[dungeoncrawl] Re: Tuesday morning review
- From: jimkaren@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:56:19 US/Eastern
No, I'm right there with you!
Definitely go the "stats for avatars
only" route. I think gods with ability
scores are hokey, and should be told
that they can't play reindeer games
with our more 2nd edition-like gods.
Also, Shawn may have a point there -
let's decide on what the campaign world
will be and then define the Gods. You
know - will it just be the Realms all
over again? Primordial? Totally
different?
>
> I like the avatar route better
than the stats for deities route.
Again,
> everyone else would have to vote. It
works better for me, but I got the
> distinct feeling last night that the
others disagreed.
>
>
> widderslainte wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dungeoncrawl-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:dungeoncrawl-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > > Johnathan Detrick
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002
14:49
> > > To: dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [dungeoncrawl] Re:
Tuesday morning review
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Forgotten Realms pantheon
may be a cluster&^%$ (or
> > > was it cluster$%^&?), but it is
interesting. In my opinion,
> > > that's what's most important.
But I agree that gods with
> > > stats aren't always the way to
go. I normally hate them. But
> > > it might just be appropriate in
this case.
> >
> > The Forgotten Realms has parts of 9
or 10 pantheons that overlap with
> > varying degrees of clarity. The
Greyhawk pantheons make a bit more
> > sense, but you wouldn't know if
from looking at the players handbook.
> >
> > Everyone creating a wacky avatar or
two (with stats) for each god would
> > be cool. You could make a whole
new game by giving each character-god
> > some powers and let them fight over
(and distribute powers to) potential
> > adherents in exchange for worship.
Then you could end of with a couple
> > competing pantheons.
>
>
>
Other related posts:
