and VIRTUOUS

Member Seen 3 mos ago

In essence, this amounts to emulating a natural process (aging and bodily damage leading to death) which normally occurs on its own. In such a system, a being would be weakened by having a compromised body, which leads to a decaying soul. But a compromised body results in weakness regardless of the state of the soul within; indeed, even in a cosmology where souls were absent altogether, physical harm would bring one closer to death, regardless of any ulterior circumstances. In addition, a soul's health being dependant on the body's condition could lead to some strange quandaries: would someone who has lost a limb have their soul decay at an accelerated rate? Would someone who has suffered from a severe disease, and then recovered, nevertheless die prematurely because the period of illness resulted in pieces of their soul sloughing away faster than normal?


It's not a thing that would come up or be mentioned often. It can explain how Loki's demons weaken souls and eat them and why Katharsos does what he does (among other things) while not being intrusive enough to warrant anybody taking note of it 99% of the time. I think you greatly overestimate how much this would affect other mechanics or the story at large.

...They might be able to extend their lifespan by some means, but they would have to keep themselves from rotting away in order to enjoy it, and no amount of consuming souls would help them with that. The lich in the example would need to, for instance, drain its victims' life force to strengthen its crumbling bones; that is not to say that it shouldn't be able to strip them of their souls for some purpose, but, as mentioned, fuelling its unlife with them alone would be a futile endeavour by the system's very rules.


If you weren't on the same page, I think we've come to decide that heroes are by default made immune to soul fraying. It's a mechanic that would only really matter for undead that stick around for a long time, or for mortals that find non-divine ways to extend their lifespan far beyond what is natural for them.

It's not very clear how this would fit into the workings of the soul as determined by the Sky of Pyres. If the decay is manifested in the soul falling apart, how would it be purified at Katharsos' hands? And, if souls crumble back into ash as they reach the end of their course, why would he need to redistribute their material by artificial means? Far from providing a justification for his work, soul decay might in fact place its usefulness into question.


The most obvious solution is that it'd be cruel to let a soul slowly go crazy and suffer as it degrades into ash over what we can imagine as a very long process. Katharsos is putting the dying horses out of their misery, so to speak. Furthermore, I'd imagined that a soul "fully degrading" would take extremely long lengths of time, so KAtharsos burning them would greatly accelerate this process and prevent the vast majority of souls being in a useless and half-degraded state at any given time.

One last note, not necessarily related to fraying but still linked with matters of death and the soul. I notice the OP still has this point, written before Katharsos was conceived:

<Snipped quote by Rules on Might spending>

Since in the new system death involves one's mind and memories being destroyed and scattered, eventually going to form new living beings, the feasibility of this might need to be revised.


This actually got raised as a point and discussed among us GMs as the other two talked over my sheet in our PM convo. We already have something of a consensus regarding it, I think.

That above point refers to taking a soul of a very recently dead person or creature and putting it back into a body prior to it being sucked up by the Vortex of Souls and eventually burnt. There's a backlog of souls sitting in the Sky of Pyres that could be rescued and the process a soul takes in order to get up to the Sky also takes time, so there's a vaguely defined (but finite) window that gives gods a reasonable chance to take this action.

Resurrecting something that died a really long time ago is rendered impossible if its soul was burnt, though. This imposes a bit of a ticking timer, which isn't something that I think to be necessarily bad.
1x Thank Thank
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Crispy Octopus
Raw
Avatar of Crispy Octopus

Crispy Octopus Into the fryer we go.

Member Seen 4 mos ago

Hm. Sounds good.
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Oraculum
Raw
Avatar of Oraculum

Oraculum Perambulans in tenebris

Member Seen 5 hrs ago

@Cyclone

I do agree that, if fraying is indeed a negligible factor most of the time, complexity would not be much of a problem, and many of my concerns about it are alleviated. However, it still seems to me (do correct me if I'm mistaken) that it would have a fairly significant negative impact on a number of the setting's features.

Take, for example, undead. Even if it only manifests after a very extended timespan soul decay would inevitably affect all of them, as there is no apparent limit to their permanence in that state. The length of that timespan is ultimately immaterial, given the roleplay revolves around immortal characters who operate over entire epochs of the world; sooner or later, we would reach its end. This could only be avoided if were truly extremely great, but, if taken too far, the whole notion would at length be rendered entirely irrelevant to all purposes. Having all undead be condemned to degrade into mindless husks would heavily impair the relevance of undeath as a divine aspect, or at least greatly limit the possible ways in which it could be explored and developed.

Another concept that has been mentioned various times is the possibility of competing afterlives. Beyond having plenty of plot potential in itself, something like this could give a whole new dimension to an eventual soul crisis arc, making it a much more personal matter for any gods who engaged in it. However, once again this would be stymied if all souls were destined to crumble regardless of what happened to them. A variety of afterlives is meaningless if all their inhabitants are featureless shells without thought or memory. Remedying this by making them impermanent would somewhat defeat the concept of an afterlife proper.

Overall, I believe the case remains that soul decay could inhibit several interesting plot opportunities while - I feel the need to restate this - contributing very little in return (its usefulness for demons is ambiguous at best if it is such a small factor, although I admit I did not entirely follow the deliberations on that, and even the ethical aspect it adds to Katharsos' work appears very minor compared to the otherwise cosmic significance of his duties). If I am inflating things out of their real proportion or if there are solutions to these issues, though, do disregard my ramblings.
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Leotamer
Raw
Avatar of Leotamer

Leotamer

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

@Cyclone I been holding this back, but I think it is important to just propose an alternative instead of simply dismissing the opposing idea. My idea to square the concept of having infinite souls and giving Kath an important role is fairly simple, have it so that the burning process is what increases the sum total of soul-energy. So the soul stuff that originally went into that person breaks down into ash, but so does their memories, experiences, etc.

The reason I suggest this alternative is that it pull the focus away from no soul should ever leave the cycle, and allows for competing afterlives, while also maintaining Kath's afterlife and refocusing it on ensuring the cycle as a whole continues, rather than making sure that there is zero loss.
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by DracoLunaris
Raw
Avatar of DracoLunaris

DracoLunaris Multiverse tourist

Member Seen 24 hrs ago

In my opinion the detrimental effects of a lack of soul juice on the living, namely sickness, weakness etc. is reason enough for Katharsos's soul recycling plant, as dust is needed for life to thrive on Galbar. Removal of soul decay produces a conflict with sides: the selfish old dead, the suffering living and diminished young dead. Burning oneself becomes a selfless act rather than an unfortunate inevitability, Gods can chose sides, have competing solutions to the problem or can simply be apathetic to the entire affair etc. In contrast to this Soul decay as an isolated problem away from the soul crisis only really has two solutions, keep mercy killing or stop soul decay.

With the amount of detractors soul decay has atm it's likely that we/they will want to take actions to prevent soul decay pretty early on IC anyway if it remains a feature. How and why this is done and by whom could be interesting questions to answer but overall the entire affair is mostly a forgone concision as nobody but demons and death benefit from preventing the cure. I also feel like the answers to the questions are mostly answered by starting parameters as any god who cares about mortals is going to have to face this eventually. The only real thing standing in the way of the cure is the MP hit that the god/group who solve the problem will take and the subsequent burden of guilt for any disasters that result from the cure. I feel that the combined cost and inevitability of solving soul decay would be detrimental to the mustering of motivation to write it in the first place. So it could end up just sitting ignored in a corner with no one wanting to deal with it while the question of "why are none of the gods doing anything about this" and "why aren't mortals asking for something to be done about this" endlessly nag at them. I could be wrong about that ofc, maybe someone is hyped to cure soul decay, hell maybe I'll end up begin that person, or maybe some has a god willing to die on soul decay's hill which will add conflict, but that is my prediction based on my limited rp experience.

In summary, soul decay's days are likely numbered and the decision that I feel needs to be made is do we want to end it now, or do we want to see it's death play out IC?
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Crispy Octopus
Raw
Avatar of Crispy Octopus

Crispy Octopus Into the fryer we go.

Member Seen 4 mos ago

I like cats
1x Like Like
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Cyclone
Raw
GM
Avatar of Cyclone

Cyclone POWERFUL and VIRTUOUS

Member Seen 3 mos ago

@Oraculum

I'll try to address what I view as the crux of your remaining negative sentiments.

Take, for example, undead. Even if it only manifests after a very extended timespan soul decay would inevitably affect all of them, as there is no apparent limit to their permanence in that state. The length of that timespan is ultimately immaterial, given the roleplay revolves around immortal characters who operate over entire epochs of the world; sooner or later, we would reach its end. This could only be avoided if were truly extremely great, but, if taken too far, the whole notion would at length be rendered entirely irrelevant to all purposes. Having all undead be condemned to degrade into mindless husks would heavily impair the relevance of undeath as a divine aspect, or at least greatly limit the possible ways in which it could be explored and developed.


In response to this, and your earlier objection that it limits potentially interesting storylines, I'll reiterate what I said on Discord: literally nothing from Mk. II would have really been affected by the addition of soul decay, which means that the system is far from being overbearing or too restrictive for its own good. Furthermore, I don't think that this is necessarily in conflict with what Foe does.

My (subjective) opinion is that the entire system, and by extension soul decay, adds some interesting implications and storylines for the IC. Others may beg to differ, but many of the loudest voices in that debate don't have nearly as much vested interest in the precise mechanics of souls, or in how soul decay would even affect undead. They should've made a death god if they wanted to enforce their ideal model of souls, and on the offchance that they'd actually given serious thought and planning to an afterlife or to having undead before this conversation sprung up and the revelations of soul decay through a monkey wrench into their plans, all I can really say is 'woops'. That's the downside of planning really far ahead; it makes you inflexible and you frequently get monkey wrenches like this thrown into your secret plans by other peoples' stuff. Anybody whose plans were affected can adapt or change their plans to conform to the now much more detailed model, though in all honesty I doubt most will have to adapt or change their plans in the slightest.

Another concept that has been mentioned various times is the possibility of competing afterlives. Beyond having plenty of plot potential in itself, something like this could give a whole new dimension to an eventual soul crisis arc, making it a much more personal matter for any gods who engaged in it. However, once again this would be stymied if all souls were destined to crumble regardless of what happened to them. A variety of afterlives is meaningless if all their inhabitants are featureless shells without thought or memory. Remedying this by making them impermanent would somewhat defeat the concept of an afterlife proper.


Firstly, I will point out that nobody was even discussing an afterlife on the Discord. Nobody really even made an afterlife in Mk. II. An afterlife existed in Mk. I existed but was extremely vague and not very important for the story. This is something that's always been severely neglected in my opinion, so when nobody else was doing it this time I decided to take it upon myself to make a universal afterlife and codify the mechanics of death and souls.

So I very much doubt that I stomped on (or even altered) anybody's preexisting plans.

Even so, competing afterlives are not prohibited; they're just relegated to a thing that's very difficult and costly in terms of MP, and in the best scenario most such competing afterlives will be like minor exceptions to the near-universal afterlife enforced by Katharsos and the Sky of Pyres. I see no issues with this; he's the god of death and he's devoted his entire Sphere from the beginning to being the afterlife. It should take more than a whim and a couple of thoughts to try altering the system that he's established as the default and as the canon.

Notably, there already is an alternative afterlife as well in the form of Foe's Sphere. I think your objection here is completely unwarranted.

@Cyclone I been holding this back, but I think it is important to just propose an alternative instead of simply dismissing the opposing idea. My idea to square the concept of having infinite souls and giving Kath an important role is fairly simple, have it so that the burning process is what increases the sum total of soul-energy. So the soul stuff that originally went into that person breaks down into ash, but so does their memories, experiences, etc.

The reason I suggest this alternative is that it pull the focus away from no soul should ever leave the cycle, and allows for competing afterlives, while also maintaining Kath's afterlife and refocusing it on ensuring the cycle as a whole continues, rather than making sure that there is zero loss.


This is a reasonable alternative and it'd be a perfectly fine system if somewhere else were to design a similar Sphere and system; however, I personally don't like it. Katharsos' intense objection to the sequestering of souls is a big part of his persona, even if it's not so evident on his sheet. In my view this does nothing except lower the stakes and prevent a soul crisis, which you've repeatedly expressed dislike for but which the majority of us (myself included) are interested in.

Alternative afterlives and the sequestering of souls are possible under the current system, so really the only effect that your change would have is preventing a soul crisis plotline from ever happening (it's not even guaranteed to happen in the first place) and leaving Katharsos without any real reason to object to the sequestering of souls or the existence of undead that refuse to ever move on. I think that Katharsos' natural opposition to Foe and Anz (the likely culprits for 99% of soul sequestration) is a good thing to have because it allows for story interaction, so I'm naturally opposed to your idea because it'd indirectly remove this and leave me with that much less to write about.




...and as I said in my lengthy multi-paragraph series of Discord posts earlier today, that's the end of this conversation for now. I would have been done with reviews and the IC would have probably been up by now if I hadn't been distracted by debating souls and soul decay for the past three or four days, so for now I'm done arguing. Mutton, BBeast, and myself have talked over souls and we'll soon post an explanation of the broadstrokes of what we've decided in the wake of the debates.

I hope I didn't come across as angry or dismissive of anyone here. At times the debate got a bit heated on Discord, but all remained mostly civil and no harm comes from hearing your ideas and opinions. Thanks to those that weighed in, but for now we need to move past this conversation or we'll be stuck here in the pre-IC mud forever.
2x Thank Thank
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Cyclone
Raw
GM
Avatar of Cyclone

Cyclone POWERFUL and VIRTUOUS

Member Seen 3 mos ago

There's a monster lurkin' in the waters...

...it's creepin' up on us from below...

Oh God! There it is! It's a REVIEW! A beast of a review! The biggest one in the seven seas! Aaaaaaagh!

@Kho for Red Sonja
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Crispy Octopus
Raw
Avatar of Crispy Octopus

Crispy Octopus Into the fryer we go.

Member Seen 4 mos ago

Oof
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Kho
Raw
Avatar of Kho

Kho

Member Seen 6 mos ago

@Cyclone@Muttonhawk@BBeast



Thank you for your feedback, I hope my response is satisfactory and that you can come back to me with direction as to how I should proceed soon.

Edit: It slipped my mind, but Capy mentioned it on the Discord: Seihdhara's connection with Red-Haired Folk is a fairly significant interaction with Galbar.

Edit 2: After Leo and Capy very helpfully shared their thoughts with me on the discord, I will now no longer be pursuing Seihdhara's werebear form.
3x Like Like
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by BBeast
Raw
coGM
Avatar of BBeast

BBeast Scientific

Member Seen 5 mos ago

@Kho

Re: Portfolio

Martial Combat itself is an excellently-scoped Portfolio. However, your description of the Portfolio as it appears in your CS is a terribly scoped description, because half of the description is extraneous fluff pertaining not to Martial Combat but to Conflict as a whole, which is outside the scope of Martial Combat. This extensive definition of Conflict is confusing as it makes a person reading your Portfolio believe that your Portfolio relates to Conflict as a whole and not just Martial Combat. As I said, save Conflict for a Cluster. The Portfolio description should only describe the Portfolio itself. If you must keep references to competition and really can't wait for a Cluster to describe it, make it just one sentence, not a whole paragraph, because at present Conflict and Competition is the primary focus of your Portfolio description rather than a piece of peripheral context.

That you have discussed these matters with Oraculum is a point in your favour. This Divinus is the most crowded yet, so some overlap with other characters is almost unavoidable, so I am glad that you two have figured out how to minimise this overlap.

Re: Bear form

You have come to an agreeable consensus on the Discord. If the bear form is still important to you, you can spend Might on it in your first post, or when it becomes relevant later.

Re: Personality and Ambition

A strongly interaction-based character is very good, and you have a point that this in itself could provide enough opportunity for development. The other GMs might still have holes to poke here, but we shall re-evaluate in light of this clarification.

(P.S. On thinking, it appears that it can be succinctly stated that Seihdhara's personal ambitions are to pursue happiness and build relationships. Would this be a correct evaluation?)

Re: Interactions with other Spheres

Typically the interactions listed in the CS are those which have been confirmed, not a big list of suggestions. We ask that you discuss with your fellow Celestials which natural connections and influences you want the most and provide a shorter list of more definite connections. Some of the suggested connections/influences are good. Some don't quite fit. (I know Mutton was saying, as Kirron's player, that there appeared to be a thematic mismatch between the influence of the Horizon Grotto on the Seal and the Horizon Grotto's actual mood. You can ask him for details.) Discuss everything with the players involved to make sure your connections actually fit.

Re: Transportation after trials.

While your description never explicitly states that people were teleported, it implies that the journey is trivial by its lack of explanation. Travelling between Spheres is a highly non-trivial task for mortals in the absence of a Gateway, if not outright impossible. This lack of apparent difficulty implies that the movement acts using a Gateway. Even if the transportation is not instantaneous, it's still a Gateway. This confusion would be removed if you explicitly stated that the mortals have to find their own way to their destination.

However, there is another issue - why is Seihdhara sending glowstick-wielding champions into the Great Dark? There is currently no explanation or reason for this. It would probably be wise to leave this out of the CS and develop it IC.

Re: Interaction with Vortex

To be honest, Cyclone's objections about the Vortex interactions are entirely his own. This falls under needing to talk to other players about your interactions with their stuff. Another afterlife is fine. Just talk to Cyclone about it (in his role as Katharsos' player) to make sure everything lines up.

Re: Interactions with Galbar

Gateways don't count. We're looking for a passive, pervasive influence.

As for red-haired people, from the CS I fail to see how this is a significant interaction between Galbar and the Seal. They are favoured by Seihdhara and probably great warriors, but that is all that is mentioned. The CS puts this piece of information as a throw-away line down the bottom and does not associate it with the Sphere at all. Now, having the Seal bless rare people with martial prowess with the mark of red hair might be an appropriate influence on Galbar, but the CS does not say this.


Also, why is it called the Seal? Is it sealing anything? Generally seals fall under the purview of the Architect, who has sealed the Barrier and the Core. You might have a perfectly good explanation for this name, but currently it seems a bit odd.


Post a revised draft of your CS when ready.
1x Thank Thank
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Kho
Raw
Avatar of Kho

Kho

Member Seen 6 mos ago


3x Like Like 1x Thank Thank
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Cyclone
Raw
GM
Avatar of Cyclone

Cyclone POWERFUL and VIRTUOUS

Member Seen 3 mos ago

Kho and I have decided to talk out any remaining obstacles to his acceptance directly over Discord DMs, so there won't be a public re-review here anytime soon.

Before I returned from work, BBeast addressed your response, and I thank him for taking the time to do so and clarify my statements in such a succinct manner.

Because I know that almost everyone reads these public reviews and have their own things influenced by what I say about others' sheets, there nonetheless remain a few remarks that Kho made that warrant a response here for everybody to see.




If the GM team has personal issues with the practice of reusing previous characters, whatever the reason for reusing them, then that is a personal gripe and should not - in my view - be held against a sheet when judging whether it is to be accepted or not.


I certainly have biases, however this one against the recycling of characters is my own. When delivering these reviews, you may notice that I often switch between saying 'we' and 'I' because I try to make the distinction between my personal opinion and that of the GM collective. There are the occasional few topics on which a review's feedback comes from me alone, or from Mutton and BBeast without me, and I try to make such instances somewhat clear through my wording.

I understand that you believe that this act of recycling has resulted in actual issues, and I will cover those as we go through them.


Yes, and I'm glad that you were able to recognize that. I gave you as much feedback and candor as I did because I know you better than all of the other people that I've been reviewing, and I trusted you to not just rationalize my criticisms as being the spiteful and unwarranted judgements of someone who's salty over seeing a character that he doesn't personally like.

Martial Combat is not a broad portfolio. It is in fact exceedingly specific.


Agreed. If it wasn't clear, my objections of breadth were entirely directed at your description of Martial Combat because I thought that Seihdhara's powers (as described) surpassed the limits of such a Portfolio. I already told you this on Discord, but I'm repeating it here so that people don't scratch their heads and wonder why 'Martial Combat' was accused of being too broad. Short answer--it wasn't.

I would, firstly, like this Athena-Ares dichotomy to be done away with when it comes to Seihdhara and Narzhak.


The possibility of this dichotomy came up in some discussions on the Discord, and I had (erroneously, it now seems) thought that you were on board with it.

The word ascension refers to 'to going up'. This 'going up' refers to rising up through the sphere to the highest one of all, the Great Dark. It does not refer to teleportation. Returning to Galbar likewise refers to a manual journey downward, and not to teleportation.
This is all basicall this: A student finishes training under Seihdhara. Seihdhara gives them a grassblade. She tell them they can go home if they like, or if they want adventure they can set out on pilgrimage to the top of the world. The person then decides for themselves what they wish to do.


I think that you are still hazy on one very fundamental aspect of Spheres: traversing them is extremely hard. Ascending to Veradax is quite comparable to "ascending" to the Moon in real life. It will take divine intervention or an extremely powerful force of magic or technology for mortals to traverse the Spheres; this is something that even gods will struggle with in the beginning of the RP. Natural connections are unstable and highly unsafe, even Gateways are meant to often be somewhat difficult to traverse for mortals, and beings that leave their native Sphere can sometimes experience ill effects from doing so, because they're bound to the essence of their own plane and might well be unaccustomed to that of any other. For instance, any living being that were to pass through the Sky of Pyres would almost certainly die just because the aura of death is so potent there and the nebulae of smoke from the braziers is anathema to life itself. Other Spheres may well be much more habitable of course, but for another (more mild) example I point to Ehomakwoi and how the darkness of that cavernous Sphere of stone is such that mundane torches and the likes often don't even work there. (Good job Commodore, btw, I don't know if I ever praised you for that detail but I like it.)

The takeaway of this paragraph is that mortals won't simply walk up to the Seal, or go on pilgrimages to the Great Dark. Gods can abduct mortals to their Spheres, or eventually make Gateways that can perhaps allow entry to mortals under certain conditions, but from your tone and wording I don't think you realize the difficulty of travel and the implications of such challenges when it comes to thinking of how mortals will interact with the Spheres.

Most of the Spheres are very distant and inaccessible places to the mortals of Galbar, which is why we try so hard to emphasize that they should have a substantial effect upon the metaphysics lest they exist for the entire length of the RP whilst still managing to hardly contribute to the setting, like Arcon.

Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Kho
Raw
Avatar of Kho

Kho

Member Seen 6 mos ago

I think that you are still hazy on one very fundamental aspect of Spheres: traversing them is extremely hard. Ascending to Veradax is quite comparable to "ascending" to the Moon in real life. It will take divine intervention or an extremely powerful force of magic or technology for mortals to traverse the Spheres; this is something that even gods will struggle with in the beginning of the RP. Natural connections are unstable and highly unsafe, even Gateways are meant to often be somewhat difficult to traverse for mortals, and beings that leave their native Sphere can sometimes experience ill effects from doing so, because they're bound to the essence of their own plane and might well be unaccustomed to that of any other. For instance, any living being that were to pass through the Sky of Pyres would almost certainly die just because the aura of death is so potent there and the nebulae of smoke from the braziers is anathema to life itself. Other Spheres may well be much more habitable of course, but for another (more mild) example I point to Ehomakwoi and how the darkness of that cavernous Sphere of stone is such that mundane torches and the likes often don't even work there. (Good job Commodore, btw, I don't know if I ever praised you for that detail but I like it.)

The takeaway of this paragraph is that mortals won't simply walk up to the Seal, or go on pilgrimages to the Great Dark. Gods can abduct mortals to their Spheres, or eventually make Gateways that can perhaps allow entry to mortals under certain conditions, but from your tone and wording I don't think you realize the difficulty of travel and the implications of such challenges when it comes to thinking of how mortals will interact with the Spheres.

Most of the Spheres are very distant and inaccessible places to the mortals of Galbar, which is why we try so hard to emphasize that they should have a substantial effect upon the metaphysics lest they exist for the entire length of the RP whilst still managing to hardly contribute to the setting, like Arcon.


I did not understand this about spheres and thank you for the clarification. I believe the misunderstanding came from the many CSes I read where extra detail was given to the process by which a person can get from that sphere to another sphere (the Infinite Maze being the one that pops to mind and which did this most creatively). That gave me the impression that travelling between spheres is to be encouraged and that it is important to emphasise the accessibility of one's sphere. To my mind this seemed important for interaction as inaccessible spheres are difficult to interact with and I wished to make the Seal as accessible as possible. As I now understand that accessibility is and must be made excessively difficult for gods, let alone mortals, I will reassess any direct engagement by the Seal with mortals. I guess Spheres have more in common with personal planes in this regard than I first thought?

Edit: I haved edited Seihdhara 2.0 with some stats to make clear how difficult it is to travel to and from the Seal.
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Kalmar
Raw
Avatar of Kalmar

Kalmar The Mediocre

Member Seen 3 mos ago

Just letting you know interested in making a god character. Still need to read a few things in the thread, though.

Edit: Alright, quick question: is anyone making a dwarf-themed god?

If not I would like to claim the Portfolio "Honour."
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Double Capybara
Raw
Avatar of Double Capybara

Double Capybara Thank you for releasing me

Member Seen 2 mos ago

Just letting you know interested in making a god character. Still need to read a few things in the thread, though.

Edit: Alright, quick question: is anyone making a dwarf-themed god?

If not I would like to claim the Portfolio "Honour."


Well, it depends. Smithing, Metals, Brewing, Fortitude are all aspects already kinda claimed by a god or another, some I think you could talk over with the players but it's not guaranteed. There is, however, no one dealing with Crafting, Mining, or Technology in general. Nobody expressed a desire to make dwarves so far. As for Honour, I think its related to the god Aelius, but I might be wrong.
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Kalmar
Raw
Avatar of Kalmar

Kalmar The Mediocre

Member Seen 3 mos ago

I feel like each one of Aelius's "virtues" could have been a portfolio on its own. This system seems slightly unbalanced.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean to specifically target the person who made Aelius. This is just an observation. He just happened to be one of the first gods I read about, and it was something I noticed.
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Cyclone
Raw
GM
Avatar of Cyclone

Cyclone POWERFUL and VIRTUOUS

Member Seen 3 mos ago

I feel like each one of Aelius's "virtues" could have been a portfolio on its own. This system seems slightly unbalanced.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean to specifically target the person who made Aelius. This is just an observation. He just happened to be one of the first gods I read about, and it was something I noticed.


It was suggested a few times that Aelius narrow it down, but at the time he was taking a niche that nobody else wanted so it was allowed in the end. Regarding the balance of it, there's the ruling that specific > broad as far as Portfolios go, so although he could have broken that down into 3 or 4 smaller Portfolios and been much more powerful over each aspect, as is he can just have some more shallow powers over all four under Virtue.

Here's a list of free Portfolios that seem interesting to me:

Space, storms, authority, law, hunting, dying (we have a god of death, as in the afterlife and the fate of dead souls, and a competing god of undeath, but neither focuses on reaping or the aspect of murder or dying itself), music, domestication/animal husbandry, luck, mana, love, lust, beauty, pride, envy, greed, fraud, wealth

Additionally we had someone apply with a god of cold, but @jetipster seems to have vanished. Unless he comes in here protesting otherwise, you can consider that on the list of open Portfolios.

Come say hi on the Discord! We can talk this over in more detail there; I'll PM you an invite link.
Hidden 6 yrs ago Post by Kalmar
Raw
Avatar of Kalmar

Kalmar The Mediocre

Member Seen 3 mos ago

dying (we have a god of death, as in the afterlife and the fate of dead souls, and a competing god of undeath, but neither focuses on reaping or the aspect of murder or dying itself)


Funny you should mention that: I just decided to scrap the honour thing, and instead do a god of valour. A god that does not promote battle itself, but rather showing courage in battle, which includes dying.
Hidden 6 yrs ago 6 yrs ago Post by Kalmar
Raw
Avatar of Kalmar

Kalmar The Mediocre

Member Seen 3 mos ago



↑ Top
1 Guest viewing this page
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet