Discussion Index

Re: Coman's post about sacrifice/eq

1996 Topic Archives

Posted by Ptah on 09/16/96

>Likewise, the sacrifice issue is not as silly an idea as it may look. There
>is precedent in virtually every religion known to man in which sacrifices
>lead to benefits from the gods or other spirits. And, as Legend is supposed
>to be the world as they thought it to be, the lack of an ability to sacrifice
>is a hole in the design.

Granted; however, if we attempt to simulate religions much more than we do already, we're going to get into serious trouble with players who choose to be offended. As it is, we periodically get complaints regarding the representation of Jewish moneylenders in the areas set in the Middle Ages. So there is a fairly pragmatic reason to to not include this aspect of it. Deities are certainly represented, but they are concentrated in the ancient period.

>Sacrifices could be used to regain a few points of
>healing or mana (rather than having total possible hps or mana increased)
>or to perform some spells (in fact, you could build an entirely new skill
>tree here) such as protection from evil.

The repeatability of this in a mud setting implies that once added, it is not a cool feature held by a few worthy ones. Rather, it is a gimme that all players have, essentially adding a few hps or mana regens across the board. The only way I see to prevent that is to track devotions to every possible deity, and reward those who deserve it; who those people are is difficult to ascertain, but it could begin with "those who don't ask very often."

>Such trivial sacrifices could be
>used anywhere (spell sacrifices would be limited to mages and healers of
>course). Important sacrifices, for gold or x.p. or built up god favor, would
>be required only at certain locations. Additionally, poor sacrifices could
>actually result in punishments.

Given that there is no limited supply of stuff to sacrifice, there's never going to be a poor sacrifice. ;) Limited availability of resources is required to make that part really work well. Then a good sacrifice could be tied to the scarcity of the item. Right now, we have no way to track that.

>Its a flexible system with a lot of
>possibilities, and, as it fits in with the originally stated design philosophy,
>would be consistent with the mud background. It would, however, require
>a lot of effort to implement. And, that may be a more important issue than
>whether or not it is silly.

I'll stand by the original statement that the sacrifice command on other muds is silly. :) It is merely the ability to type "sac corpse" or "sac item" to a generic god that has no impact upon the player's life, and get a few coins or XP for it. Unless such a system is fully woven into the game, it remains silly, IMHO.

>One of the BIG holes in Legend is the lack of
>a god system. The belief in real and active Gods and spirits has been of
>overwhelming importance in the development of civilization. Sacrifices
>would fit in with the development of such a system. (Having many temples is
>not equivalent to having a god/religious system implemented.)

It would extremely difficult to provide a god system that would not be onerous to theplayers unless we created some sort of fictional ubergods that are not historical in nature (Koshchei, perhaps?). Otherwise, players will find themselves in the awkward position of having to keep gods in every different area happy. (Not to mention that in Lima, London, the Abbey, etc, any sort of involvement with the JudeoChristian God will seem rather blasphemous to many of our players).

>With muds that PRIMARILY offer +/- AC and To-Hit items, you get an
>equipment list which is less likely to unbalance the system. Having a
>much smaller number of stat changing items while increasing the number
>of +/- AC/To-Hit items would improve things here. The problem with stat
>changing items is that advancing levels is altered by the items a character
>carries. If you mess up, you are simply forced to role-play a little better.

Under skill trees, advancing levels may not have any permanent effect on the overall nature of your character; it's yet to be settled, but I am leaning that way.



From: Coman Saturday, September 14, 07:50AM

You are correct that if implemented in such a general fashion as "sac corpse" gods and sacrifices would be silly. The point was that gods and sacrifices and gaining benefits from them were neither inconsistent nor silly (we have to choose another word - how about "amazingly absurd") when applied to specific gods.

I am, however, embarrassed to admit that I had overlooked the obvious, and that people would be offended by established pantheons. A fantasy pantheon, as you suggested, might be an interesting addition some day. The other problems of what is worth sacrificing and what isn't could be worked out. If my ancestors could offer apologies and thanks to the bear's spirit for the sustaining meat of the bear, and any warriour would offer that sacrifice after the kill, then it is not unreasonable that everyone should have that capacity. Those higher in spirit should gain more benefit.


From: Favre Monday, September 16, 03:05PM

Not to inflame anyone this is simply a lesson in history for anyone offended by the bankers in medieval. Back in those times it was considered a sin by the Catholic Church to charge money to borrowers. Therefore it was seen as the only way to avoid offending God that the Jewish peoples could become bankers.

Favre, part-time historian.


1996 Topic Index