Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!cucard!aecom!eliovson From: eliovson@aecom.UUCP Newsgroups: net.games.frp Subject: Re: Re: PCs vs Gods (reposted) Message-ID: <1144@aecom.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 14:23:19 EST Article-I.D.: aecom.1144 Posted: Mon Feb 11 14:23:19 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 16-Feb-85 05:48:18 EST References: <2400083@uokvax.UUCP> <3429@ucla-cs.ARPA> Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY Lines: 135 > > My objection to this kind of analysis still stands. If you play your > ghods this way, they are no different than very powerful NPCs. Further, > this treatment just begs the question. Who is above the "ghods" in this > kind of scheme? (Since they clearly have no quantum differences from > player characters.) > Why do you think there is material written on divine ascension? Just because you never had a character of divine material doesn't mean someone else could not have- and have been made into a demigod. Further basis for my arguement is from Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light. In this sf-fantasy novel "gods" were those with very developed powers (relating to the Indian mythos). Demigods were underdeveloped talents who were held in store in case the god of the same power died or something. In which case, tons of worshipers were not left forsaken, the demigod became the god. > Consider the kinds of powers normally attributed to gods: > > (1) Creation of the universe. > (2) Creator of the human species and/or other living species. > (3) Omniscient/Omnipresent. > (4) Hears the prayers of all worshippers at all times. > (5) Control over death/the afterlife. > In the Elric saga by Michael Moorcock we see just how these powers are excersised. Even to the extent of destroying the gods of that time itself. In this case Chaos became too strong on the primaterial plane and Law had to take the most drastic measures to prevent the utter destruction of the world. In a later Moorcock book, Arioch starts trouble again- infesting the world with tons of denizens from hell to support the cleric who he wants to get the holy grail for him. > There is a consistent factor in these powers - that god has absolute > power over the human domain. His power is without limit as far as men > are concerned. If you accept this principle, then PCs are never going to > kill a Ghod or his Avatar. Ever. It isn't a matter of having more power > than the Ghod, or catching him when he is weak. He has absolute power, and > does what he wants. > As clearly evident in numerous fiction- and in religion today. G-d or gods work within the framework of the nature they or that has been setup. Arioch could only send minions of his to aid his believer/servant. The best example may be the Thomas Covenant Chronicles. How do you explain that?!? Despite was clearly on the level of a deity. Covenant was not. So, by your reasoning Donaldson is going to have to write a 3rd set explaining where he went wrong?.... > You may decide to base your Ghods' powers on their number of worshippers, > their place in the pantheon or something like that. But the moment you > limit their powers they are no longer gods in the traditional sense. > They're just powerful monsters people happen to worship. This is true. So what's your point? > Might as well worship the > toughest NPC wizard for that matter. He can provide the same benefits. I > think you lose something from your game with this approach. > On player sheets you will notice the lines: ________________ or Guild Representative:________________ or such. This is because lower level pc's gain much better chances of survival for working for or licking the high level pc's ROT. > The rub with having truly all-powerful Ghods arises from having more than > one Ghod. What happens when you have a number of all-powerful Ghods > meddling in human affairs? And what happens when they come in conflict with > one another? (An interesting theology question even today. Why doesn't > the Christian God (for instance) simply remove Satan from the scheme of > things?) > They don't meddle because they're running things! You're contradicting yourself. As others have said, that's what they have clerics for. The rarity of intercession is proven by the minute percentile chance you have for them to appear. Satan, known as Lucifer was the most beautiful angel serving G-d at his right hand. Until he wanted to stop serving and be served for a while. For this he was cast down. In the later Moorcock book I meantioned- sorry I don't remember the name- his theme is that Lucifer wants to talk with G-d and repent. To do this he has someone quest the holy grail for him. Without going through the whole story, he speaks to G-d and finds out that he is still serving G-d. Without free-will there is no basis for true worship. On the otherhand, the concept of punishment works wonders to set people on the right path. > The answer, I think, is to have self-imposed restrictions on Ghods. The > ancients who worshipped pantheons weren't unaware of the philosophical > problems, and their usual solution was to give each god a domain over which > he had control by tacit approval of the other gods. That's a good solution, > I think, but you could probably come up with any number of others, the more > bizarre and contradictory the better. Why should we play games then? We have that today. > > To sum up my position: I'm aware that there are interesting ways to play > Ghods that limit their powers and make situations possible where PCs can > battle and defeat the Ghods. I don't think that is the most interesting > manner of play possible - FRP has enough monsters as it is. Building a > mythos without true gods is like a house without windows. Workable, but > lacking. > My position is as follows: In the finale of Zelazny's Dilvish the Damned, Jelerak the ARCHarch wizard attacks the ELDER gods. He manages to burn some god's hands and to hold out for about five minutes before they squash his will. If a pc wants to mess with a god it's up to him. Moshe T. Eliovson Yeshiva University Academic Computer Center 500 W.185th Street, New York, NY 10033 UUCP: ...!philabs!aecom!eliovson in response to: > Scott R. Turner > UCLA Computer Science Department > 3531 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024 > ARPA: srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA > UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt