it has been your 888th post
damn,... soi many cool numbers and nothing happens?!(ok, i`ll stop spamming, but i think we can granulate
D) Kael to getting a thread that has it`s own subforums to 4000 posts )
[MOD] Fall from Heaven II
- Thread starter Kael
- Start date
it has been your 888th post
damn,... soi many cool numbers and nothing happens?!(ok, i`ll stop spamming, but i think we can granulate
D) Kael to getting a thread that has it`s own subforums to 4000 posts )
AlazkanAssassin
Engineer
Can you show me where it says that Nature was ever good? My interpritation was that Nature has always been neutral, but Sucellus became good when he got Life.
Why should the Runes get Good when Leave don't? Mostly for design reasons I would suppose. But if you need an explanation I would say:
The moral standing of the religion is not so much about the Angel it worships, as to how it effects the moral descisions made by its worshipers. A religion based on Nature has to acnowledge the fact that both Life and Death are important parts of existance. People who belive this can't take moral stands one way or another on such issues, thus tollerate those who do either. This means that those who follow Nature can be neutral, good or evil, because all attributes are important.
The followers of the Runes however, are not steeped in such 'balance' ideas. They worship Earth, this does not require them to allow those who follow 'evil' ways, because they don't see a need for it. The people here tend to realize that eveyone does better if other people live in 'good' ways, because they do not come into conflict with each other as much. Thus 'goodness' is encouraged. Also, 'Good' people tend to like to exclude or change those who do not agree with them about the goodness of being 'Good'. Thus they will eliminate or sideline (jail) any 'Evil' people who happen to be disrupting them.
Why should the Runes get Good when Leave don't? Mostly for design reasons I would suppose. But if you need an explanation I would say:
The moral standing of the religion is not so much about the Angel it worships, as to how it effects the moral descisions made by its worshipers. A religion based on Nature has to acnowledge the fact that both Life and Death are important parts of existance. People who belive this can't take moral stands one way or another on such issues, thus tollerate those who do either. This means that those who follow Nature can be neutral, good or evil, because all attributes are important.
The followers of the Runes however, are not steeped in such 'balance' ideas. They worship Earth, this does not require them to allow those who follow 'evil' ways, because they don't see a need for it. The people here tend to realize that eveyone does better if other people live in 'good' ways, because they do not come into conflict with each other as much. Thus 'goodness' is encouraged. Also, 'Good' people tend to like to exclude or change those who do not agree with them about the goodness of being 'Good'. Thus they will eliminate or sideline (jail) any 'Evil' people who happen to be disrupting them.
loki1232
Loki
THe first post gives the list of angels at the beginning:
Also, I'll raise the old point of which leaders from each race with the religious connection are good or evil.
Dwarves have two good and two neutral
Elves have one good, two neutral, and one evil.
There is a difference.
Also, I would agrue that the idea of a god granting riches from the earth is a much "gooder" one than nature.
I would agree however that now Runes and Fellowship have too many design elements to change thier alignemnts.
Also, I'll raise the old point of which leaders from each race with the religious connection are good or evil.
Dwarves have two good and two neutral
Elves have one good, two neutral, and one evil.
There is a difference.
Also, I would agrue that the idea of a god granting riches from the earth is a much "gooder" one than nature.
AlazkanAssassin
Engineer
That can't be the Angels at the begining, as Sucellus wasn't yet life, and Cernunnos wasn't even a major Angel yet.
From the "Design: Religions" thread:
From the "Design: Religions" thread:
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
The history document states nowhere directly that Sucellus was good before his change. (To Loki: that list of Gods is the situation after all history mentioned in the document has already happened). However it does state that "Dagda commanded the fighting to stop. With the aid of Arawn, Kilmorph and Oghma he threatened to fight against whoever acted aggressively in the conflict." No mentioning of Sucellus, so one can presume he must be Good then. Also, each Evil god was assigned a Good counterpart should one break the Compact. Bhall was the counterpart for Mulcarn. Sucellus jumped in for her, which again doesn't necessarily mean Sucellus is Good, but does make the odds of it higher than him being Neutral.
Yes but my point is that for design reasons Leaves might just as well have been the neutral-good religion instead of Runes, while for roleplay reasons Leaves has a better case.
The fact that you acknowledge the existence and need for a cycle of Life and Death in Nature does not mean you care either way if everyone lives or dies. Even though it's only temporary for the individuals, you still want there to be Life in the system as a whole, which will continue in another form through the cycle which includes Death. Which puts Nature worshippers closer to the Good side and opposed to Demons with their Undead "unnatural" creations, and who don't care about Life or the cycle at all.
But neither do they need to care about the Good ways. Which makes me think Runes is a better fit for a neutral religion.
AlazkanAssassin
Engineer
Tali and Danalin aren't listed there either, were they not neutral?
Actually, I think that Leaves have a better roleplaying case for being the accept-all neutrals then Runes do. And that Runes have a better case for being semi-good. but this is justy based on our individual biases of the two ideas
By allowing worsphipers to follow good, but not evil, they would be disrupting the balance of nature that they hold so dearly to.
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
Danalin is sleeping. He doesn't count. I'm wondering why Tali wasn't mentioned myself too.
You probably see Life as Good and Death as Evil, meaning the combination of that is Neutral. I see Life and Death as Neutral parts of the greater Lifecycle, which is Good in living being's eyes, as opposed to "lack of Lifecycle", which is Evil. As Natureworshippers are not Arawnian Life-worshippers or Death-worshippers, but Lifecycle-worshippers, they are closer to Good. And worshipping the Lifecycle is not disrupting the balance of nature.
If your view was correct, Arawn should have become Evil after he gave up the Life aspect.
In other news, I just gained a few beakers in my research of the Theology tech.
AlazkanAssassin
Engineer
You are correct, I see Life as Good and Death as Evil. Man was not created to die, but to live.
The question for application of this to FfH is: Did people die before Agares fell?
If they did, then death is Good, for it was intended by the One True Creator
If they did not, then Death is Evil, for its source is one of Evil.
AlazkanAssassin
Engineer
I just wanted to note that out of 221,424 total posts in the creation and customization forums, at least 24% of them are about Fall from Heaven.
43,790 in the development sub forum, 4007 about FfH2, and 5960 about FfH1
That comes out to 6.2% of all posts about Civ 4 on this forum. (out of 867,910 total posts)
43,790 in the development sub forum, 4007 about FfH2, and 5960 about FfH1
That comes out to 6.2% of all posts about Civ 4 on this forum. (out of 867,910 total posts)
Ok, so I think I'm having a problem here...
I set up a game where I was the Elohim, and the AI was Sabathiel (Bannor), Os-Gabella (Sheaim), Sheelba (Clan of Embers), and Arturus Thorne (Khazad). It was interesting especially because Sabathiel and I were on one continent and everyone else were on different islands.
Anyway, Sheelba founded AV (after I gave them Way of the Wicked and Knowledge of the Ether [I really wanted to be Basium]), and then I built the Mercurian Gate and took over as Basium. I took my angels and Basium over to Sheelba and declared war first on Sheelba. After two turns of war, somehow peace was forced on me. I tried declaring again, and the very next turn, peace. I tried to declare war on Sheelba AND Hyborem at that point, and the next turn, again, peace. Even when Arturus asked me to join him in a war and I joined it, I was forced to be at peace again. Throughout all of this, the Elohim still had Corlindale (he was never actually sacrificed).
Any thoughts about this?
I set up a game where I was the Elohim, and the AI was Sabathiel (Bannor), Os-Gabella (Sheaim), Sheelba (Clan of Embers), and Arturus Thorne (Khazad). It was interesting especially because Sabathiel and I were on one continent and everyone else were on different islands.
Anyway, Sheelba founded AV (after I gave them Way of the Wicked and Knowledge of the Ether [I really wanted to be Basium]), and then I built the Mercurian Gate and took over as Basium. I took my angels and Basium over to Sheelba and declared war first on Sheelba. After two turns of war, somehow peace was forced on me. I tried declaring again, and the very next turn, peace. I tried to declare war on Sheelba AND Hyborem at that point, and the next turn, again, peace. Even when Arturus asked me to join him in a war and I joined it, I was forced to be at peace again. Throughout all of this, the Elohim still had Corlindale (he was never actually sacrificed).
Any thoughts about this?
loki1232
Loki
Hmm. Maybe Corlindale's peace ability is broken? ie it ends all wars and he doesn't die.
Kael
Deity
You guys are right, Corlindale's ability was broken. He isn't sacrificing himself or halving the armageddon counter. It will be fixed in the next version.
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
Hmm, the history document states that there were seven Neutrality Angels tasked with maintaining the functions of creations besides man. Which implies Sucellus would have been Neutral. Then again, the document also states there were 21 Angels in the beginning, which can't be right if Arawn was Angel of both Life and Death, and Sucellus of Nature, meaning Cernunnos wasn't a major Angel yet. So I guess the history document has some logical inconsistencies, meaning it can't be used as an end-all reference.
Arawn has always been Angel of Death, so I guess so.
Anyway, if the Fellowship were a true neutral cult which sees Life and Death as equal aspects which must both be worshipped lest the balance of nature be disturbed. They should basically have a complete non-interference and "I don't care at all what happens" attitude. Eg not care if lots of forests burn down, lots of people die etc. In err "reality" however, they care a lot about maintaining forests. Their priests have a strong connection to Life mana (both sorcery and divine) but not Death mana. And the Leaves civics and Temple increase health. So they're definitely trying to sustain and create more Life, and bring the balance of nature on a higher level. More Life or Lifecycle => Good.
Arawn has always been Angel of Death, so I guess so.
Anyway, if the Fellowship were a true neutral cult which sees Life and Death as equal aspects which must both be worshipped lest the balance of nature be disturbed. They should basically have a complete non-interference and "I don't care at all what happens" attitude. Eg not care if lots of forests burn down, lots of people die etc. In err "reality" however, they care a lot about maintaining forests. Their priests have a strong connection to Life mana (both sorcery and divine) but not Death mana. And the Leaves civics and Temple increase health. So they're definitely trying to sustain and create more Life, and bring the balance of nature on a higher level. More Life or Lifecycle => Good.
Gaah, cant keep up with you guys, where is this mythology written down?
Also 2 quick questions:
1. why doesn't govannon have hero, is he considered too powerful already?(the abillity to get an extra 50 or so skeletons with empower 5 and 3 move is pretty awesome)
2. how do you quote someone with the "originally posted by ..." link
Also 2 quick questions:
1. why doesn't govannon have hero, is he considered too powerful already?(the abillity to get an extra 50 or so skeletons with empower 5 and 3 move is pretty awesome)
2. how do you quote someone with the "originally posted by ..." link
Lucius Sulla
Gens Cornelia
The Corlindale thing has kept me thinking... would it be a way to cheat through the sacrificing thing?
If he got the immortality promotion from the Blood of the Phoenix ritual, or if he would be ressurected by an archmage with Life III (by the way, does this means you *delete* the mana ressource, or only that you have to rebuild it again?), would you get a brand new Corlindale, ready to half the armageddon count yet again?
If he got the immortality promotion from the Blood of the Phoenix ritual, or if he would be ressurected by an archmage with Life III (by the way, does this means you *delete* the mana ressource, or only that you have to rebuild it again?), would you get a brand new Corlindale, ready to half the armageddon count yet again?
Is that so? If so, I'd second above post!
I hear ya man. Just heard the mod has over 2o% of the 'Civ fanatic base. Be surprised if it wasn't more like they padded this place with 20%, along with a whole new type of player. Its like nothing Civ. Your actually getting two completly different games for the price of one now.
pritty much ya, but I woudn't take my word for it
OK Here I can respond.
Spoiler :
most of it is written down in the first post of this thread under "World history (of Erebus that is
)" and the rest is scattered over the Pedia (I think), or came up in a discussion/question over in the FfH II subforum
Kael
Deity
Yeah, I should correct the list from the Age of Angels to show the angels during that Age. As you mentioned thats a final list of where they are during the Age of Rebirth.
The aspects of alignment aren't what most D&D players would suspect at for the angels. The following paragrah from the history tries to explain it:
So the line between Good and Neutral is very thin, its just a distinction that men make. The more dramatic difference is with the Evil gods, they have corrupted their origional intent. For example Camulos was the angel of peace, but since he fell peace has been lost by creation and he is now the angel of chaos.
Its not that the Neutral gods don't care about men, they are just more concerned about other aspects of creation than the things that crawl across it.
Worship of Kilmorph (Runes), Cernunnos (Fellowship) and Danalin (Overlords) all worship neutral gods. Of course Overlords is a special case so we know why that is a bit darker than normal. I oculd have picked another religion to bring in other than Kilmorph but since I knew the Khazad wouldn't have mages I wanted them to have a religion that really matched their flavor since they would be relying on their priests more than other religions.
The decision to have them be the good/neutral religion instead of the fellowship could have gone either way. I guess I just liked the fellowship allowing all alignments. I can imagine (and in fact there were in the D&D game) worshippers of Cernunnos that were good, neutral and evil and focused on those aspects of nature. But I couldn't imagine Kilmorph really having a substantial evil population worshipping her.
