I'm not in a position to post on the announcement forum for now, and I'd like this open for free discussion, so posting this here.

I have just launched a new but experimental approach to religion/empowerment in Thera called creeds.

Creeds are organized or not-so-organized approaches to religion that may or may not be linked to individual immortals. The individual immortal-run religions with tattoos remain unchanged, but creeds will allow empowerment classes to approach their roles in a more generalized manner than has been traditionally available. (Creeds can also be embraced by non-empowerment classes, but obviously the only practical impact is for empowerment classes.)

For now, there is only one creed. Additional creeds may be added if this approach is well-received by both players and staff. I've chosen a nature-based creed because as the only currently active formal nature-based imm, I am committing to handle the fallout if it fails. Good and evil creed concepts are already in the works if reception is favorable.

Creed Empowerment FAQ
(or probably more accurately-called the "PAQ" - Pre-Anticipated Questions]

Q: Why are you doing this?

A: It has always been my feeling that empowerment can too restrictive and/or onerous. This has gotten worse with time. Originally, the active pantheon offered a spread of generalized religion concepts that fit virtually any archetype a player might want to play. As time has progressed, religions have grown increasingly niche, and immortal play times have grown more sporadic due to changes that come with older age and life. The result is a majority of mortal priests following a few niche religions, and a lot of players avoiding playing empowerment classes altogether.

Q: So I don't need an immortal anymore for empowerment?

A: You DO still need an immortal for empowerment, just not a *specific* immortal, and the immortal who chooses to empower a pagan will likely do so in another guise, such as an NPC, dream, or disembodied nature spirit, unless they happen to be a pagan-affiliated
deity.

Q: Wasn't this approach to empowerment/religion *always* available?

A: Technically, yes, but the burden of creating a religion concept was completely on the player, and immortals were reluctant to take on such empowerment cases unless the player was extraordinarily persistent or an extraordinarily good roleplayer.

This method provides an in-game RP framework for diverse religion approaches, with documented RP guidelines for both players and staff. All imms capable of empowerment are encouraged to participate.

Q: Why is this option only for Nature-focused roles? I want a to worship a demon/angel/saint!

A: The Greenways/Paganism is an experiment in this empowerment model. At this time, I do not know how it will be received by the players, or what kind of participation rate we will get from the staff. Paganism was the natural (no pun intended) choice, as currently the only active immortal covering that kind of role is me, and I don't always do a good job of covering it. If it fails, I'm prepared to handle the fallout.

Q: This sucks! Why can't we just keep the old empowerment method! I liked it!

A: Immortal religions with tattoos remain unchanged. If you still wish to pursue that path to empowerment, you are encouraged to do so. On the other hand, if you choose to follow an immortal like me, and I'm sleeping on the job, you now have an officially sanctioned path to empowerment that doesn't require me logging on. (Do note that immortals are completely free to demand that their followers follow them independent of a creed, if they choose.)

Q: Well, this seems awesome! Why would I ever choose to follow an immortal?

A: Some immortals - at their own descretion - may require direct empowerment from them. Also, choosing a role not linked to the worship of an immortal may completely eliminate the possibility of earning a tattoo.

Also, when choosing an empowerment relationship with a specific immortal, that immortal becomes your advocate, and you pretty much become hands-off for unempowerment except for at the hands of that immortal (barring any extreme RP violations.) If you choose creed-based empowerment, you do not necessarily have such an advocate, and any perceived role violation might result in unempowerment by any imm. If you plan on heavily outside-the-box behavior, you probably still want to seek out an imm advocate.

Q: Is there anything special I need to do to qualify for this empowerment method.

A: Yes. As indicated in the help file, you are required to have one role entry that does nothing but explain your religious beliefs and how they relate to the creed of choice. (For now, with the Greenways/Paganism being the only choice.) You must choose one of the approved spheres for that creed. (The list is quite extensive.)

This role entry will be used to assess your behavior for empowerment evaulation for the duration of your character's life.

You must also choose a sacred place of prayer appropriate to your creed.


This is an experiment, so questions, comments, and concerns welcome.

It seems to me that the reason something like this has become necessary is that the concept of "empowerment is by sphere, tattoo is by religion" has been blurred &/or erased completely.

Of the three empoweree interviews I've had of late (with three different imms) , I felt like I was being required to have a grasp on the immortals beliefs and follow their entire religion rather than have a meaningful take on the sphere.

I found that idea (empowerment by sphere, tattoo by religion) to be problematic from the start. The whole idea of empowerment was to have priests actually roleplay as clergymen, instead of just mages of a different kind (which is literally what they were pre-empowerment.) So if they are clergymen, they represent something resembling a religion. And if I, as someone roleplaying an immortal character, am going to interact with them and give them power, in order to stay IC I have to feel that this mortal representative somehow represents my interests.

So, priests ICly empowered by me all represent Amaranthe's interests to some degree or another. They may not ever be fully initiated into being a "chosen one" (tattooed), but they still represent my interests.

As an example; I once had a sphere fertility druid - a human described as having horns - come to me who was roleplaying a minotaur worshipper - whose whole faith was based on the propagation of the superior minotaur species as a form of natural selection. OOCly, I actually thought that was a neat little concept for a Sphere Fertility druid, but since as Amaranthe I deplore minotaurs and think they are an assault on the essence of Fertility, I'm not going to empower that guy. It would make zero sense. The fact that he and I are both sphere fertility is irrelevant. His roleplaying was so anathema to Amaranthe's religion that to stay IC, I basically had to completely wig out and smite him and kick him from my shrine when he starts talking to the Maiden about his premise.

That guy ended up just deleting, but there's an example of what would make a perfect Pagan.

The "empowerment is not the same as tattooing" holds true still in that, if I empower you, it doesn't mean you are a shoe-in as one of my tattooed Chosen Ones. But I'm not going to empower a same-sphere person as my imm persona unless I have an IC reason to do so.

Did that guy want actual Amaranthe empowerment or just fertility empowerment? Because if he was there praying for you personally, then ok, that's his problem. But if he were there praying for some power of fertility, or at least specifically said not you but you are fertility personified, then maybe you made a mistake.

Either way I think you made a mistake as a general imm on the staff by not doing something five minutes later, such as sending a dream or echo which would make it clear that Amaranthe would never empower a minotaur but that perhaps if he prayed for the powers of fertility or however you want to call it, then you could switch into an appropriate mob, or just send tells from a source you create, and let him go through empowerment that way. Which is after all what the helpfile about empowerment says, no?

In the end, he probably made the mistake of thinking he needed empowerment from you. But, after kicking him around as "Amaranthe", you made the bigger mistake of not helping him as a high ranking member of the game staff. You should have followed up with him to let him know how to proceed to get empowered through his sphere and not through a direct imm such as yourself.

Well, I don't know how you can say it was a "mistake" as if that is an objective determination. We're talking about roleplaying, which is by its very nature, subjective.

In my subjective determination, roleplaying choices should have repercussions on a character. If you walk into Amaranthe's shrine and approach the Maiden and start talking about helping minotaurs rape all the maidens, then there's going to be a repercussion for that; and a repercussion that doesn't involve me as a player 5 minutes later stepping in and going "Just kidding. It's all good" even if I OOCly think the concept is still viable. I probably would have approached him at some point if he found a RP prayer avenue that I didn't find so contradictory, but I wasn't going to step in and say "Oh, by the way, here's your empowerment path." That would be akin to me stepping in and throwing a restore at someone who was still limping away from a fight where they made some bad choices.

The "praying for 'some' power" of fertility would have been the viable approach, IMO, but it is something that has been extraordinarily vague, and most players have no idea where to start other than showing up at the shrine of an immortal who is supposed to oversee their sphere, even if their take on a sphere is entirely ill-fitting for the immortal they are seeking. Similarly, their religious beliefs (not their concept for behavior, but their *religious* beliefs) are usually ill-defined, or even if they are defined, they have to explain them to everyone they meet. And if you are taking a position in a sphere contrary to the imm's religion and persona, why is that imm any more qualified to deal with you than any other random imm?

The idea of a Creed was to get imms and players on the same page regarding empowerment not linked to a particular religion, and to not bind up sphere oversight to particular imms (that may not even be active, and really have no greater authority over alternate takes on spheres than any other imm.)

>Well, I don't know how you can say it was a "mistake" as if
>that is an objective determination. We're talking about
>roleplaying, which is by its very nature, subjective.

You misunderstand. The mistake was not in you response as "The Goddess Amaranthe." I said as much. The mistake was not afterward, NOT as Amaranthe, doing something to alert the guy how he can and should approach empowerment. Amaranthe the goddess could always have a hard on to mess with this guy. But you the person behind Amaranthe, the staff member, should want to help the player do what he's supposed to be doing, so he can get that roleplay experience to begin with!

>
>In my subjective determination, roleplaying choices should
>have repercussions on a character. If you walk into
>Amaranthe's shrine and approach the Maiden and start talking
>about helping minotaurs rape all the maidens, then there's
>going to be a repercussion for that; and a repercussion that
>doesn't involve me as a player 5 minutes later stepping in and
>going "Just kidding. It's all good" even if I OOCly think the
>concept is still viable.

Yeah, except that's not what I said. As I wrote above, you as Amaranthe are more than welcome to mess with the guy as you did, and any time after you want and in your judgment makes sense. He got the reprecussions. He got the consequences. Maybe he gets more from "Amaranthe" later in life. But you as wizi staff member, that's the problem. You wouldn't be stepping in as Amaranthe and saying anything of the sort. You'd be stepping in as {insert role relevant creation representing the fertility sphere} and then roleplaying appropriately. Isn't that the whole point? And nobody said the empowerment would then be easy from there. But how is that different from any? It can always be easy or hard.

I probably would have approached him
>at some point if he found a RP prayer avenue that I didn't
>find so contradictory, but I wasn't going to step in and say
>"Oh, by the way, here's your empowerment path." That would be
>akin to me stepping in and throwing a restore at someone who
>was still limping away from a fight where they made some bad
>choices.

Again, you need to separate I as "Amaranthe" from I as "staff member of high rank", and as the later yes, you should have done something to help the player along the right path, rather than the silence. As to why, again, see below.

>
>The "praying for 'some' power" of fertility would have been
>the viable approach, IMO, but it is something that has been
>extraordinarily vague, and most players have no idea where to
>start other than showing up at the shrine of an immortal who
>is supposed to oversee their sphere, even if their take on a
>sphere is entirely ill-fitting for the immortal they are
>seeking.

And whose fault is that? ENTIRELY the staff's. YOU (the game staff) created this system. If it is vague, unclear, ill-fitting, or whatever other adjective you wish to use, then it's only because you and your colleagues have made it that way. The consequences of such a system should fall on you, not the player who is trying to do what the system directs. If, as you say, most players go to an immortal who has control of a sphere, even if they aren't there to follow that immortal's specific religion, then shouldn't you be more, not less equipped to handle these things, from all the experience? Isn't the point of the system that people do NOT need to follow a specific immortal's religion in order to get empowerment, because empowerment is based on spheres? Again, you did exactly the opposite of what the system says you should do. Maybe the helpfiles have changed in the last couple years (obviously creed is new, but general empowerment helpfiles) but I recall them expressly saying you do not need to follow a god's religion to get empowerment, just have a role for your sphere. Seems this person did that. His mistake was coming to Amaranthe for Amaranthe empowerment rather than fertility empowerment, but really it's your job to know the difference and, if necessary, after kicking him around in your Amaranthe role, doing what you need to in order to let him know how to proceed for the sphere-based empowerment as set up by you and the staff!

Similarly, their religious beliefs (not their concept
>for behavior, but their *religious* beliefs) are usually
>ill-defined, or even if they are defined, they have to explain
>them to everyone they meet. And if you are taking a position
>in a sphere contrary to the imm's religion and persona, why is
>that imm any more qualified to deal with you than any other
>random imm?
>

Maybe they aren't, but that's why I said after you kicked him around as Amaranthe you should have used a non-amaranthe persona to kickstart a proper, sphere-based empowerment. As it is, that player is now of the belief that you can't get empowerment by sphere, you have to also follow the god's religion. And that's contrary to everything you (all of you) have said about empowerment. A player is supposed to be able to receive empowerment from a sphere, not a specific god, if they don't want or can't follow a specific god's religion.

>The idea of a Creed was to get imms and players on the same
>page regarding empowerment not linked to a particular
>religion, and to not bind up sphere oversight to particular
>imms (that may not even be active, and really have no greater
>authority over alternate takes on spheres than any other
>imm.)

Ok. Great. But in the situation you described, you made matters worse rather than better. Just a mistake, obviously this all seems more serious than it is. But it's a useful example.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. What you are suggesting to me is as if I observed a player fail to complete a quest objective, I swooped down with an echo immediately to give him the solution.

I feel that having failed the attempt, it was incumbent upon him to find a different approach, and to try again.

Empowerees who are floundering around or who pray/write a note asking for help if they are not sure what the next step is, have generally always gotten help.

Basically, in my opinion, there is an achievement aspect to roleplaying, as well as to questing or combat. Therefore it would be inappropriate for an imm to swoop in and start hand-holding immediately after 1 failed attempt. The ball was in his court.

That said, if he had a new player flag or was clearly floundering with RP, I may have given him some unsolicited guidance. He was articulate and had his head on straight and was capable. He just did an RP rage delete instead of re-evaluating and trying again.

But I don't think any Immortal that has a similar stance should ever complain about an empoweree getting empowered and then deleting shortly afterward.

You make it sound as if he should have known that there were other angles he could have/should have tried. When I've been shut down from empowerment I've never once got the impression that I just needed to find a better angle. Nor would I be willing to double down on my character I probably spend days dreaming up, crafting, ranking, praying, and otherwise enjoying after someone ####s on my idea/take on a religion/sphere in the hopes that there is some other angle out there.

There seems to be some feeling that Imm time (not specifically directed at you Amaranthe) is more valuable than player time, so we should feel privileged to get some and not waste Imm time, but the truth is, my time is more important to me than yours, and that's probably true whichever side of the Imm/Player divide you happen to sit on.

I like you Amaranthe, this isn't an attack, just an opinion.

Like you said, not an attack, just an opinion.

You seem to be coming from a perspective that says when it comes to roleplay the character should always be successful.

He definitely should have known to try a different angle as should you have with your character whose ideas got "####" on. Not being successful is a damn good hint to "try something different."

The immortals have the same obligation to play their roles as we do to play ours.

I get that you had your role and whatever setup, but you don't have to forsake it just because it doesn't end up matching what you thought it would. You have a number of options there. Stick to your guns and drive on, looking for other paths to empowerment. Do a "learn from your mistakes" role and try the approach again with the appropriate tweaks. Do a "man the gods have forsaken me!" role and adjust your roleplay as necessary. Or perhaps a "well #### you then gods, ima kill your followers." Maybe my favorite, go to an opposing god and let them know you'll do anything to strike down XIMMORTAL. So on and so on. It would really be up to your character what step would make sense next.

If you are a fan of roleplay at all, then I think you will find a more rewarding experience from playing in that way across all spectrums as well.

Then again, if you just enjoy fighting, powergaming, etc. then I've likely wasted my breath as those types generally feel they need to do ABCXYZ before they can have fun.

...because, from what I can tell (and Graatch and Amaranthe can tell me I am wrong if I am), this conversation is centered on the Empowerment issue from the immortal standpoint.

Graatch's argument is this "If Immortals created the system and implemented it, why can't they make things work out for the player more often? It's not the player who created the system, they just work within that framework".

And that whole argument was predicated on the fact Amaranthe talked about a "potential" follower who was Sphere Fertility (one of the character Amaranthe's spheres) but yet completely anathema to her religion. Graatch is arguing that while Amaranthe the character is completely within her rights to tell dude to piss off, Amaranthe the game administrator has an obligation to attempt to allow the character to continue.

We are not talking about not getting edge points, empowerment is essential and necessary for priest classes to even be viable.

FWIW I think Graatch is totally in the right here. I think if Amaranthe (or any of the IMMs on) had sent the dude a dream or localecho or gecho that talked about empowering him strictly under a sphere (and thus, no tattoo), you wouldn't have a player delete a character he obviously put a ton of thought and time into.

>...because, from what I can tell (and Graatch and Amaranthe
>can tell me I am wrong if I am), this conversation is centered
>on the Empowerment issue from the immortal standpoint.

I wasn't attempting to weigh in on the Graatch v Amaranthe. They both have good points. I'd lean in favor of Amaranthe as I prefer players be pushed towards self-motivated innovation rather than be immortal-dependnt.

>And that whole argument was predicated on the fact Amaranthe
>talked about a "potential" follower who was Sphere Fertility
> one of the character Amaranthe's spheres) but yet completely
>anathema to her religion. Graatch is arguing that while
>Amaranthe the character is completely within her rights to
>tell dude to piss off, Amaranthe the game administrator has an
>obligation to attempt to allow the character to continue.

I don't believe she does have an obligation to do so. As Amaranthe admitted this was not a floundering newbie. Had it been a floundering newbie, I would agree more with Graatch. However, like I said, I'm not really in agreeance totally with either of them.

>We are not talking about not getting edge points, empowerment
>is essential and necessary for priest classes to even be
>viable.

No it isn't. As soon as you say something is necessary to be "viable," then you defeat the spirit of the game. You know better and I know you don't play that way, so I won't continue there.

>FWIW I think Graatch is totally in the right here. I think if
>Amaranthe (or any of the IMMs on) had sent the dude a dream or
>localecho or gecho that talked about empowering him strictly
>under a sphere (and thus, no tattoo), you wouldn't have a
>player delete a character he obviously put a ton of thought
>and time into.

It would have been cool for Amaranthe to do that, but like I said I'm more for self-motivated action. I don't think she was wrong for not holding his hand. It's idiotic to ever use the reasoning "but he wouldn't have deleted!" By that type of logic, we should never PK anyone because they might delete AND we should always let people kill us at a quick enough rate to meet their desired PKpH or they might delete.

...I think it would piss-poor RP to ever eat a whole chicken as a non-giant size character. Or never take a #### or piss.

(this is in response to your comment "well we should never PK people because they might delete).

I'm totally with you on the self-motivated part, and I don't understand where you don't see that that was something I was suggesting. The "dream" I had hoped Amaranthe (or whomever) would have given the character wasn't full empowerment and a bouquet of flowers, it would be along the lines of a (paraphrasing) "Hey buddy, don't give up...you can still get empowered if you tailor it more to the sphere and walk away from Amaranthe". If that dream is given to the player, then now ALL the responsibility is on that player to move forward. Amaranthe has completely created a situation where she can feel comfortable knowing she RP'd HER character correctly, yet put in place a system so that the player could still follow through with whatever plans he has without issue.

A relatively piss-poor example of this (used just because it was myself) was how Ghrimriddor evolved. Originally intended to go Fortress, he took an in-game event (I think I may have had a dream too) and used it to further the character. But what if I just got a 5-second interaction and then nothing else? While the character might have lived a life of lowbie fortress pk, now a whole ####load of OTHER characters didn't have the conflict that existed because of Ghrimriddor headed towards battle.

I don't know, part of the reason I agree with Graatch is I feel if they sent a dream (or whatever) that they insulate themselves from criticism of "You destroyed my character". Coming from a sales and customer service background, it's important to be "blame-free" so it's mainly my OPINION in this situation.

>...I think it would piss-poor RP to ever eat a whole chicken
>as a non-giant size character. Or never take a #### or piss.

Not sure what you're getting at there.

> this is in response to your comment "well we should never PK
>people because they might delete).
>
>I'm totally with you on the self-motivated part, and I don't
>understand where you don't see that that was something I was
>suggesting. The "dream" I had hoped Amaranthe (or whomever)
>would have given the character wasn't full empowerment and a
>bouquet of flowers, it would be along the lines of a
> paraphrasing) "Hey buddy, don't give up...you can still get
>empowered if you tailor it more to the sphere and walk away
>from Amaranthe". If that dream is given to the player, then
>now ALL the responsibility is on that player to move forward.
>Amaranthe has completely created a situation where she can
>feel comfortable knowing she RP'd HER character correctly, yet
>put in place a system so that the player could still follow
>through with whatever plans he has without issue.

I agreed this would have been great of her. I just don't think it should be considered obligatory or necessary. I get that in terms of CF we are all stuck in our 12 year old bodies, but it just feels like baby sitting to EXPECT this. To get it is great, to expect it is over the top.

>A relatively piss-poor example of this (used just because it
>was myself) was how Ghrimriddor evolved. Originally intended
>to go Fortress, he took an in-game event (I think I may have
>had a dream too) and used it to further the character. But
>what if I just got a 5-second interaction and then nothing
>else? While the character might have lived a life of lowbie
>fortress pk, now a whole ####load of OTHER characters didn't
>have the conflict that existed because of Ghrimriddor headed
>towards battle.

What? This is a GREAT example of what I'm saying. You didn't give up when you didn't meet your intended goals. You evolved elsewhere. It's all bout the evolution.

>I don't know, part of the reason I agree with Graatch is I
>feel if they sent a dream (or whatever) that they insulate
>themselves from criticism of "You destroyed my character".
>Coming from a sales and customer service background, it's
>important to be "blame-free" so it's mainly my OPINION in this
>situation.

Yuh, I'm cool with it. Not saying your opinion is wrong. Just sharing mine.

should totally be on the hook to help point a player in a direction. by all means, go wizinvis or do it with pechos or whatever so as not to confuse the immortal persona, but an immortal has more responsibilities than just that religion

that's the difference in 13 years ago and the past many. Adekar (fort imm?) did a great job of that of late but that's the only one i can think of that was willing to look beyond his plate

>Maybe my favorite, go to an opposing god and let
>them know you'll do anything to strike down XIMMORTAL. So on
>and so on. It would really be up to your character what step
>would make sense next.

Have you actually done this successfully? All the evidence I've seen IC, experienced first hand, and read in Imm comments points to Imm hopping (even in the case of a dead/absent Imm) is not regarded favorably to say the least.

Any of the "continue seeking empowerment through other angles" options mean you could end up playing a character that isn't anything like the character you dreamed up. Sometimes that can be fun, but sometimes it just isn't what you were interested in playing. If I'm interested in playing an Outlander Shaman, and I end up having to go to Empire Imm (can't think of any now that Zulg is gone) for empowerment, even if I'm successful, do I really want to play something that totally divergent from what I originally set out to do? Maybe, but not always.

Mostly it just seems like throwing more effort (and at this point I've probably put 24+ hours into my character vs. the ~1 hour an Imm spent evaluating it) into something with no indication that I'll ever be successful. Don't need empowerment to play a character? Sure, so long as I want to stay sub-20 or otherwise gimp myself. Just because I enjoy roleplay doesn't mean it is the primary focus of every character I play, or even every empowerment character.

I rolled a druid sometime last year. Jasthrean follower. Got an empowerment interview. Got empowered. Quit and never logged back on.

Playing that character out would have meant playing a character I wasn't interested in. Sucks for Jasthrean, but I invested way more time into it than him(her?), so sucked for me a lot more.

>Have you actually done this successfully? All the evidence
>I've seen IC, experienced first hand, and read in Imm comments
>points to Imm hopping (even in the case of a dead/absent Imm)
>is not regarded favorably to say the least.

Yes. I have IMM hopped, though not for that reason. I went from... Trabryn? to Corrlaan.

>Any of the "continue seeking empowerment through other angles"
>options mean you could end up playing a character that isn't
>anything like the character you dreamed up. Sometimes that
>can be fun, but sometimes it just isn't what you were
>interested in playing. If I'm interested in playing an
>Outlander Shaman, and I end up having to go to Empire Imm
> can't think of any now that Zulg is gone) for empowerment,
>even if I'm successful, do I really want to play something
>that totally divergent from what I originally set out to do?
>Maybe, but not always.

That's true and I do understand. I've just never understood the mindset of setting your character's path in stone from day one. It makes much more sense to me to have a basic background story and a basic goal. Then go with the flow.

That said, I totally understand "my way" isn't "everyone's way"

>Mostly it just seems like throwing more effort (and at this
>point I've probably put 24+ hours into my character vs. the ~1
>hour an Imm spent evaluating it) into something with no
>indication that I'll ever be successful. Don't need
>empowerment to play a character? Sure, so long as I want to
>stay sub-20 or otherwise gimp myself. Just because I enjoy
>roleplay doesn't mean it is the primary focus of every
>character I play, or even every empowerment character.

Playing without empowerment is indeed extreme. I just feel like most people tend to get there as long as they try. When you do something outside the box, it does tend to take a little longer.

>I rolled a druid sometime last year. Jasthrean follower. Got
>an empowerment interview. Got empowered. Quit and never
>logged back on.
>
>Playing that character out would have meant playing a
>character I wasn't interested in. Sucks for Jasthrean, but I
>invested way more time into it than him(her?), so sucked for
>me a lot more.

Did you mistype? Did you actually NOT get empowered? Why did you quit etc? I'm missing something here?

I'm half tempted to dig up the log so I can go through and explain, but suffice to say, the conversation turned the character from something I was excited to play out into something I didn't think I could play out successfully and that I no longer had any desire to play. It wasn't a question of hardness or setting out my whole character in stone, but rather like going into a Chinese restaurant looking forward to eating some delicious Chinese food only to discover they are now exclusively serving rib eye steak and baked potatoes. I like a good steak, but that isn't what I came here for... Do I just sit down and eat steak even though I wanted Chinese, or do I walk out and find a Chinese place? I chose to walk out.

It isn't a knock against the Imm, but it wasn't what I was interested in. I also wasn't trying to be out of the box. Since I struggle with empowerment so much I specifically avoid doing anything that I think is remotely out of the box. That doesn't mean I'm going to eat steak when I want general chow's chicken.

Sorry to hear that. To some extend, your role should be worked with I think.

Just pointing that out. She affords to play like that now better than before as there is now a formal alternative path you can take if empowerment doesn't work.

And that is awesome. I totally intend to take advantage of it.

I've played a a large number of non-Imm empowered chars over the years.

You've empowered 3 of them that I know about:

1) A Joheem shaman.
2) A Bizinoquin healer.
3) A sphere honor pally when there was no sphere honor imm.

I've had a ball with all three of those chars, and the fact that there is SO much backstory to pull on, and the religions are often SO limiting has always frustrated me.

So, thanks for formalizing what you already did for players, allowing them to play roles that don't fit into (what are often now) very narrow religion helpfiles.

Awesome, awesome change.

If I could make one suggestion though....

Edges exist, and you guys have a bunch of low level spells/powers coded that aren't unbalancing in anyways. Why not get Zulgh or Nep to code in a pick and choose tattoo system that allows an immortal to give a very simple, not very powerful custom tat to Creed followers who deserve it? I'm talking like progging ferocity or something like that. Much more of an RP reward than a mechanical advantage.

This would also help open up Creeds to non-empowerment chars, which IMHO would be a good thing.

Again, awesome, awesome change.

I always wondered if its better to pray early and often when it comes to empowerment or later but then over a longer time.

Is it frowned upon praying before reaching level 11? What about starting to pray when you notice that you already ranked past the empowerment point?

It can't hurt to pray early, assuming you have a description and (if seeking empowerment through a Creed), a role.

Though some imms may decide you're not worth their time if you have only invested a few hours in the character. There are a lot of low-level deletions and it's frustrating for some to take the time to empower someone only to have them delete the next day.

when empowerment stops your character from moving past level 20, entering a cabal, or exploring which is a leveling issue.

I've got a single #### to give...and it's just for you.

This is a wonderful idea that should open wide the doors of classes that were choked by the niche of the active immortals. Do not get me wrong, I love the religions that were available, but I can count numerous characters I could not bend/press fit into the gods available. I love the nature/pagan option, and offer some other ideas.

Zealot of the cause: These people eat, sleep, and breath for their mortal cause, so much more than anyone else pledged. They give every waking moment to its promotion, protection, and destruction of opposition. They are so consumed by the cause that they give the megerest of attention to themselves unless it is directly aids the cause. Their powers are a mixture of strength of will and an ability to tap into the strength of faith of those in the cause.

Delver of the Occult: An Occulist has found power in the the unknown, unseen, or even unthinkable source. There are those that barter blood sacrifice to the devils/demons in exchange for powers, those that have learned rituals for taking power from the organs of their enemies, or those that have found the powers of a fallen god that has granted power to you inorder to reestablish them.

Power of benevolence: It is long know that those dedicated to the betterment of men have found a source of power. When many lay dead and dying of wasting diseases they patiently and calmy comfort and care for them protected by something, As they cross the battlefield of death they have uncanny moral knowing there is one out there that still clings to life and it is within the benevolent one to help them, Their profound strength of will and the love for there fellow man and they for them gives them power to accomplish feats. There are those who have dedicated themselves so much that angels and kindred spirts lend their strength as well.

Those are some brainstorm starters. Let me know what you think.

P_N

Another great contribution!

This seems like a great idea! I hope it works!

Absolutely fantastic and I really hope this takes off.

Help paganism:

"- Follow an inactive deity"

Selric/Corrlaan here I come. Let's go goody creed! Not to mention countless others.

I spend way too much time in the Lyceum and I've got a ton of roles based on old religions this would allow me to finally play. Never wanted to burden an immortal with one of my made up religions since I typically go uncabaled/non-pk. Seems like that would be boring.

Anyway, just wanted to reiterate. AWESOME and LETS DO THIS.

This is flexible, but an inactive deity in this case would generally need to be a pagan-ish/naturey deity to fit with the creed.

If this does take off and we end up documenting an organized "light" creed (probably in the form of the Voralian Orders), generic good deities like Corlaan (who ran a religion with a lot of lore based around angels) would fit with that, but not with the Greenways creed.

Selric could arguably go either way. (Incidentally, the lack of a pacifist/healery religion is what initially set me off. No new imms EVER want to RP running a solid peace religion. Everyone wants to be the kickass god.)

And to be clear, no active immortal is going to go so far as to roleplay *as* inactive deities, but rather evaluate your adherence to the creed of choice and come to you via a dream or vision or mysterious spirit voice or whatnot. You're being empowered through your creed, though your take on the creed can include gods of the past.

The fact that there is no pacifist/healer religion is exactly what has kept me from playing paladin/healer since Corrlaan went away.

Thanks for clarification on everything and thanks for apparently organizing an entire new system that fits what I've been looking for perfectly.

I assumed Corrlaan/Selric would need the "light" creed, but only because I specifically am looking at paladins. Healer Greenways one of these could work too though.

On a side note, I'd love to run a pacifist/healer religion. All you wrathful types move over and let me up there.

>Selric could arguably go either way. (Incidentally, the lack
>of a pacifist/healery religion is what initially set me off.
>No new imms EVER want to RP running a solid peace religion.
>Everyone wants to be the kickass god.)

No slight on anyone but the current set of good religions seem Good, but not Nice.

For Corlaan it would be appropriate and relatively easy to do the
interactions as an angel or archon.

I dig the idea and since I saw the creed thing come up on facebook
I rolled a character (Though not an empowerment one. need to get my
feet back under me.)

Way to draw me back in though, hehe I have way too much RL stuff to
do though for empowerment right now.

I agree a lot about role nich-ness. I often come up with an idea for a role but don't see any immortal religion that really fits it, so if I do play it I end up shoe-horning and altering the role to conform to a religion that may not be a natural fit.

In fact I was just thinking of doing that to follow amaranthe heh.

I like this idea and look forward to more creeds.

(n/t)

Start with help CREED.

For now (as indicated above) there is only one creed. More may be added if reception is favorable from both players and staff.

I mostly was trying to find help on the greenways but did not see any.

Creed would lead you to Tharerisian Spirituality, which is the help file that covers that topic.

I will add Greenways and Paganism keywords to that helpfile.

n/t