What would you multiclass?

Melodie

Daeir said:

Excommunication isn't permanent anyway, I mean, look at Melodie.

Probably a bad example, but she did get redeemed once, at least.

And yes, the number of hoops the Deacon has to jump through before exercising the rite of severance is hilarious.

Pretty sure most people won't spend six months jumping through hoops to get Devo back. I was just crazy (about my class).

Also...

Jeslyn said:

Everytime the word priest gets thrown out into the endless void, I want to cover my ears and say "Lalalala" because I know exactly how this conversation is going to end up.

Yes.

Kasya

I'm pretty happy priest is more regulated these days, as my first priest was awful at it and probably should have been excommed at least a couple dozen times. Now it's much closer to having a true identity. I think Good and Evil are some of the hardest roles to regulate IG because OOC definitions creep in too much. Evil's better at it, but Mhaldor's existed for a long time, and Targ's a reboot to make it more defined and more on point. There's still growing pains in Targ, but it's far stronger than Shallam ever was.

Also, I can't wait to multiclass priest. 

Kiet

Trey said:

Kiet said:

Christianity in general has never actually been a good analogue for shallam/the church and I doubt it is for targossas either. In fact, people trying to compare them was a big part of why shallam was so ineffective back when I was active.

Man I don't know what's more disorienting, having you back or the fact that I've seen zero troll out of you. Good to see you regardless, though!

I'm old and boring now

Sobriquet

How viable is dual blunt Runie?

Kiet

Ashelynne said:

Isaeah said:

Tesha said:

You are the only person who has the power to make your character lose his or her factional abilities. There are very clear guidelines for how to play Priest or a Paladin, and the only way your character can lose devotion is if you, their player, consciously decide to drive your character in that direction. The Deacon actually has very little power. It is probably the position with the most oversight in the entire game. The only way your character can lose devotion is if you literally force the Deacon to excommunicate your character by repeatedly breaking the rules. 

Interestingly enough, the process of getting excommunicated isn't very different from the process of getting shrubbed. The only thing that changes is which rules you have to break and the severity of your punishment. No character can force excommunication or shrubbery onto your character, that's something you receive as a consequence of your actions. As a result, if it happens to you and you lose your investment, you honestly can't blame anyone other than yourself. 

If you want to play the role of a factional character renouncing his or her faith, it would probably be better to do so as a neutral class.

The bolded part was part of my point in my post. I, the player, would make an OOC decision to change the IC direction of my character to avoid losing an investment. While the argument stands that my character's response is entirely under the player's control, at the same time, many of us understand that our characters take on a life of our own and betraying that life is almost worst than losing an investment. 

If only hindsight was 20/20 - would have moved directly to something like Alchemist/Shaman right out the gate. But then, part of the character concept involved Bloodsworn, so it was doomed from the start. 

Wait what? You mean people are supposed to arr pee in this game? Oh snap... so much for just being a troll on the interwebs and being me in the guise of an IC name!  

Yeah that's the problem, you want a class without the established roleplay and the limitations that brings. You sound exactly like the people that thought Rho/Silas the players were trying to ruin their fun and had no idea that that was in fact simply logical roleplay out of them.

The idea that characters have a 'life of their own' is usually only used by lazy writers who want to handwave away the choices they've made, tbh. Sure, characters have a way they'd act, but there's rarely a situation where there's no other choice that wouldn't compromise their identity.

I mean this in the least-trolling way possible given what I just posted but I don't really think you, as a player, are very well-versed on what good in achaea means, so you confuse the roleplay of whatever the archprelate equivalent is these days with them being 'jerks'

Ashelynne

Kiet said:

Ashelynne said:

Isaeah said:

Tesha said:

You are the only person who has the power to make your character lose his or her factional abilities. There are very clear guidelines for how to play Priest or a Paladin, and the only way your character can lose devotion is if you, their player, consciously decide to drive your character in that direction. The Deacon actually has very little power. It is probably the position with the most oversight in the entire game. The only way your character can lose devotion is if you literally force the Deacon to excommunicate your character by repeatedly breaking the rules. 

Interestingly enough, the process of getting excommunicated isn't very different from the process of getting shrubbed. The only thing that changes is which rules you have to break and the severity of your punishment. No character can force excommunication or shrubbery onto your character, that's something you receive as a consequence of your actions. As a result, if it happens to you and you lose your investment, you honestly can't blame anyone other than yourself. 

If you want to play the role of a factional character renouncing his or her faith, it would probably be better to do so as a neutral class.

The bolded part was part of my point in my post. I, the player, would make an OOC decision to change the IC direction of my character to avoid losing an investment. While the argument stands that my character's response is entirely under the player's control, at the same time, many of us understand that our characters take on a life of our own and betraying that life is almost worst than losing an investment. 

If only hindsight was 20/20 - would have moved directly to something like Alchemist/Shaman right out the gate. But then, part of the character concept involved Bloodsworn, so it was doomed from the start. 

Wait what? You mean people are supposed to arr pee in this game? Oh snap... so much for just being a troll on the interwebs and being me in the guise of an IC name!  

Yeah that's the problem, you want a class without the established roleplay and the limitations that brings. You sound exactly like the people that thought Rho/Silas the players were trying to ruin their fun and had no idea that that was in fact simply logical roleplay out of them.

The idea that characters have a 'life of their own' is usually only used by lazy writers who want to handwave away the choices they've made, tbh. Sure, characters have a way they'd act, but there's rarely a situation where there's no other choice that wouldn't compromise their identity.

I mean this in the least-trolling way possible given what I just posted but I don't really think you, as a player, are very well-versed on what good in achaea means, so you confuse the roleplay of whatever the archprelate equivalent is these days with them being 'jerks'

Uh in case you didn't notice my last comment was a joke. Ashelynne is an incredibly well developed character, for being such a new one. I also never said I didn't understand the limitations. Clearly you'd know that if you knew me, or her ICly, and the simple fact that she gave up being priest on her own because the path she is aiming for wouldn't have allowed it anyway.

Also, generalizing the notion of characters having a life of their own as their players being "lazy writers" is about as far off the mark as it gets. Having a character that's developed enough to allow you to consider their actions, desires, and what not before maybe your own as an OOC player takes a lot of discipline as an RPer. Anyone can roll a character, give it a name, and then act like nothing more than the person who plays them. If having to actually think a certain way were lazy, we wouldn't have books. I'd be willing to bet money that there were renown writers out there who are just happily writing away and then pause as they're in the mindset of a specific character and go, "Huh, well that's unexpected" and change their writing to fit in with the character they've created.

Also, what is it with people's want to criticize what people do and don't know without even knowing them or the specific situation? I get what "good" is in Achaea. Didn't like my example earlier? Okay cool, it was just an example. It wasn't the end all. Perception clearly has us all reading different books. Christ. Speaking of perception, everyone thinks Aod is a stand up guy. That's great. Good on you. ICly he's been an absolute dick to Ashelynne, so logically it makes sense for her to have thought, with good reason, she would have been excommed just for leaving the city. 

If you don't want to troll people, don't chime in with two cents without knowing more about specifics.

Shirszae

This thread feels less "What would you multiclass" and more "Why multiclassing priest is a bad idea" 

Kiet

Ashelynne said:

Kiet said:

Ashelynne said:

Isaeah said:

Tesha said:

You are the only person who has the power to make your character lose his or her factional abilities. There are very clear guidelines for how to play Priest or a Paladin, and the only way your character can lose devotion is if you, their player, consciously decide to drive your character in that direction. The Deacon actually has very little power. It is probably the position with the most oversight in the entire game. The only way your character can lose devotion is if you literally force the Deacon to excommunicate your character by repeatedly breaking the rules. 

Interestingly enough, the process of getting excommunicated isn't very different from the process of getting shrubbed. The only thing that changes is which rules you have to break and the severity of your punishment. No character can force excommunication or shrubbery onto your character, that's something you receive as a consequence of your actions. As a result, if it happens to you and you lose your investment, you honestly can't blame anyone other than yourself. 

If you want to play the role of a factional character renouncing his or her faith, it would probably be better to do so as a neutral class.

The bolded part was part of my point in my post. I, the player, would make an OOC decision to change the IC direction of my character to avoid losing an investment. While the argument stands that my character's response is entirely under the player's control, at the same time, many of us understand that our characters take on a life of our own and betraying that life is almost worst than losing an investment. 

If only hindsight was 20/20 - would have moved directly to something like Alchemist/Shaman right out the gate. But then, part of the character concept involved Bloodsworn, so it was doomed from the start. 

Wait what? You mean people are supposed to arr pee in this game? Oh snap... so much for just being a troll on the interwebs and being me in the guise of an IC name!  

Yeah that's the problem, you want a class without the established roleplay and the limitations that brings. You sound exactly like the people that thought Rho/Silas the players were trying to ruin their fun and had no idea that that was in fact simply logical roleplay out of them.

The idea that characters have a 'life of their own' is usually only used by lazy writers who want to handwave away the choices they've made, tbh. Sure, characters have a way they'd act, but there's rarely a situation where there's no other choice that wouldn't compromise their identity.

I mean this in the least-trolling way possible given what I just posted but I don't really think you, as a player, are very well-versed on what good in achaea means, so you confuse the roleplay of whatever the archprelate equivalent is these days with them being 'jerks'

Uh in case you didn't notice my last comment was a joke. Ashelynne is an incredibly well developed character, for being such a new one. I also never said I didn't understand the limitations. Clearly you'd know that if you knew me, or her ICly, and the simple fact that she gave up being priest on her own because the path she is aiming for wouldn't have allowed it anyway.

Also, generalizing the notion of characters having a life of their own as their players being "lazy writers" is about as far off the mark as it gets. Having a character that's developed enough to allow you to consider their actions, desires, and what not before maybe your own as an OOC player takes a lot of discipline as an RPer. Anyone can roll a character, give it a name, and then act like nothing more than the person who plays them. If having to actually think a certain way were lazy, we wouldn't have books. I'd be willing to bet money that there were renown writers out there who are just happily writing away and then pause as they're in the mindset of a specific character and go, "Huh, well that's unexpected" and change their writing to fit in with the character they've created.

Also, what is it with people's want to criticize what people do and don't know without even knowing them or the specific situation? I get what "good" is in Achaea. Didn't like my example earlier? Okay cool, it was just an example. It wasn't the end all. Perception clearly has us all reading different books. Christ. Speaking of perception, everyone thinks Aod is a stand up guy. That's great. Good on you. ICly he's been an absolute dick to Ashelynne, so logically it makes sense for her to have thought, with good reason, she would have been excommed just for leaving the city. 

If you don't want to troll people, don't chime in with two cents without knowing more about specifics.

I knew it was a joke. It was just a joke working off the wrong premise. The reason I call the excuse 'lazy writing' is that it has, historically, been used to excuse all sorts of bad decisions. Why is there gratuitous and unnecessary violence and gore in this movie? Oh, because the CHARACTERS wanted it, of course! There's a big difference between sticking to a role/character and using it as an excuse to not analyze your own writing/roleplaying. Sure, anyone can make a character and act like themselves, but anyone can also excuse all their bad decisions as it being 'in-character', too. It's all, ultimately, on the writer.

The topic of conversation is about the OOC power the players wield, not whether Aodfionn wields a lot of power as a character. Of course he does as a character, but as a player he doesn't really have that much power to abuse because the admins keep a tight reign on his position.  This also isn't where people are posting their character's opinions, but their own. People aren't going to take you writing that you knew you'd get excommed as Ashelynne knowing that.

The comment about the demons rite being odd is hard to take as anything but you trying to conflate achaea's good with RL good, though. That and the comparison to Christianity (which makes absolutely no sense since Christianity is about forgiveness and peace and not about zealously murdering people. Sure, the crusades happened, but they're not exactly upheld as good religious practice by the church anymore. Whereas murdering occultists and mhaldorians is explicitly good in achaea.) is why I said you didn't get good.

Kiet

Like this is the help file on Deucalion on the website:

Kindled by the primal spark that burns within the heart of the devoted comes
Deucalion, the Righteous Fire. Unceasing in His labour, the Divine
Conflagration casts light in the face of darkness, banishing shadow and
exposing iniquity. For millennia He was known as Dunamis, and in this
incarnation He checked the ambitions of Babel, denying the Mad God dominion
over the planes that lie at the fringes of Creation. Now He is the raging pyre,
the great purifier that burns to ash the false and the impure.

One of the few deities to cross the veil of death and return, Deucalion stands
as a bulwark against Chaos. The burning touch of His all-engulfing flame sears
away the abhorrent and abominable taint that stains the fabric of existence,
granting salvation through His cleansing and destructive power. The paths of
purity and sacrifice lead to the core of Deucalion's realm. Would-be
worshippers seeking understanding of His ways must expurgate their body and
soul to become worthy vessels for His purpose. Those who earn a place at His
side join an eternal struggle against an implacable foe.

Raging fires and burning away everything is not exactly church doctrine irl.

Linton

Priests/whatever who lost their way or become disillusioned with their faith is a valid, maybe even common, character plot in fantasy fiction. Achaea though set in a fantasy world is however also a game. So maybe alot of possible character plots are greyed out in order to help facilitate gameplay, namely factional gameplay. I think we see this post Renaissance which saw many cities adopting hardline and divine/higher entity led identities in the footsteps of the model in Mhaldor.

Ashelynne

I'm about done with this conversation since it's pissing me off. But I said Catholicism, not Christianity, and in case you forgot history, you might want to remember the Crusades where you know, the "good" guys were burning everything and screaming heretic until they ran out of hot air. That's pretty much how I see Targossas. This whole conversation has pretty much been pushed over the top, when my main points were that 1) Priest is an awesome class and it makes sense to want it, without having to want to bullshit that goes with being Targossian and 2) I just don't like that players are given the ability to take away other player's abilities. I NEVER said that power was used irresponsibly, or even that it was done to Ashelynne. I never lead on that a Divinely given power was given to someone who wasn't trusted, or that they wouldn't be quick to take it away if it was abused. I may not like Aod at all, and Ashe may have had reason to assume that by doing A, he'd respond by doing B. It was a logical process of thought given IC interaction between the two of them.

Also, I'm well aware of the fact that ICA = ICC. Does that mean that the one dishing out the consequence never overreacts? No. So pinning everything on the character that left and the player behind that character is asinine, when there is always a possibility that someone else will react poorly and overstep their bounds.

Kiet

Disillusioned/lost priests losing their divine powers is also a common character plot in fantasy fiction, though.

Tharvis

this conversation is rapidly devolving, I'd suggest a change of topic

Kiet

The key difference between the crusades and targ, as I pointed out, is that one was questionable doctrine carried out for politics and the other is literally scripture and god endorsed and fits in with the written lore.

Dairon

So for a fresh topic change.. Any insight on Shaman would be helpful.
I might not be able to tri trans off the bat, but I'm digging the potential of the class. 
What stats are useful? If I were to think about artefacts, which ones should I pick up? 

Brean

Sobriquet said:

How viable is dual blunt Runie?

Suitably in a word. I liked it, but is pretty one dimensional for kill sequence as Runie

Kakotas

Trevize said:

Ashelynne said:

Trevize said:

Ashelynne said:

I mean... a "holy" rite to summon demons that attack your enemies?

Off topic a touch but just going to throw this out there, there's a lot more to demons/infernal realms than Mhaldor/Sartan/Evil in Achaea. A lot of it is hinted to, some outright said but not easy to find, and a little out in the open. Look around IG and you might be surprised!

Demons and Good just don't typically go hand-in-hand. One would easily find it a little odd and out of place in a holy rite.

Don't make the mistake of drawing parallels based on the terms used - Good, Light, Angels, Devotion... may lead one to think Judaic based religions, but this isn't too close.

Irony because most of the good gods derived a lot from judaic based religions... I recall some of them actually using hebrew from time to time.

Kakotas

Their characters might be of the jerk variety. (highly encouraged by their team). But Aod and Daeir were at least decent. I may be an exception to the rule though because I was grandfathered through so many different things.

Trevize

Kakotas said:

Trevize said:

Ashelynne said:

Trevize said:

Ashelynne said:

I mean... a "holy" rite to summon demons that attack your enemies?

Off topic a touch but just going to throw this out there, there's a lot more to demons/infernal realms than Mhaldor/Sartan/Evil in Achaea. A lot of it is hinted to, some outright said but not easy to find, and a little out in the open. Look around IG and you might be surprised!

Demons and Good just don't typically go hand-in-hand. One would easily find it a little odd and out of place in a holy rite.

Don't make the mistake of drawing parallels based on the terms used - Good, Light, Angels, Devotion... may lead one to think Judaic based religions, but this isn't too close.

Irony because most of the good gods derived a lot from judaic based religions... I recall some of them actually using hebrew from time to time.

I'm uncertain how this is ironic. You've just expanded on what I said. That's why it's so easy to confuse the two.

However, the IG religions they revolve around protecting and furthering Creation. It seems clear they must go a wholly different direction.

Trevize

Brean said:

Sobriquet said:

How viable is dual blunt Runie?

Suitably in a word. I liked it, but is pretty one dimensional for kill sequence as Runie

I love the concept. If I didn't want a 'super-tank' for pve to offset my high damage magi (thus s&b), I'd be tempted to roll dual-flail.

Tael

Isaeah said:

While the argument stands that my character's response is entirely under the player's control, at the same time, many of us understand that our characters take on a life of our own and betraying that life is almost worst than losing an investment. 

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating: this is exactly the wrong attitude to have.

There is not one, singular thing that a character would do in a given situation, where anything else is "betraying" that character. Just like in real life you can't look at a person and perfectly predict what they'll do next. Sometimes people surprise you and you never know the full context of their decisions. When someone does something not in keeping with my expectations, I don't think "That person must be an imposter! My suspension of disbelief is ruined!".

This comes up in tabletop RPGs all the time, and it sees a lot more explicit discussion in those communities, but it's the same issue. This is ultimately just an immature justification for why you have to do the thing you most want to do without regard for the functioning of the game as a whole, pretending as though it's completely binary - either you get to do the action that is most obvious to you or you're "betraying" your character. Notably, you only ever hear this line of reasoning when people want to do something disruptive.

Because there is not a thing a character would do in a given situation, there are things a character would do in a given situation. Any remotely complex or realistic character provides justification for more than a single course of action in a given scenario.

Your character is growing detached from Good dogma, but you don't want to be excommunicated? Then don't get excommunicated. Keep your disillusionment to yourself. Or involve someone else and confess and seek counsel. "But my character wouldn't keep it to themself and wouldn't seek counsel!", you say. Well then, this is an exciting opportunity to think about what is causing your character to behave differently than you would normally expect! If your character isn't completely unidimensional and you have any kind of creativity at all, these are eminently solvable problems.

Put another way:

Kakotas

Tael said:

Isaeah said:

While the argument stands that my character's response is entirely under the player's control, at the same time, many of us understand that our characters take on a life of our own and betraying that life is almost worst than losing an investment. 

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating: this is exactly the wrong attitude to have.

There is not one, singular thing that a character would do in a given situation, where anything else is "betraying" that character. Just like in real life you can't look at a person and perfectly predict what they'll do next. Sometimes people surprise you and you never know the full context of their decisions. When someone does something not in keeping with my expectations, I don't think "That person must be an imposter! My suspension of disbelief is ruined!".

This comes up in tabletop RPGs all the time, and it sees a lot more explicit discussion in those communities, but it's the same issue. This is ultimately just an immature justification for why you have to do the thing you most want to do without regard for the functioning of the game as a whole, pretending as though it's completely binary - either you get to do the action that is most obvious to you or you're "betraying" your character. Notably, you only ever hear this line of reasoning when people want to do something disruptive.

Because there is not a thing a character would do in a given situation, there are things a character would do in a given situation. Any remotely complex or realistic character provides justification for more than a single course of action in a given scenario.

Your character is growing detached from Good dogma, but you don't want to be excommunicated? Then don't get excommunicated. Keep your disillusionment to yourself. Or involve someone else and confess and seek counsel. "But my character wouldn't keep it to themself and wouldn't seek counsel!", you say. Well then, this is an exciting opportunity to think about what is causing your character to behave differently than you would normally expect! If your character isn't completely unidimensional and you have any kind of creativity at all, these are eminently solvable problems.

Put another way:

Or just come join us in Cyrene. We have cookies.

Sena

Tael said:

Notably, you only ever hear this line of reasoning when people want to do something disruptive.

You also hear it when people don't want to change something to make the game more fun for them ("I'm not having fun in <city/house/class>, but it wouldn't make sense for my character to leave/change it")

And to be fair, when someone does something good and enjoyable there's no need for any justification, so of course you would only hear it in negative situations. Nobody would say "I wasn't going to make the game fun for myself/others, but it was really the only thing that made sense for the character so I had no choice."

Tael

Sena said:

Tael said:

Notably, you only ever hear this line of reasoning when people want to do something disruptive.

You also hear it when people don't want to change something to make the game more fun for them ("I'm not having fun in <city/house/class>, but it wouldn't make sense for my character to leave/change it")

And to be fair, when someone does something good and enjoyable there's no need for any justification, so of course you would only hear it in negative situations. Nobody would say "I wasn't going to make the game fun for myself/others, but it was really the only thing that made sense for the character so I had no choice."

That's a fair point - I guess I meant more that you never hear this come up when people don't insist on taking the most obvious route.

Did people expect Melodie to become Mhaldorian? On the whole, it shocked quite a few people. It doesn't seem like the obvious thing. Did anyone say "That wasn't what Melodie would have done! My suspension of disbelief is ruined!"? Not that I heard. And I doubt Melodie-The-Player felt that way either, at least from her posts.

You see raves all the time that say "That was way outside of <character name>'s comfort zone, but it was really fun and I'm excited to see where it leads." and "<character name> wouldn't normally do this thing, but after being pushed into a corner by <event/person/rule>, I decided to go for it and I'm really enjoying it.". And no one expresses concern that those people are "betraying" their characters, least of all the people who are posting these things to raves.

Jeslyn

Can we please kill this with fire? Nothing good ever comes from the topic of priest, ironically enough. I feel like we dragged this on long enough. ( especially when you can find this exact same argument in a dozen different threads) 

Trevize

Jeslyn said:

Can we please kill this with fire? Nothing good ever comes from the topic of priest, ironically enough. I feel like we dragged this on long enough. ( especially when you can find this exact same argument in a dozen different threads) 

Some people like the concept, some don't. It may change, it probably won't. That aside, as long as it remains constructive, I don't see it as a bad topic. I'm sure (I think, at least!) most people posting acknowledge that the aren't going to convince anyone, but it's definitely a topic with material to debate constructively (and elaborate on positions to help people see each side).

edit: or maybe I'm too optimistic?

Kasya

Jeslyn said:

Can we please kill this with fire? Nothing good ever comes from the topic of priest, ironically enough. I feel like we dragged this on long enough. ( especially when you can find this exact same argument in a dozen different threads) 

Deuc can help with that.

Kakotas

Trevize said:

Jeslyn said:

Can we please kill this with fire? Nothing good ever comes from the topic of priest, ironically enough. I feel like we dragged this on long enough. ( especially when you can find this exact same argument in a dozen different threads) 

Some people like the concept, some don't. It may change, it probably won't. That aside, as long as it remains constructive, I don't see it as a bad topic. I'm sure (I think, at least!) most people posting acknowledge that the aren't going to convince anyone, but it's definitely a topic with material to debate constructively (and elaborate on positions to help people see each side).

edit: or maybe I'm too optimistic?

This is achaea... Optimism was banned along with bladefire....

Trevize

Kakotas said:

Trevize said:

Jeslyn said:

Can we please kill this with fire? Nothing good ever comes from the topic of priest, ironically enough. I feel like we dragged this on long enough. ( especially when you can find this exact same argument in a dozen different threads) 

Some people like the concept, some don't. It may change, it probably won't. That aside, as long as it remains constructive, I don't see it as a bad topic. I'm sure (I think, at least!) most people posting acknowledge that the aren't going to convince anyone, but it's definitely a topic with material to debate constructively (and elaborate on positions to help people see each side).

edit: or maybe I'm too optimistic?

This is achaea... Optimism was banned along with bladefire....

For being OP?

Cooper

I always laugh and then sigh heartily when someone says "I'm being forced to do something I ooc hate cause my character wouldn't do X".

No, that's not how it works. At all. You play the game for fun, and you make your character do what is fun for you. If you do anything else, you are doing it wrong.