[MUD-Dev] Re: Marion's Tailor Problem

[Matthew R. Sheahan]

quzah propagated a meme to the effect of:
> I posted a link to a small article on this very thing, "Implementing
> God". I'm not sure it's still around, as I don't have the link to
> it at the moment, and I'm writing off-line. You should be able to
> find it if you look back in the archives, I think. :)

ahh, lovely.

> Then the god's spheres wouldn't overlap or rather effect eachother? So
> paladin_benevolent wanders into sphere_o_doom, and meets paladin_doom;
> would the paladin get any help from their god, [ie: dnd terms: have
> their spells/abilities] or would they be SOL? Also, would paladin_doom
> going to sphere_o_benevolence and breaking sphere_o_doom's rules, would
> their god take note, or, since they weren't in their own sphere, would
> those broken rules not matter?

what i had in mind was that spheres of influence would never overlap -- at
least not between opposed deities -- and that there would in fact be a great
deal of space between them.  in sphere_o_doom, direct divine action by
benevolent_god would be impossible; in sphere_o_benevolence, direct divine
action by god_o_doom would be impossible.  in the "in-between", either could
act.  in all of the above, indirect divine action, i.e. priestly magick,
would not be compelled to be affected, though implementations may choose to
do so.

that means that sphere_o_doom could wind up constituting a haven for people
we don't want to have havens.  but this can be circumvented.  first of all,
the evil gods can be induced to do whatever we like, and it's easy to make
most of them have their own reasons for disapproving of senseless slaughter
or of riling the forces of good before they've prepared for the apocalypse
or whatever.  and the physical spheres of influence of gods of senseless
slaughter can be made small and beleaguered, inconvenient to access, lacking
vital services, or nonexistent.

this could wind up having the odd effect of establishing a primacy of good
deities and making the evil deities mostly small and weak.  this is not
terribly appropriate for many settings.  but one can tell the players that
it's because they take up the slack just fine.  ;)

> My idea of a benevolent god, is one that wishes entirely for the
> happieness of those it holds dear. Read: If god_o_b is the patron
> deity to city_o_b, then anyone would be welcome in this place,
> and as such, the god_o_b. would wish for their safety, while they
> were in said local. (Perhaps even beyond the city_o_b, but anyway.)
> 
> So, it wouldn't require prayers and money and the like, but would
> be happy to recieve such affection; and not require it. That is
> my view of a small piece of the benevolent god. Perhaps that is
> what you mean, perhaps not. (That's how I'd do my "good god".)

yeah, i wouldn't say the tailor would have to worship the god.  it should
be enough to be a good citizen of a settlement the god protects.

								chiaroscuro