Never stat a god

[daremetoidareyo]

I'm writing an economics essay about non-market valuation.

There is a premise, well known to RPG players who value atmosphere and roleplay, over optimization and rollplay, where you never make stats for the obviously powerful. Be they gods or cthulu, one should never publish a stat block, because the nature of their entities and power is that they cannot be defeated in combat. They can only have their plans foiled.

I need a source that isn't a forum that explains clearly why it is a bad idea to stat powerful entities. This is nearly impossible to search for with the terms that I'm using in my google fu.

Thanks guys.

[Milodiah]

You might consider looking for the same advice in sources geared more towards fantasy authors as well.

[Deophaun]

Freakonomics has a chapter on what happened when a school started charging parents for not picking up their kids immediately after school. It's the same idea: once you put a number to something, it becomes a legitimate transaction to those willing to pay, or a legitimate opponent to those willing to fight.

[TheCountAlucard]

Be they gods or cthulu, one should never publish a stat block, because the nature of their entities and power is that they cannot be defeated in combat.

Piffle.

Uranus was castrated and overthrown by Saturn, who was in turn dismembered and overthrown by Jupiter; Balder was killed by a mistletoe dart; Cthulhu took a steamship to the face and went down; the invincible Devil In Iron was killed by Conan with the starmetal dagger he found; Orcus used that killing word to slay his way across the pantheon as Tenebrous before he himself was laid low, and Mishka the Wolf-Spider was imprisoned in the Rod of Seven Parts by the Wind Dukes of Aaqa; gods and devils and Cthulhoid abominations are absolutely able to be defeated or even killed.

Thanks guys.

You're welcome.

[daremetoidareyo]

Piffle.
Uranus was castrated and overthrown by Saturn, who was in turn dismembered and overthrown by Jupiter; Balder was killed by a mistletoe dart; Cthulhu took a steamship to the face and went down; the invincible Devil In Iron was killed by Conan with the starmetal dagger he found; Orcus used that killing word to slay his way across the pantheon as Tenebrous before he himself was laid low, and Mishka the Wolf-Spider was imprisoned in the Rod of Seven Parts by the Wind Dukes of Aaqa; gods and devils and Cthulhoid abominations are absolutely able to be defeated or even killed.

You're welcome.

The scale of power in RPGs has gone up and up to the point where mortals can face down gods. Some gamers favor the verisimilitude of having things beyond the effects of direct action. Those gamers opinions, in some sort of internet form is what I'm after, not a rebuttle to that preference. I don't care that gods can defeat each other, or that humans can use mcguffins to defeat things more powerful than themselves. I need to capture the essence of the idea that numerical representation lends a mental framework for people to manipulate a concept. This is a potent analog for the essay I'm writing.

Freakonomics has a chapter on what happened when a school started charging parents for not picking up their kids immediately after school. It's the same idea: once you put a number to something, it becomes a legitimate transaction to those willing to pay, or a legitimate opponent to those willing to fight.

Thank you. I'll grab that for an example as well. I really want the god/cthulu analogy because we still, as humans, have a totemic regard for nature, you know, by being bound to it as animals.

[TheCountAlucard]

The scale of power in RPGs has gone up and up to the point where mortals can face down gods.

Except where it hasn't. Lolth's first writeup had her statted with no more than 60 hp.

Some gamers favor the verisimilitude of having things beyond the effects of direct action.

Don't kid a kidder; that's a play preference, but it's not a matter of verisimilitude.

Those gamers opinions, in some sort of internet form is what I'm after, not a rebuttle to that preference.

Fair enough; I'm just saying that it's hardly universal.

I don't care that gods can defeat each other, or that humans can use mcguffins to defeat things more powerful than themselves.

If you want, I can dig up other examples where neither of these is the case.

And fact of the matter is, sometimes you play gods. That's half the point for Nobilis, Scion, Exalted, and Mythender. Fighting and defeating gods is not outside the wheelhouse of tabletop gaming.

[Flickerdart]

I need a source that isn't a forum that explains clearly why it is a bad idea to stat powerful entities.

Anything that has no stats has to be interacted with on the GM's whim - the player characters no longer have tools for dealing with it directly, and it goes from NPC to GM-ersatz. It's such a simple concept that you're not going to find a "source" beyond perhaps an article on something else entirely obliquely referencing it. You might have some luck searching for write-ups about the Lady of Pain, since she's a canonical "rocks fall" in disguise.

[Brookshw]

You may want to look into discussions surrounding the Lady of Pain on these forums. Also I'd point you to Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, some of his comments regarding logical interactions are quite interesting and I suspect relevant to what your trying to explore.

Anywho, once the thing has stats it has a prescribed value, it can be understood, manipulated, is relate-able, can be reasoned with, and possibly overcome if such is your goal. It, in essence, creates restrictions on potential where as the undefined remains infinite. The opportunity cost of defining such a thing is massive, it will never be anything other than what it's been confined to. It takes something that should be unrelate-able and reduces it to the mundane. It's kind of like if a worm hole suddenly opened in your living room. Is it more interesting as an open ended question of where it goes, another planet, some other dimension perhaps, or does it lose all of it's mystery if you know it leads to the bathroom at the Starbucks down the street.

You might want to send a PM with the question to Afroakuma, he'd probably have some interesting opinions to share with you.

I'd be curious to read your essay when your done if you're at all willing to share it.

[oudeis]

Piffle.

Uranus was castrated and overthrown by Saturn, who was in turn dismembered and overthrown by Jupiter; Balder was killed by a mistletoe dart; Cthulhu took a steamship to the face and went down; the invincible Devil In Iron was killed by Conan with the starmetal dagger he found; Orcus used that killing word to slay his way across the pantheon as Tenebrous before he himself was laid low, and Mishka the Wolf-Spider was imprisoned in the Rod of Seven Parts by the Wind Dukes of Aaqa; gods and devils and Cthulhoid abominations are absolutely able to be defeated or even killed.

You're welcome.

Struggles between gods hardly translate to mortals' ability to contend with divine beings. Bellerephon was thrown from Pegasus when he tried to fly to Olympus. Arachne was turned into a spider when she dared compare her weavings to Athena's. Sisyphus, Tantalus, and Prometheus, among many others, were condemned to eternal punishment for defying the will of the Olympeans. I'm sure others could cite myths from many cultures that provide explicit detail about what happened to mortals foolish enough to challenge, anger, annoy, or just draw the wrong sort of attention from the Gods. Using examples from pulp authors and D&D game lore hardly counts as authoritative citations; if you like I could list counter examples. Oh, and Cthulhu? Not a god, and he reformed and went back to sleep.

You're welcome.

Except where it hasn't. Lolth's first writeup had her statted with no more than 60 hp.

And an AC that made her almost unhittable, even by high-level characters with buffs and magic weapons, and 70% magic resistance, and every psionic skill in addition to a bargeload of points to use them. Also not a god.

Don't kid a kidder; that's a play preference, but it's not a matter of verisimilitude.

And what, pray tell, would be? In the absence of definitive proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, mythology and folklore are the closest we have to canonical examples of Divine interaction. Take a look at early D&D material and tell me that the designers weren't drawing on historical faiths.

Fair enough; I'm just saying that it's hardly universal.

Among munchkins and people who write too much fanfiction, perhaps. The rest of us understand that if you mess with entities that can create whole worlds or even just whole races, your punishment will be as unimaginable as their powers.

[Ravens_cry]

Honestly, I would say it depends on what gods are in the 'verse. If they are quasi-personified forces of natures, or even fictional, yeah, stats matters not. If they are basically someone powerful who said 'I am a god!' and lots of people agreed, or lots of people said 'they/that are/is a god!' then stats are more than appropriate, with a lot of wiggle room in between. I personally favour the former approach, but whatever fits the tone and stories you are trying to tell.

[Flickerdart]

Among munchkins and people who write too much fanfiction, perhaps. The rest of us understand that if you mess with entities that can create whole worlds or even just whole races, your punishment will be as unimaginable as their powers.

You seem to have a remarkably low opinion of the players of Exalted.

[A Tad Insane]

The easiest way to explain it is if you give a god one million hp, someone else can make a character with two million hp

[TheCountAlucard]

Struggles between gods hardly translate to mortals' ability to contend with divine beings.

Sure it does.

Arachne was turned into a spider when she dared compare her weavings to Athena's.

Arachne failing her saving throw against Baleful Polymorph doesn't indicate anything more than that Athena can be pretty darn petty and spiteful.

Sisyphus, Tantalus, and Prometheus, among many others, were condemned to eternal punishment for defying the will of the Olympeans.

So? No one who fought Ares in hand-to-hand combat in The Iliad got turned into a tree for it - not even Diomedes, who beat him.

I'm sure others could cite myths from many cultures that provide explicit detail about what happened to mortals foolish enough to challenge, anger, annoy, or just draw the wrong sort of attention from the Gods.

It doesn't matter if there are a billion losses, one victory is enough to prove the gods are not unbeatable.

Using examples from pulp authors and D&D game lore hardly counts as authoritative citations…

When we're specifically talking about statting gods in the context of tabletop RPGs? It's absolutely authoritative. Howard was a direct inspiration for D&D.

Oh, and Cthulhu? Not a god…

Yet still an example listed multiple times by the OP, even in his most recent post.

and he reformed and went back to sleep

They may not have put him down permanently, but they still beat him.

[Jormengand]

Relevant:

Arael, The Overdeity

Before you stands a being of pure power. The creature that stands before you could not be anything but the ruler of the gods. Even standing near it allows you a sense of its awesome might, and you instantly decide that fighting such a creature would be madness, even for another deity. A closer look shows the form of an archetypal humanoid, the very essence of what it means to be a sapient being. It has no wings and yet it flies, it has no mouth and yet it speaks, neither eyes nor ears and yet it knows all.

You poor bastard, you.

Fighting Arael:

You lose.

[afroakuma]

Relevant

...no, that's not at all relevant to a question regarding non-forum sources.

[Jormengand]

...no, that's not at all relevant to a question regarding non-forum sources.

It was a joke. It was meant to be mildly amusing. I apologise if it didn't amuse you.

[daremetoidareyo]

Spoiler: Brookshw

Show

You may want to look into discussions surrounding the Lady of Pain on these forums. Also I'd point you to Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, some of his comments regarding logical interactions are quite interesting and I suspect relevant to what your trying to explore.

Anywho, once the thing has stats it has a prescribed value, it can be understood, manipulated, is relate-able, can be reasoned with, and possibly overcome if such is your goal. It, in essence, creates restrictions on potential where as the undefined remains infinite. The opportunity cost of defining such a thing is massive, it will never be anything other than what it's been confined to. It takes something that should be unrelate-able and reduces it to the mundane. It's kind of like if a worm hole suddenly opened in your living room. Is it more interesting as an open ended question of where it goes, another planet, some other dimension perhaps, or does it lose all of it's mystery if you know it leads to the bathroom at the Starbucks down the street.

You might want to send a PM with the question to Afroakuma, he'd probably have some interesting opinions to share with you.

I'd be curious to read your essay when your done if you're at all willing to share it.

]

You pretty much nailed the key component of knowledge is power. My essay is specifically about non-market evaluation of nature: i.e. economic value of scenic beauty, remoteness, instrinsic value, non-endangered noncommercial species. Applying numbers to these aesthetics would in turn make them manipulable, except in this case, the PCs are Multimillionaire developers, and the statblock has been published by environmental economists. I will totally PM afroakuma about LOP. I forgot about her. I'm sure there is some articulate stuff around about it.

The reason I write this essay is for mental purchase of another wild idea I have been planning on using for my second of 3 papers for a phd: What happens when you use non-market evaluation tools designed for natural resources and apply them interpersonally. What is the extra value of being perceived as white, straight, male, whatever? The problem, the ethical problem, that I see in chasing down that academic inquiry is that it has internet viral potential. If the American public knows that the average male person of color would pay $54 dollars a month for society to treat them statistically the same as a white person, or that the average white person would accept $150 a month to be treated without privilege, there are big ramifications.

So I want to fully explore what the ethical implications of piercing the veil with numbers to see if I am comfortable attempting to publish a study that will lead people to start treating each others with monetarily prescribed values. Imagine how people in real life would manipulate that information, it gives me serious pause, and I may need to rethink my major second paper. I don't any corporate, racist, or ignoramus pun puns misusing cthulu's statblock as a firmament for interpersonal injustice. Exploring this concept with natural resources will definitely help me refine whether or not I want to be on that road: Like Paizo deciding to stat up the Schmady of hurt for its new installment of Realityscape.

TheCountAlucard

It seems that you are getting a lot of flack about your personal opinions about how to roleplay. I'm sorry that the forum got all agressive with you about it.

...no, that's not at all relevant to a question regarding non-forum sources.

Since you're here, man. Have you got any skivvy on the lady of pain stat block conundrum? It doesn't need to be a super fancy source, it just needs to articulate why the LOP is far more potent an entity without a statblock to evaluate her on.

[unseenmage]

My takeaway from this discussion thus far is that 'To Stat, Or Not To Stat?' is a choice. Or at least is based on context.

For those who desire unbeatable godlike entities they will leave those entities unstatted or make the stats subject to DM whim.
For those who desire beatable godlike entities they will provide stats which could be fair or unfair approximations of 'nearly unbeatable'.

And in both of the above context is a big deal, for Exalted you play gods but don't beat Primordials (IIRC, its been a while). For D&D 3.5 you play mortals who could achieve godhood if the narrative allows and/or if ELH is available.



For the OP, consider the context and perspective of your examples. Correlation doesn't always equal causality. Perspective/context matters.

[Xefas]

Relevant:

Arael, The Overdeity

Before you stands a being of pure power. The creature that stands before you could not be anything but the ruler of the gods. Even standing near it allows you a sense of its awesome might, and you instantly decide that fighting such a creature would be madness, even for another deity. A closer look shows the form of an archetypal humanoid, the very essence of what it means to be a sapient being. It has no wings and yet it flies, it has no mouth and yet it speaks, neither eyes nor ears and yet it knows all.

You poor bastard, you.

Fighting Arael:

You lose.

Man, this guy goes down like a chump against the Exalted. They already have perfect defenses against "You lose", "No, you just lose", and "You just lose, there is no ability that can prevent you from losing, no not even then" effects. And you haven't even given this guy defenses to stand against their own "You just lose, there is no ability that can prevent you from losing, no not even then" effects.

[daremetoidareyo]

My takeaway from this discussion thus far is that 'To Stat, Or Not To Stat?' is a choice. Or at least is based on context.

For those who desire unbeatable godlike entities they will leave those entities unstatted or make the stats subject to DM whim.
For those who desire beatable godlike entities they will provide stats which could be fair or unfair approximations of 'nearly unbeatable'.

And in both of the above context is a big deal, for Exalted you play gods but don't beat Primordials (IIRC, its been a while). For D&D 3.5 you play mortals who could achieve godhood if the narrative allows and/or if ELH is available.



For the OP, consider the context and perspective of your examples. Correlation doesn't always equal causality. Perspective/context matters.

Dude, I just want a linkable source, preferably non-forum, for the part of the debate that supports not giving statblocks for the supermystical. I am totally agnostic as to a play preference, but I acknowledge there are those who have them, with well reasoned arguments as to why... Which is what I'm looking for.

[unseenmage]

Dude, I just want a linkable source, preferably non-forum, for the part of the debate that supports not giving statblocks for the supermystical. I am totally agnostic as to a play preference, but I acknowledge there are those who have them, with well reasoned arguments as to why... Which is what I'm looking for.

Should have probably put that in your OP Title then. As it stands the topic kind of begs for interpretation.


Edit: You ninja-ed your explanation of what you're actually asking so I'll elaborate on my response some. Feel free to ignore if I've misunderstood your aims.

Spoiler

Show

Consider too the context of the audience for the numbers you're looking at. Sure the $ amounts could be relevant for a statistical study but that doesn't necessarily mean the average Joe could pay to be treated differently.
Now I'm not saying someone couldn't intentionally confuse the issue and convince Joe that was the case. That's an entirely different, Fox News-ish, issue.

Generating the numbers in context and using them in ways they're not meant to be used seem to me to be two different problems. There are committees who need to know what species are more endangered than others so they can spend their sparse budgets on the species most critical to their ecosystems, saving a apex predator sometimes saves an entire ecological niche.
If a media source misleadingly uses those numbers to say the less impactful species are intentionally being left to die, say as a political gambit to justify moving money from logging in a region over to conservation, pressuring the committee to drop the scary apex predator and save the frog (who would have been saved by the preservation of the apex predator anyway) that's a different problem from having those numbers generated in the first place.

It's kind of like the argument against bomb research or viral research. The assumption is that these things can only be used to kill. The reality is that they can also save lives.
I'm of the opinion that no knowledge is inherently bad or wrong. It is in the use of that knowledge that right and wrong, good and bad, are revealed. Atomic powered powerplants are useful. Atomic powered bombs less so.

Power, and by extension knowledge, isn't inherently good or bad. Its the use or abuse of power which should be judged.

[Chronos]

For what it's worth, Fingolfin was what in D&D terms would be called a mortal, and Morgoth was what would be called a god, and yet Fingolfin was at least able to permanently maim Morgoth before getting squished.

[BWR]

Since you're here, man. Have you got any skivvy on the lady of pain stat block conundrum? It doesn't need to be a super fancy source, it just needs to articulate why the LOP is far more potent an entity without a statblock to evaluate her on.

What conundrum? Gods and other powerful beings like certain demon lords, the Lady, etc. weren't stat'ed in 2e because in those days they were supposed to be beyond the rules of the game. They were left unstat'ed because they were flavor and a plot device, not something the PCs were intended to ever directly interact or contest with. The Lady was meant to be flavor and a brief explanation why Sigil was neutral ground, given a short list of known deeds (or at least deeds ascribed to her) and a few known action triggers with results, and left at that. If the DM wanted more to be done, s/he was free to invent some rules for interaction. If the DM wanted the Lady to be untouchable, s/he wouldn't have to contend with "but the stats say we should be able to".

[johnbragg]

What conundrum? Gods and other powerful beings like certain demon lords, the Lady, etc. weren't stat'ed in 2e because in those days they were supposed to be beyond the rules of the game.

2E book Deities and Demigods statted out the gods of various pantheons. Mostly historical, I don't remember if they statted out the gods of Oerth or Faerun.

Wait, I just remembered--they statted out the gods' physical avatars, which could be killed/destroyed, subject to the limitations on destroying creatures with at-will access to divine magic.

[Knaight]

The scale of power in RPGs has gone up and up to the point where mortals can face down gods. Some gamers favor the verisimilitude of having things beyond the effects of direct action.

This is just factually incorrect. The very first RPG was D&D, in which characters grew dramatically more powerful, were assumed to start as already highly competent people, and which explicitly featured a bunch of mechanics involving getting huge numbers of followers. Tons of more recent stuff operates at a far lower scale of power than early D&D.

[Arbane]

And an AC that made her almost unhittable, even by high-level characters with buffs and magic weapons, and 70% magic resistance, and every psionic skill in addition to a bargeload of points to use them. Also not a god.

She was worshipped by the drow, that's god enough. And the whole point of the module was to find and kill Lolth. The mere fact that it 'should' be impossible has never stopped any PCs I've heard of.

And what, pray tell, would be? In the absence of definitive proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, mythology and folklore are the closest we have to canonical examples of Divine interaction. Take a look at early D&D material and tell me that the designers weren't drawing on historical faiths.

AND sword and sorcery fiction, AND high-fantasy fiction, AND pop culture, AND....

Among munchkins and people who write too much fanfiction, perhaps. The rest of us understand that if you mess with entities that can create whole worlds or even just whole races, your punishment will be as unimaginable as their powers.

As was said earlier, the Exalted and Mythender players are laughing at you now.

And I'm pretty sure there's a Norse myth about a farmer who took Odin hostage and threatened to kill him, but it's been a long time and I'm blanking on the details. The Greek gods have already been mentioned.

And in both of the above context is a big deal, for Exalted you play gods but don't beat Primordials (IIRC, its been a while). For D&D 3.5 you play mortals who could achieve godhood if the narrative allows and/or if ELH is available.

Exalted aren't gods, they're humans with god-like powers. (Becoming a god would actually be a significant step DOWN in power for some Exalted.)
I'm pretty sure fighting the Ebon Dragon is a possible endgame in Return of the Scarlet Empress.

[Arcades]

I really don't understand why you guys are coming up with examples of "mortals killing a god".

Yeah, history is full of mortals challenging and ,in some rare case, beating a deity.

But really what is a god? Looking at Oxford dictionaries (at the non monotheistic kind of god)
(god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes;

That kind of thing can be accomplished by a a medium level spellcaster in D&D. A 20 level character would actually have powers comparable to most ancient gods. On the other way a monotheistic god is a:
the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
A being like that cannot simply be statted, and if it can't be statted it can't be killed (without GM fiat).

Anyway OP, I found something that could really interest you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_British

One of the most famous attributes of Lord British is that he is almost invincible. In every Ultima game in which he has appeared, he is designed to be almost impervious to a player's character predations. However, there are ways for a player thinking outside the box to assassinate him.[6]

This phenomenon is the origin of the Lord British Postulate which states: "If it exists as a living creature in an MMORPG, someone, somewhere, will try to kill it."[7] Virtually every MMO game displays numerous instances of this, with players attempting to kill (or, in the case of friendly NPCs, cause the death of) virtually every NPC or monster, howsoever powerful, meek, friendly, or ethereal.

[Ashtagon]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...itishPostulate

You're welcome.

[M Placeholder]

They may not have put him down permanently, but they still beat him.

Thats what he wants you to think

I've noticed the name Lady of Pain in this thread, and its worth mentioning that aside from ruling the Cage, nobody knows that much about her dread majesty, and she ain't telling any berks. She could be a representation of Sigil, a computer programme, Monte Cook, or Six Squirrels with a ring of levitation and a cloak. The only interaction any PC's or NPC's should have with her is if she is sending them to the mazes or flaying the sods.

[goto124]

So er... why did OP want to stat out the god again?