Go
back to previous topic |
Forum Name |
Gameplay | Topic subject | Do we need Spheres anymore (If ever?) | Topic
URL | https://forums.carrionfields.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=28754 |
28754, Do we need Spheres anymore (If ever?)
Posted by Stargazer on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Why not just nix the spheres all together. IMO they limit not only RP but options.
The Imms have laid out their religions, the players can follow them without having to RP some wierd interpretation of spirit or Para-elemental non-sense.
I've always felt they were one of the worst aspects of the game. If dieties were more racially/ nationally or ideologically oriented, I bet their would be some continuity in followers rather than bizzare roles that revovle around explaining ones behavior based on a single word that has been loosly described in a help file.
|
28821, RE: Do we need Spheres anymore (If ever?)
Posted by asylumius on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I do like that when used properly, spheres can provide a religion with a lot of structure and depth. That said, it's often not the case. Like some other folks have pointed out, spheres also ruin some religions. Too many religions seem forced or clunky because it was clear that they were approached with the understanding that their creator needed to pick 2-4 of X spheres and make them work, somehow. Literally dozens of religions have come and gone, yet no new spheres have ever really been added. Likewise, many spheres simply rarely (or never) get used. Likewise, I think sometimes Immortals pick a sphere for inclusion and end up using way too abstractly for any good. It's great to let people take the religion in their own direction, within reason, but when a sphere seems so forced, it sort of defeats the purpose of what I thought a sphere was.
I've read Immortals write in the past that spheres are supposed to be an essentially immutable, core aspect or attribute on a characters life and development. When I interact with people though, nine times out of ten, I'd be hard-####ing-pressed to guess their sphere, even after a little dialog. Similarly, I've met plenty of empowered and even tattooed characters who, while they may be able to recite the verses and preach the word, don't seem to express their sphere very well or at all through their actions.
Spheres were invented long very the role command was around. Back then, I would imagine one of the goals of spheres was to help make characters and their backgrounds, motivations, beliefs, etc. easier to ballpark, and to give people a very basic starting point, etc. Today we have roles to tell us (well, Imms) what a person believes, why they believe it, and to hold them accountable to, where as years ago you basically just had to make sure you kinda sorta role-played your sphere.
All that said, I really dig all the philosophy and depth in the spheres. The way they play into the religion system, the universe, magic, etc. is all very cool. I've always though of spheres as the glue that holds the universe together in Thera, as they sort of connect everything together and describe how things are related. This doesn't seem to be expressed well IC though. You don't see many priests, scholars, etc. talking about the spheres IC very often, aside from connecting X, Y, and Z in the way Immortal A wants to they'll type out the tattoo command.
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree that in “Today's CF”, spheres don't really accomplish a lot.
|
28785, I don't like them
Posted by Daurwyn2 on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
They are restrictive in terms of religion.
The other, most important issue imho, is that "sphere's" in theory influence how things turn out for your character.
In practice, they don't. Generally you are getting influenced by events that are not influenced by spheres (or at least, not so much YOUR sphere).
|
28784, They weren't needed in first place
Posted by Dwoggurd on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Honestly
|
28770, RE: Do we need Spheres anymore (If ever?)
Posted by Splntrd on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I like the element of spheres as akin to astrological signs; that they are mystical elements inherent to the construction of Thera. I also like the idea of the Gods of Thera deriving their powers from spheres in some way. However, I agree that the way this idea has manifested, in religions focused entirely on the spheres, seems somewhat contrived.
It'd be more interesting to have Gods that align themselves with Races/Alignments/Ethos/Cabals/Nationalities/Etcetera, and then allow spheres to simply become part of the flavor of those religions. Like, Athena was the Goddess of Wisdom, War, and Justice, but equally she was also the patron deity of Athens, and the people of Athens worshiped her. I feel like this is a dimension that could be added to Theran religions. Also, it would make city choice somewhat more important.
Like, for example, if Galadon is Qualedus, Marcatis, and Zulghinlour cult territory, and you're a Baerinika follower, you might want to explain why you don't live in Voralian City, where the Baer Faction reigns supreme. You could also put altars to patron Gods in each city that would function like mini-shrines to the city's patron deities.
The foundations for this already exist in some racial/city histories; like Twist would have no sway over Akan or Blackclaw, or interest in their inhabitants. Of course, city altars would have to be updated as new Immortal deities gain or lose power over cities, either through staff members leaving or through immortal run, storyline-driven quests.
|
28778, I like that idea!
Posted by Rodriguez on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Spheres where always something I had a problem with, always feels like something you somehow had to work into your role even if it didn't really fit. Moving religions away from the spheres a little and push them more towards location based might be interesting.
|
28781, RE: Do we need Spheres anymore (If ever?)
Posted by wjd on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I feel the same way, though I don't now if spheres should be totally dissolved. It was always my impression that spheres should categorize and govern the deities, not the worshipers.
It also seems to steer a character to a more bland one-dimensionality (i guess different way of saying 'contrived'), in order to emphasize your choice of sphere despite a natural characters complexities.
I second the idea of city patron deities.
|
28782, RE: Do we need Spheres anymore (If ever?)
Posted by Splntrd on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Yeah, I figure the sphere system really wouldn't change much. You'd pick a sphere at character creation just like you do now; what would change would be the focus/entry points of the religions.
|
28756, RE: Do we need Spheres anymore (If ever?)
Posted by Isildur on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
I kind of agree with this. If you read some of the help files for the religions, it really seems like they chose the spheres ahead of time and were like, "Okay, I need to work {x}, {y} and {z} into my religion...how can I do that?"
|
28783, RE: Do we need Spheres anymore (If ever?)
Posted by Isildur on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Let me modify this:
I think spheres are still kind of a good idea, from the point of characters picking them and having that be the over-arching theme of their role-play.
What I might change is the hard-coded association of certain spheres with certain religions.
Instead, just describe the religion, and make it clear followers need to have some RP justification for how their chosen sphere meshes with the particular religion. If the imm doesn't buy the explanation, then don't empower/tattoo/interact with the would-be follower.
|
28786, Why lock a character into a single dimension?
Posted by Stargazer on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
>>>I think spheres are still kind of a good idea, from the point of characters picking them and having that be the over-arching theme of their role-play<<<
They're more restrictive than the 12 signs of the zodiac. I just ignore mine.
|
28822, RE: Why lock a character into a single dimension?
Posted by Splntrd on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
What about spheres is restrictive?
You can tie them as closely or loosely to your role as you like.
|
28846, RE: Why lock a character into a single dimension?
Posted by Stargazer on Wed 31-Dec-69 07:00 PM
Which sort of makes my point. If they are so intangible why bother?
| |