Deities and Classes Suggestion

[Honora]

After the Sacred Fist discussion, it became apparent that this is not the first time by a long shot that a class has been denied to a specific deity.  While I am not a fan of that, in the spirit of someone else not being stuck with a character they can't progress as they had wished, I suggest a simple "Deity/Class" chart along the same lines of the deity relations chart.

Use the Deity Relation template and replace the deities on the X axis with the classes, denoting which can have what.  This chart could then be posted ahead of the classes section of LORE and would prevent any further unhappiness by spelling out the restrictions.

For example: Az'atta: No classes with more than X% "fighting" feats (fighter, barbarian, battlerager, duelist, assassin, dwarven defender, spellsword, arcane archer, weapon master, monk, sacred fist)

Vorax: No classes with more than X% "casting" feats with bard, cleric and sacred fist the exceptions (sorcerer, driud, wizard, spellsword).

Etc.

Layonara is a mature game, with a population who have been with it for years.  With alts being important to keeping things fresh, this won't be the last time there will be a class/deity conflict.

I am happy to make up the chart if requested.

[SteveMaurer]

Actually, I would go much further, and suggest that the deity bindstones be removed completely.   As it has become increasingly clear from the continued definition of the cosmology, Layonara's Gods have no different expectations of their most distant worshipers than they do their most favored priests and paladins.   And they are more than happy to boot anyone out if they get even a whiff of the idea that they might occasionally sin.   Anything less than strict adherence, even in extremely stressful circumstances, will cause a PC to get their deity field blanked.

( I actually kind of find that fun.  It's more realistic than constant arguments over whether some act is playing one's alignment or not.  A deity lays down their law, and actually has a reason to look to make sure their worshipers are following it. )

Given that character submissions have been held up on the basis of there not being enough explanation for why a Dwarf PC worships Dorand, it seems rather odd to be able to just go walk over to a bindstone and make a mechanical change and declare a faith.   It should probably take a CDQ.

[Dorganath]

Deity bindstones are not tied to any particular deity.  They are just placed within temples for the devout of those deities.  Deities don't have any control over that bindstone, nor any say who binds to it or anything of the sort, nor is anyone restricted (mechanically or otherwise) from binding to one, nor does it affect the person's mechanical deity choice in the slightest.

They're there as an RP choice for characters who wish to return to the "house" of their deity (or one allied/friendly) after being pulled back from death.

[Acacea]

YAILWAP

[/B]

While I agree yeah, if things are going to be blocked then such a list should be provided up front, I think the blocking just occurs a little bit often and seeming kind of on the spot at times. It's not like we have an infinite amount of classes to fit every niche - we're not yet skill-based, after all. Imaginations, even if not considered limitless, vastly exceed the number of copy-paste bioware or D&D snippets of summaries tacked onto a package of feats and skills. Feats and skills that everyone has in some form or another regardless of their class choice, at that.

What prevents, for example, a straight-up Shindy priestess from not using weapons and taking the unarmed combat feats? It would suck, sure, but you could do it. For that matter, you can take the normal cleric feats and be far better at combat! Clerics are a combat class, heh, all classes are in some way combat classes - it is how you choose to play them that changes that. Or are we also monitoring feat choices and stats to make sure they are crippled? You could play a cleric/fighter that weapon specced in a favored weapon, that's pretty martial. At what point are we narrowing too far based on a vague class description pasted by someone long gone?

Some things are a little more obvious - Az'attan clerics shouldn't be taking other martial classes sure (though it doesn't mean they wouldn't be good at it, mechanically, without NEEDing to multiclass... and to be honest I would rather play an Az'attan that has the ABILITY to snap someone's neck and chooses not to because of dogma, than someone for whom the choice is made already due to their incapability) and Voraxians are pretty terrible for casters... although the dwarf I started but never subbed was a banished Voraxian sorc. The sorc class was an unwanted curse in that case and something to be struggled over... the goal in the end was to regain lost honor, return from exile (some bad deeds accidentally with magic), and somehow reconcile the blood, perhaps by only using it to counter.

I actually mapped her all out and had where she was from, the time, the place, the whys and whos and names and levels, but like I usually do, I just left her on my hard drive. It still nags at me that things like that would not be possible if we just said "no Voraxians permitted to have caster levels." Where's the growth?

Likewise, so much emphasis on quoting from LORE on PRCs and the like, as though they were sacred doctrine and not ancient summaries that can be bent and used. Tania, the monk I started forever ago, was for one of her options possibly to go druid, and if someday managing to reconcile her beliefs and purpose, perhaps sacred fist - the requirement is actually just divine casting, not paladin/cleric. I could line up the whys and hows, and mention that the guy who made the class played a druid/monk that was aiming SF, but it's all just kind of whittled down to how someone takes what's written. I was never sure where she was going to go, but when I was simply told, no, druids cannot be sacred fists lore wise, I just kind of thought "meh," and tossed the whole thing - even though it was only one possibility. Just the realization of how easy it is to use red tape and scissors to cut off avenues bugged me.

I know it probably sounds kind of like a purposeless rant... but really, at this stage of NWN... it's all been done, you know? Why shouldn't we encourage imagination that fits within conceptual boundaries instead of take the scissors to what we have left? I find it hard to reconcile the observation of repeated shrinking of options available to players and the fact that we're moving to a more open, skill-based setting. I love that we are, yet it honestly seems opposed to most of what I've seen of decisions in NWN as the sun sets on its time, figuratively speaking - take, snip, cut, block. Maybe now is the time to chill out a bit and rethink, not how malleable dogma is, but rather how malleable classes may be to conform to dogma?

@Steve - the only thing is that if you have your deity in the deity field, you are not a mere distant worshiper in the first place. You're close enough to dogma to have all the mechanical benefits/pitfalls, so if you want a distant worshiper just leave it blank and lip service all you want. I really haven't seen the rampant deity field blanking either, but your mileage may vary I guess heh. They don't have anything in particular to do with their bindstones, either.

Sorry Honora for taking the discussion a step out of what you brought up, and it's not really about your character so much as when are these things decided and based on what, and what else is applicable if so? How much too much and when? Whether your character is approved or not is actually irrelevant to my questions

Please remember when reading that this has nothing to do with in any way altering the dogma of the deities, only our ability to play within the dogma while exploring mechanical alternatives. You cannot make Az'atta an aggressor, nor Aeridin a spoiler - but are there concepts that fit within packages that might have had too many connotations at first glances to work? There really might be. I guess we can't have a rule like "most definitely PROBABLY not accepted but we'll look anyway," but I also guess I just lean more towards open options than bolted doors, heh.

In short - yes, a list would be nice if we are to continue in this pattern.

[lonnarin]

Pffft, if these so called pacifistic gods were so anti-violence, then how come Aeriden sent the Channeler to FIGHT Corath's minion in 1417?  Shouldn't he have sent hugs, kisses and fruitcake instead of a heavy handed enforcer?  But no, this god of ultimate peace sends a warrior to throw down.  Azatta penalizes her followers if they follow her dogma of ultimate forgiveness and raise a maligned follower of an enemy deity.  If the pacifist gods are unwilling to live up to their own lofty ideals, why should the mortals be expected to do so? LORE: The Layonara Timeline

In any case, I oppose any more restrictions than we already have, which is far too many.

[SteveMaurer]

Deity bindstones are not tied to any particular deity.  They are just placed within temples for the devout of those deities.  Deities don't have any control over that bindstone, nor any say who binds to it or anything of the sort, nor is anyone restricted (mechanically or otherwise) from binding to one, nor does it affect the person's mechanical deity choice in the slightest.

They're there as an RP choice for characters who wish to return to the "house" of their deity (or one allied/friendly) after being pulled back from death.

Well that corrects my misinterpretation.  I thought that not only were temple bindstones associated with, well, the god of that temple,  I thought that when you bound yourself to one, there was extra code that filled in the deity field.

I'm not sure why I got that impression.  Probably mininterpreted something someone said via a Tell when I was just getting started around here.

[Asmodean]

One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.

I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.

** closes his eyes and dreams of Corath feeding Aeridin's heart to Az'atta **

[Dorganath]

One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.

I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.

** closes his eyes and dreams of Corath feeding Aeridin's heart to Az'atta **

That's not going to happen, sorry.

[Script Wrecked]

One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.

I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.

*ouch*

[Hellblazer]

Well I agree with the post of Honora. I personally think that even if all the changes that has happened are in the mindset of the MMO, we still live in the present and it could be years before we get into the mmo. These changes affects the player base now. So if there is to be changes, like there has been with the deity and I am happy that they have been made public. The others things that could affect the players gaming enjoyment should be made known up front, like for Honora, What deity will accept what classes. I have myself been caught twice now of having to make a choice of what part of my characters I will sacrifice due to the changes that were made known too late, or not made clear enough. Beside there is also a lot of other things that has made the submissions process a lot more strenuous for some people who were not making "traditional" submissions, because the information that is pertinent for them to know is know on lore and known only by a few.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.

I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.

** closes his eyes and dreams of Corath feeding Aeridin's heart to Az'atta **

Dude, I think you are missing the point of the Pantheon.

While yes this is a game, the Gods are to fill specific and needed roles in the World of Layonara to make it viable and diverse.  Unfortunately, NWN makes some of these Gods hard to play considering the nature of NWN, but the MMO is supposed to make certain things possible to allow these Gods more accessible, but to think that certain Gods should get axed just because they don't gel into the current incarnation is silly...  Disagree with the team all want, but things make sense, regardless of the issues...

[lonnarin]

I don't mind gods dying as long as it's done with a good plot series of events, or new gods being introduced.  I was rooting for Shadison to ascend way back, evil snake gods of plotting and intrigue fill a nice warm fuzzy area of my heart.  Maybe it's my obsession with the Conan comics.  I just like hidden desert temples of cultists sacrificing fair maidens to snake pits.

Hopefully Milara will succeed in his stardust conquest of the heavens.  Another fine megalomanic schemer that would offset Corath's insane ramblings and Pyrtechon's rabid pyromania with some good ol fashioned magical plotting.

[Hellblazer]

Dude, I think you are missing the point of the Pantheon.

While yes this is a game, the Gods are to fill specific and needed roles in the World of Layonara to make it viable and diverse.  Unfortunately, NWN makes some of these Gods hard to play considering the nature of NWN, but the MMO is supposed to make certain things possible to allow these Gods more accessible, but to think that certain Gods should get axed just because they don't gel into the current incarnation is silly...  Disagree with the team all want, but things make sense, regardless of the issues...

While I agree with what you are saying shiff, the problem lays in the fact that we are -not- using the mmo right now and might not be for some time still. That leaves us only with this platform to use and some of the changes renders some of the deitys/class combos or one an other by themselves, useless in this game setting. Unless like I said to someone lately, you are the willing type of playing a char that will never pass level 7 in this game, because 99% of all the npc quest are of the fighting killing, goring, grave robbing type.

I know some people will say they have had their char level up only or mostly on quests or on rp xp, but if you take the fact that a pacific deity friendly char can't go on any type of quest (maybe 1 in a thousand in a blue moon) then all you get is little tid bit of xp. If you're fine with this, and willing to put 5 years or more into only one char, good, but it should be made very clear the limitation a deity like az'atta, aeridin, shindy, and of course all the others, has, for every one else that has expectation of doing something else than bench warming*. It's a tiresome debate probably, but in the end it always come down to the same thing. The personal enjoyment of the player, which is very different for many people.


*this is not directed at anyone at all, it is written in the context of someone sitting on the side lines, watching others run past them.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

Scratch that...  Let me start over...

Guys, the Team is setting up the Pantheon for the MMO, and in reality folks, if you looked at the past versions of the Diety Dogma, not much has changed.  I know because I had this conversation with Ed today, and I went over all the usual questions.

What I have problem with is allowing a Class Description be more important to decision makers then what the Player intends to RP.  And after what some of you have that is what this recent thing with Sacred Fist boils down to.  Because feats and a description say Sacred Fist is too aggressive for certain Gods, Honora has to can a character concept.  Now reconcile it to yourself however you like, but the team has made certain choices.  I don't like it either, but you either guilt Ed into allowing you Sacred Fist, Honora, make a new PC, and be allowed a caveat because you EXPLICITLY mentioned that as a desire that NO ONE warned you about.  Personally?  I think that's what the team should do anyway, but then what trouble could that cause?  Who knows...

Honora, I put up a fight for yah with Ed, but he's the lore boss, and unless Leanthar wants to pull out his Boss Card to let you get away with something this time, I don't think much can be done.

To anyone else unhappy with this turn of events?  Donno what to tell yah.  I like playing here and I'm going to toe that annoying little line between rebel and follower and just leave my disfavor to PMs and private conversations with the Team, if they'll humor me.  If you want to petition Leanthar about it, I'm sure he'd read it, but it's his house, and if we want to be allowed to sit at his table we need to play by the rules (even if we don't like it) or go next door to play elsewhere.

OR!  If you want your sacred Fist, play a Toranite or a Voraxian, or someone else!  Play a Grannoch Cleric who wants to pummel the puny humans and elves to dust with his fists...  I'm sure you can get away with that...

[Dorganath]

Well I agree with the post of Honora. I personally think that even if all the changes that has happened are in the mindset of the MMO, we still live in the present and it could be years before we get into the mmo. These changes affects the player base now. So if there is to be changes, like there has been with the deity and I am happy that they have been made public. The others things that could affect the players gaming enjoyment should be made known up front, like for Honora, What deity will accept what classes. I have myself been caught twice now of having to make a choice of what part of my characters I will sacrifice due to the changes that were made known too late, or not made clear enough. Beside there is also a lot of other things that has made the submissions process a lot more strenuous for some people who were not making "traditional" submissions, because the information that is pertinent for them to know is know on lore and known only by a few.

At the same time, the perennial complaint is that we have "too many rules."

It can't go both ways.  We handle so many things on a case-by case basis because if we were to spend the hundreds of hours (yes, really) to go through every possibility, every nuance, every combination people could come up with, it would be huge, unwieldy and let's face it...no one would read it.  People don't read what we have now.

I have full sympathy on people who have their hopes impacted by these things.  Some of these instances could be avoided with a little reading.  Some would not.  I am not saying that is the case with Honora's character, and I am unsure how best to make it work out.  

Completely separately from the original post, there's one comment I want to make:

These so-called "unplayable, pacifist deities" are not for everyone. Yes, they're interesting, but like a special subrace or using INT as your dump stat or any other number of character decisions, choosing one of these deities, especially as a cleric, comes with its benefits and burdens.  Toranites don't go around eating babies.  Shadonites don't go apologizing for pranks or giving notice ahead of time so that their victims are prepared.  Rofireinites don't typically rob banks.

It all begs the question (and this is not directed at Honora or Hellblazer in specific but anyone reading this):  

What do people want from Layonara?  Do you want the quests? Do you want the GM involvement? Do you want the enhancements to RP and mechanics that come from having a quirky and diverse Pantheon? Or do you just want us to let you do your thing, put whatever you want on, in and near your character without consequence or requirement and just beat things up all day long, however little sense it makes to do so?  Do you want the living, breathing world or do you want a gladiatorial arena where you are the champion....Aeridin's slayer of the wicked...Az'atta's redemption by steel?

I am really and truly interested in your answers, and please do not insult me by just telling me what you think I want to hear.

We offer lots of choices here.  Not all choices are for everyone.  Want to play an Az'attan? Great!  But a bashy Az'attan? Not so much.  Does that make Az'attans unplayable? For some it does, but it can be done.  You will progress slower. You will be more of an RP character than a quick-advancing adventuring one, but it is possible, and it is also not a good fit for everyone.

[Dorganath]

One can only hope that these revised dogma's will lead to a much needed thinning of the pantheon for the MMO.

I look forward to the deaths of quite a number of redundant and worthless deities.

** closes his eyes and dreams of Corath feeding Aeridin's heart to Az'atta **

And upon further thought, this whole sentiment is horribly disrespectful to those people who actually spent their free time fleshing out these deities, the dogmas and how everything fits together and why, only to be trivialized by calling them "worthless".

Perhaps they are not your preference or they do not fit your play style, but they are anything but "redundant and worthless."

[Rowana]

.... good, but it should be made very clear the limitation a deity like az'atta, aeridin, shindy, and of course all the others...

POINT OF CLARITY! Contrary to popular opinion, whether recent or otherwise...

Shindaleria is not a pacifist goddess. In fact she calls to people to defend her oceans. The issue made was not about combat or not to combat it was about METHOD. Shindy does not wish to reward her priests for focusing on self betterment through combat. She wants her people to make better the oceans and her children.

It's a dogma issue yes. It's not a "combat" issue.

Carry on..!

[Hellblazer]

Thanks, although it sounded very much about the fact that sacred fist were clearly more combative in nature (the essence of their training and feats) that what would be accepted, in my perception of if. Thanks for the clarification. But my point was a general statement for all those deities that have some irks toward a specific class (and what not) and what is presently known by the player base.

[Asmodean]

And upon further thought, this whole sentiment is horribly disrespectful to those people who actually spent their free time fleshing out these deities, the dogmas and how everything fits together and why, only to be trivialized by calling them "worthless".

Perhaps they are not your preference or they do not fit your play style, but they are anything but "redundant and worthless."

Before this gets out of hand... I apologize for throwing the nature of this thread off course.  

I realize quite a number of folks have spent some time working on the pantheon.  It was not my intent in my post to marginalize nor completely disregard their contributions or efforts.  As little is known to the workings of the pantheon ("the why") by the masses (the community).....   I was merely projecting my hope that the pantheon... for future and given past RP reasons... would be "trimmed".

I still believe many "dogma's" could be combined...  in addition.. some could very well be split.

[Honora]

But to my original point:

For the NWN Layonara, there are CLEARLY some classes that are not allowed for some deities.  "Flexible" is moot.  Some classes are not allowed for some deities due to percentage of martial feats or whatever.  THIS IS FACT.

Why not specify this?  If not in a chart (which I felt was something that could be done quickly since it already exists for another reason), then in the class descriptions as a separate line item.

Yes, Layo does have too many rules.  We have gotten away from the Layo that I first started playing, sadly.  But my point is that if experienced players who are close to the source material do not see what is "obvious" to the character approvers, then clarification is needed.

I am simply trying to offer a solution to a problem, including putting time into it if required, rather than venting my spleen on a public forum.