Hermetic lore for FFH DI4 (not for use outside this game)
- Thread starter Lgaard
- Start date
Um okay guys, just to clarify for us bystanders but are you actually pissed of with each other as dean and Onion or as Mammon and Cernunnos? Because this arguement is getting pretty heated.
As Camulos i suppose i should egg you on without asking but oh well.
To Cernunnos: I have to ask though why is Finnigin so important? he seems to be living an allright naturistic life and has tamed the one animal Grigori has so far. However Thesias is the one who has performed what could be counted as an extended pillgrimige. Visted the four nations surrounding Yggdrasil. Ate the fruit there and became one with nature. Did you have plans for Finnigin that this curse has curtailed?
To Mammon: Personally I'd view adventurers as risk takers not gamblers. Gamblers use what they have an excess of to gain more while risk takers do something that has to be done and try to limit the neccessary risk. But again i don't really mind. It all adds drama to the in game narative as long as it doesn't spill over.
As a question, how far will you take the no-gambling curse? taken to a absurb degree you could outlaw childbirth as in this day and age it is a gamble for a mother. So i'm just wondering where you yourself would draw the line.
And also if Mammon's angel is whispering in danalins ear does that mean he controls the octopus overlords? just want to get my law straight before planning more.
As Camulos i suppose i should egg you on without asking but oh well.
To Cernunnos: I have to ask though why is Finnigin so important? he seems to be living an allright naturistic life and has tamed the one animal Grigori has so far. However Thesias is the one who has performed what could be counted as an extended pillgrimige. Visted the four nations surrounding Yggdrasil. Ate the fruit there and became one with nature. Did you have plans for Finnigin that this curse has curtailed?
To Mammon: Personally I'd view adventurers as risk takers not gamblers. Gamblers use what they have an excess of to gain more while risk takers do something that has to be done and try to limit the neccessary risk. But again i don't really mind. It all adds drama to the in game narative as long as it doesn't spill over.
As a question, how far will you take the no-gambling curse? taken to a absurb degree you could outlaw childbirth as in this day and age it is a gamble for a mother. So i'm just wondering where you yourself would draw the line.
And also if Mammon's angel is whispering in danalins ear does that mean he controls the octopus overlords? just want to get my law straight before planning more.
If he outlaws childbirth, than he should also outlaw walking (what if there's a dragon poised to listen to your footsteps?) talking (what if a ghost will pop into your mouth?) and more.
On a less silly side, changing crops on a farm would be illegal. As would a hundred and one other acts of life.
On a less silly side, changing crops on a farm would be illegal. As would a hundred and one other acts of life.
@Ravus Sol
I was wondering the same thing. Let's make sure our "anger" stays in-character here.
My only concern is that this escalates into one trying to outdo the other, while ignoring the guy who is actually playing the game...
I feel Dean's curse is acceptable, given the context of the game. I thought his punishments were a tad extreme for a minor first offense, but he has the freedom to play as he sees fit.
On the other hand, you can't be surprised if you curse another god's champion and he gets a little peeved. I'm sure that if someone curses my eventual healer hero (assuming he earns it), I'll have to see why, and feel the desire to return the favor.
That being said, the punishment should fit the crime. No blowing up half the world because a unit was given withered.
One last note, I'm certainly not in charge or anything, so listen to me if you wish. I am simply speaking to you guys as an equal, offering my thoughts. Take them or leave them.
I was wondering the same thing. Let's make sure our "anger" stays in-character here.
My only concern is that this escalates into one trying to outdo the other, while ignoring the guy who is actually playing the game...
I feel Dean's curse is acceptable, given the context of the game. I thought his punishments were a tad extreme for a minor first offense, but he has the freedom to play as he sees fit.
On the other hand, you can't be surprised if you curse another god's champion and he gets a little peeved. I'm sure that if someone curses my eventual healer hero (assuming he earns it), I'll have to see why, and feel the desire to return the favor.
That being said, the punishment should fit the crime. No blowing up half the world because a unit was given withered.
One last note, I'm certainly not in charge or anything, so listen to me if you wish. I am simply speaking to you guys as an equal, offering my thoughts. Take them or leave them.
Vandal Warlord
Nazgûl
As a bystander, I have been watching this argument. Just making sure this is all "RP" arguing. However, I do see point in both arguments. As God of Rage I encourage fighting and revenge, so long as it is in-game.
Dean_the_Young
King
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 811
Why wouldn't they be, Kilimorph? Do they take unnecessary risks for personal gain and fame?
My actions are promoting responsible behavior. You, of all people, should understand why unnecessary risk for personal gain is a danger to one's self, and one's soul. Am I right or wrong?
Why would I do that? There are required risks, and there are voluntary risks. Risks taken needlessly for personal gain are gambling, the very gambles Gerran has outlawed.
Would I punish talking, or walking in the safety of Grigori lands? Of course not. These are required for as a mortal people, and the risks of any sort very low. Even child birth, a much riskier proposition, is necessary for the propagation of more souls.
Likewise, if someone attacks the Grigori, I would not punish the Grigori for fighting to defend themselves: they did not seek out the fight, after all, and the risks were required.
But, if the Grigori go out to kill someone who isn't a threat to them, then that is an unnecessary risk. If an Adventurer means to risk life and limb challenging an Ogre that makes no threatening moves towards the Grigori, that starts no fight, than that is a unnecessary gamble, and that I will punish.
Oh do, do!
Adventurers don't have to do anything: their nearly universally AWOL from their proper Grigori duties.
Do they have to explore ruins? No. Do they have to hunt down and kill X creatures at Y? Of course not.
I think I've made clear above. Unncessary risks taken for gain are gambling, as is my field.
Not control. Hastur can not dictate Danalin's dreams, only change them from pleasant/neutral to nightmares.
Lgaard
King
I second Ravus (third, as he was seconded by Bootsiov).
I found the way Mammon interpreted Gerrens disposition (in a twisted way) very creative and adding much spice to the game. The punishment was harsh (imo) but accepteble. It is also acceptable that Cernunnos do something to lessen Finnegan's suffering (provided he's not taking back Mammons curse itself) in the next round.
I also think we should not go to the extreme and do not knock off all of his adventurers from the game. They are Grigori's heroes and important part of fun comes from using them actively.
I would like to see in the future that arguments are not going outside IC discussions, as only those may contribute to the game course. Do not forget that we are here for fun, and what is outside the main thread makes little sense if it is not going to be used in there eventually.
Be creative, play the opposite roles on the both sides of the court, but bear in mind that at the end of the road it is that we are all aiming in making Vardian's game richer, deeper, well more fun.
As for other things: I think we are all doing a good job so far. I mostly liked the narratives (all of them), and especially the Camulos diary on a way to the elven war. Ravus, are you GMing a lot, or writing something like that (i mean narratives, short stories etc.) in more regular way? The idea of Herbringer's duel was brilliant!
OT side note: Why won't (at least some of) you join saturday RP games? Info is in the main FFH forum.
I found the way Mammon interpreted Gerrens disposition (in a twisted way) very creative and adding much spice to the game. The punishment was harsh (imo) but accepteble. It is also acceptable that Cernunnos do something to lessen Finnegan's suffering (provided he's not taking back Mammons curse itself) in the next round.
I also think we should not go to the extreme and do not knock off all of his adventurers from the game. They are Grigori's heroes and important part of fun comes from using them actively.
I would like to see in the future that arguments are not going outside IC discussions, as only those may contribute to the game course. Do not forget that we are here for fun, and what is outside the main thread makes little sense if it is not going to be used in there eventually.
Be creative, play the opposite roles on the both sides of the court, but bear in mind that at the end of the road it is that we are all aiming in making Vardian's game richer, deeper, well more fun.
As for other things: I think we are all doing a good job so far. I mostly liked the narratives (all of them), and especially the Camulos diary on a way to the elven war. Ravus, are you GMing a lot, or writing something like that (i mean narratives, short stories etc.) in more regular way? The idea of Herbringer's duel was brilliant!
OT side note: Why won't (at least some of) you join saturday RP games? Info is in the main FFH forum.
Dean_the_Young
King
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 811
Can I make a suggestion? I think we gods might benefit from a dummy civ of sort. In RiFE, it would be Agares or Bhall barbarian factions, but someone we can use when putting units on the field that might/might not be at peace with animals/barbs.
Neutral gods might want to use Thomas's Oghma civ. We evil gods might want our own civ, however.
So I propose we make a city in the entrance-to-hell area. Call it Dis, Mulcarn's Mountain, City of Mammon, whatever. Something like Thomas's introduced civ. Have it be at peace with everybody, except animals, but peace with Agares.
Then when we evil gods want to put units, we can do it with that faction. And if we use hidden nationality, we can make all-purpose enemies, even for the other 'good' or neutral gods. For example, say I, as Mammon, pay mercenaries for whatever reason: I could add mercenary units with the Hidden Nationality and Free Unit promotions (to prevent costs) to the Hell civ, as well as whatever I need. Then animals can/may fight, and all the nations of Erebus can act against them, but 'evil' gods won't be tripping over eachother.
Likewise, neutral gods could base off of Thomas's Oghma civ, and good gods make their own. What this allows us to do is have direct inter-god fights, at least between alignments, and hangle 'diplomacy' more easily than if we all relied on Barbarians. So gods could be at peace with most everyone until they launch a vendetta, at which point (with the agreement of their fellow gods of alignment) they declare war against one civ or another.
Neutral gods might want to use Thomas's Oghma civ. We evil gods might want our own civ, however.
So I propose we make a city in the entrance-to-hell area. Call it Dis, Mulcarn's Mountain, City of Mammon, whatever. Something like Thomas's introduced civ. Have it be at peace with everybody, except animals, but peace with Agares.
Then when we evil gods want to put units, we can do it with that faction. And if we use hidden nationality, we can make all-purpose enemies, even for the other 'good' or neutral gods. For example, say I, as Mammon, pay mercenaries for whatever reason: I could add mercenary units with the Hidden Nationality and Free Unit promotions (to prevent costs) to the Hell civ, as well as whatever I need. Then animals can/may fight, and all the nations of Erebus can act against them, but 'evil' gods won't be tripping over eachother.
Likewise, neutral gods could base off of Thomas's Oghma civ, and good gods make their own. What this allows us to do is have direct inter-god fights, at least between alignments, and hangle 'diplomacy' more easily than if we all relied on Barbarians. So gods could be at peace with most everyone until they launch a vendetta, at which point (with the agreement of their fellow gods of alignment) they declare war against one civ or another.
zacman
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 96
Cool idea! one thing though, i might need a seprate civ for my interventions because i dont think i makes much sense for the demons to be allys to an army of ravaging frostlings, or a tribe of worshipers from the age of ice. But i have no clue how to add a civ!
can someone please let me know?
can someone please let me know?Interesting Idea, I did consider raising a similer point before so that we could have a neutral Divine Civ a Evil Divine Civ and a Good Divine Civ. The idea has merit but the drawback is that some gods will still need to fight even when they are the same alignment. Bhaal and Mulcrum probably hate each other in game. And My own version of Camulos is shaping up mentally to be against Mulcrum (Sorry Zacman, I'll post something later to explain my interpretation of Camulos and why i think it would mean he would be against Mulcrum)
Having Civs we can use is a good idea though. I was planning on establishing a barabrain Haven in the desert myself. But then Camulos is for barbarians...
Perhaps we should go the Rhyse and Fall route? In that Mod their is a Cov simply called "Independent Nation" And thus Can have Cities in prime locations while still being at war with barbarians. (and logically if you decalre war on one then all independent countries will consider you a threat).
Could we make that one work?
-
I Edit for one of my friends who is a writer so i guess i have picked up enough to make it all flow. (One of my pet peeves is plot holes in written stories. In movies it is Fridge logic. The kind of thing you go along with at the time of the movie, because it's cool, and then after the film is over you get to the fridge for a snack and suddenly go "Wait a minute... That made no sense!")
Glad you liked the Harbringers, they are a fun bunch but they are really shaping up to be bastards. Which is fun, but means that Camulos is now a lot more devious then i originally planned to play him.
We are doing a very good job. I'm looking forward to Vandal's interventions as God of Rage as a potential ally, Mulcrum as a potential Rival, Junil as a future inevital War buddy and Cernunnos to see if my Harbringers pissed him of with spreading propaganda about him and starting a war that will curtail the founding of his religion (sorry slipped my mind that by shifting to war economy they would not go for mystic techs)
Personally i think the best part of whats happened so far is that nothing has clashed too much. All the individual plot lines everyone has taken have meshed well with each other.
-
Concerning Dean and Onion. (And myself for future use) How are Gods supposed to interact lore wise? Do we send messages, (Written or magically) Are our minions used as verbal messenger boys, and so on. With rivals, allies and manipulations starting to become more widespread among the Gods i wondered how it is supposed to be done in rule with the compact.
Are we in fact forbidden from talking in person with each other?
-
Plus speaking of the Compact. To Lgaard specifically but to everyone else as well. How does this idea sound.
With the end of the age of ice (in-lore) and the new civilizations starting up, the gods are now interacting more and more openly. This is because its a divine intervention game i know. But i was wondering if we could describe it in game as because people are starting to be more interesting or useful again.
Thus the logical conclusion for the gods in game could be to reafirm the compact. Have a new meeting where the gods air their woes and pleas. Transgressions of the law are brought up and so on.
The point is that it would provide a good narrative for Verdian and also a place we could highlight the interactions of the gods from this thread more openly. We write how Mammon is all smug with his cursing and Cernunos (and others) are annoyed at this blantent intervention. We could note the empty Chair of Mulcrum while also wondering why it was still provided for (hinting that he could still live or his precet survive) Arawn could publichly declare his shunning of his worshipers and Aeron snidely remark that this could cause them to want vengence on him.
Does this idea appeal to anyone? It is good narrativly but provides no direct intervention and could be fiddly to write. If it was written i would say let Lgaard (or a volunteer) write up a draft and post it in this forum first for us to edit.
Normally i wouldn't recomend this idea but with the extra week it could be do-able.
Hope to hear your thoughts
-
Dean_the_Young
King
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 811
That's easy: make a(nother?) Illian civ. Or just base off of the Illian civ if it already exists.Cool idea! one thing though, i might need a seprate civ for my interventions because i dont think i makes much sense for the demons to be allys to an army of ravaging frostlings, or a tribe of worshipers from the age of ice. But i have no clue how to add a civ!
Frostlings fit in with the barbarians/savages well enough regardless. If appropriate, you can always just use barbarians.
When, if, gods of the same alignment fight, it shouldn't be outright: it should be by counter blessing/curses. Outright fighting should be rare, if ever, and when so it can be done without needed individual civs.
Onionsoilder
Reaver
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,173
I just would like to mention a few things:
1) As Cernunnos, I am opposed to Mammon and greatly angered with him. As Ononsoilder, I quite enjoy Dean's RPing. Though the strawman in and of itself I don't like.
2) Finnegan is important because he is the one that completed the quest I assigned. As a devout worshipper, Thesias is also important to me, but her actions have not yet earned her my blessing.
3) Next round I will probably bless Finnegan in some way to lessen the effects of the curse, without removing it. I will also request for Gerran to reject Mammon's vices, and stick to the path of nature. This will be my second quest. If his actions please me by the next intervention, I will probably reward him with a large quantity of deer and some ancient forests, which of course will boost his economy(he can run specialists with the extra food, skipping commerce completely).
1) As Cernunnos, I am opposed to Mammon and greatly angered with him. As Ononsoilder, I quite enjoy Dean's RPing. Though the strawman in and of itself I don't like.
2) Finnegan is important because he is the one that completed the quest I assigned. As a devout worshipper, Thesias is also important to me, but her actions have not yet earned her my blessing.
3) Next round I will probably bless Finnegan in some way to lessen the effects of the curse, without removing it. I will also request for Gerran to reject Mammon's vices, and stick to the path of nature. This will be my second quest. If his actions please me by the next intervention, I will probably reward him with a large quantity of deer and some ancient forests, which of course will boost his economy(he can run specialists with the extra food, skipping commerce completely).
Dean_the_Young
King
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 811
Mulcarn, for all intents and purposes, is dead as a god. Sure, he 'exists' in the Godslayer, sealed away, but he isn't a god at this point.
Regardless of what they feel for eachother, the gods do, and rightly so, have alliances around their alignments. Junil and Lugus have two entirely contrasting views on justice, but they're firm allies. Fallen gods should be no different.
You can call it what you want. It seems to be the same thing.
We're gods. We just know.
There's nothing against Compact for one god to go to another's realm: one of the gods of good is even welcome in Hell without threat of harm, IIRC. And Mammon invaded Dalin's vault, but caused no violation of Compact.
Just say it, and I'll hear it, and we can act like we're talking.
Reaffirm might be wrong, as it implies we want it as it was.
Rewriting Compact, however, might make an interesting story buildup, especially if the weight given to the gods is reflected by the power balance of Erebus.
Smug? Do I have the tone of a smug God?
It could be interesting. Would this be regular?
It might be interesting as a weekly summary of all interventions. Less a point during which to make new policies/developments (unless desired), but a dramatization of this weeks occurances, both actual interventions and hermetic-lore-thread things.
If you think about it, it might be a good retroactive perspective for our player when he returns on Mondays, since he wouldn't see it in-works over the weekend.
Nice to know, And as Mammon is greedy i can see that god using a strawman arguement. Also it is true about the polar bear i had forgotten that the capturing of the bear was a direct quest.
Does Cernunnos have any views on the elvish war? (Figure i should be prepared for potential backlash
)-
No also i promised Zacman a reason for my understand of Camulos being against him. As the god of Stasis their will be no conflict possible. When the world is frozen people only worry about survival first. Their must be a neccessary amount of luxury or need, of greed for people to try to gain power over the other. Yes it happens in small ways in a ice-world but Camulos likes to topple things when they are big not small.
That above is a reason based on just precepts. there is another idea shaping up that would be why Camulos is against Mulcrum but i'm not sure i should reveal it unless i can get the kind of ending i desire...
Vandal Warlord
Nazgûl
I agree with the ideas posted by Ravus Sol.
As God of Rage my current outlook is this-
Cael is my puppet for a revolt against Gerran (mostly for flavor) He is blind with furry and so my Furries take him under their wing after direct orders to do so. The God of War is appearing to be a great possibility for an ally, while Lugus is looking up to be my immortal foe. I am relatively neutral with the other gods, though the Bannor (warring on religious fervor and not rage) may be an enemy, along with those who oppose the Vampires.
As God of Rage my current outlook is this-
Cael is my puppet for a revolt against Gerran (mostly for flavor) He is blind with furry and so my Furries take him under their wing after direct orders to do so. The God of War is appearing to be a great possibility for an ally, while Lugus is looking up to be my immortal foe. I am relatively neutral with the other gods, though the Bannor (warring on religious fervor and not rage) may be an enemy, along with those who oppose the Vampires.
Dean_the_Young
King
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 811
1) As Mammon, I am amused at Cernunnos illogical defensiveness. As Dean, I am amused at it as well. And it's not a fallacy, it's holding Gerran to his word, whether he intended it or not.
2) I'm not going to bother with making special units. It's funner to work with trends.
Edit: Scratch that. I thought of some very fun things I can do with character creation, things that I doubt any of you would like moving against.
3)Anyone who wishes to interfere with my curse best be prepared for the costs it would entail. In my view, low healing for a bare few units is not a particularly vicious curse by any means.
zacman
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 96
The illians exist, but i dont want to kill them with maintnence cost. And this might sound stupid, but how do i make a new civ?
Dean_the_Young
King
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 811
You can get around the maintenence costs with the free-unit promotion. (I think that's still in base FFH.) You can use that for 'Illian" units that should be with the Illians, but stationary for story purposes. Otherwise, you can use the barbarian faction for the 'wild' interventions that should be penalty-less kill fests.
It's not a stupid question at all: or at least, I don't know how to even just change a single tile. Ask Thomas how he made his civ.
Diamondeye
So Happy I Could Die
His name is MULCARN
So he has no Base of power or the neccesary divine prescense in the world for the other Gods to know that he is there? (just clarifing)
Hmmm this may change how i need to play Camulos then. So the basic point is that the lines of Good and Evil exist for a reason. All those on either side are allways one step away from a declared alliance. What about the neutral gods. Do they all count as allied with each other or can they be seen as more independent agents?
So just as bluntly as i can put it. No God has ever backstabbed another of their Alignment. To do so would either make them fall or rise (in their alignment - changin from good-to-evil or evil-to-neatral etc.
We're gods. We just know.
There's nothing against Compact for one god to go to another's realm: one of the gods of good is even welcome in Hell without threat of harm, IIRC. And Mammon invaded Dalin's vault, but caused no violation of Compact.
Just say it, and I'll hear it, and we can act like we're talking.
Neat that clears things up. Basically it is akin to all the Gods having the ability to project their voices to each other. Also we can enter each others vaults but to do so puts us at a disadvantage and into potetial enemy territory. Is this correct? If so i can work something of this.
Indeed i had forgoten that some chafed under the compact, It could be a build towards a re-write. I am unsure on what you mean by the weight though. You mean the Gods importance in the discussion they have?
And sorry i have to say i have allways imagined Mammon with a smug voice. Oe of those one's that implies "i worth more then you" Whenever they speak. (you know the type?). What kind of impression were you trying to give when you interved?
A God interaction narrative would be helpful however it has to please each God in their portayal narrativly. No God is going to want someone else to write words into their mouth that makes them look weak. So you would have to have it double checked by everyone else. I figure it could be done with the new 2-week time slot though, thats why i reckomended it.
-
Vandal: Nice intervention. Your little uprising should leave the victor more properly schooled in the ways of war.
To DiamondEye: Oops sorry i do get the names of Gods wrong sometimes. I normally catch it by re-checking in the main thread.
To Everyone: We seem to have lost Duc, So no more Lugus unless we get a replacement. A bit of a bummer but we didn't have Empreayan (sp?) in play yet or the desert civ (Malakain sp?) so we are not in instant trouble.
Similar threads
