top gods for Zealot backgrounds

[syringe]

1) Makhleb. The only way a character that only kills with invocations can exist is by starting with Minor Destruction available, or abusing Ru. Doesn't need a weapon, spells, or combat skills. May reasonably turn into a caster by finding books and not investing in combat. Would allow DD to bypass the weird early game that orthodox DD go through, and could topple MiBe.

2) Xom. Creates a uniquely challenging start, exaggerating the already precarious early floors. Showcases iconic Crawl god. Lets players let off steam with a crazy game from the very start.

3) Vehumet. Vastly changes the nature of Vehumet's early gifts. Starting with magic dart is acceptable because even if you end up spamming some purely elemental "destructive" spell, like Freeze or Shatter, you still want some conj with Vehumet, for other spells.

4) Jiyva. Very different from worshiping Jiyva later, even if "later" means a rare early altar. Starting with Jiyva means that you don't get to pick the point when you think "I feel comfortable with jellies trying to eat items, time to convert". Eliminates putting up with atheism or an odd god just so you get easy/nonexistent penance converting to Jiyva. Eliminates going back to explored dungeon floors and twiddling your thumbs to get piety. Alters "Request Jelly" from a pure "sacrifice item" hack to an actually useful summon. Reduces chance of accidental irreversible deicide.

5) Ash. This is another god whom you don't just pick up and continue playing. You pick Ash, then do a whole bunch of stuff, and only then continue playing. Having Ash from the start would make Ash play smoother: you wouldn't suddenly halt to peruse your inventory, ctrl-f the dungeon, and plan your cursing strategy. You would treat early dungeon loot differently and use-ID more, since you wouldn't be afraid of accidentally getting cursed. You would also be committed to the ?rc RNG from the start. As a typical player who's thinking of going Ash, you're incentivized to check your ?rc stock before joining. Ash is near useless with no ?rc. No other god is this discouraging - in the worst case, you might have to give up a nice find or some wasted skill, but not with Ash. By committing from turn 1, you are spared this dispiriting moment, because you have no choice. The great variance of ?rc availability can be leavened by starting Ash zealots with a scroll of remove curse, which I would likely use on the first found 2-handed weapon. Ashenzari is special, in how a bookless start can be appropriate: Ash tends to reward spellcasters, and provides a unique way to reasonably transition from melee to major casting via Transfer Knowledge. (At least, if Transfer Knowledge is not unduly wasteful and expensive, which I hear it is.)

6) Kiku. Not because it's such a great idea, but because it's obvious what gear a Kiku zealot should get - a book of necromancy. Most gods can be played almost any way, and giving Zealots gear that doesn't make them seem unfairly niche is challenging if not impossible. But Kiku is niche, so making a niche Kiku background is appropriate.

7) Trog. In general, a bookless Zealot start is something that needlessly discourages spellcasting. Most gods are played virtually spell-less a large percentage of the time. Trog bumps this percentage to 100%, thus it is relatively forgivable to make Trog the god of a bookless Zealot. (I'm assuming that no background is allowed to have a choice of book.) Berserker is still bad. You take berserker because Trog is strong (and not a pain like Fedhas) rather than to enjoy the intricacies of berserk and fast allies, leading to overexposure of Trog's narrow peculiarities when you keep taking the easy option.

well those are my two cents what are yours

[Siegurt]

So starting with a god is an inherent detriment to the game, because you reduce the variability of the game by removing your god choice. In order for a zealot to be viable the god's playstyle has to sufficently force you into a 'nonstandard' start that you offset that detriment with something interesting.

Makhelb doesn't fit this bill because while you can play invocations-only, there's no particular reason that you have to do, plus Makhelb's invocations are mostly similar to spells. Makhleb zealots could be played as Fi/Gl+heal-on-kills (they did exist previously, and that's exactly what got done with them a lot) "be exactly like an existing start, but better" is a bad zealot.

Veh would only be a good zealot if you also didn't start with a spellbook *and* didn't start with a weapon (but did start with say, magic dart memorized) and even then, a lot of times you'd find an early weapon or spellbook, and it'd revert to being a 'normal' start (but not every time, so it would be interesting often enough that it'd be ok)

Jivya mostly has the same problem as makhleb, he doesn't force any different playstyle on you from the get-go, you can mostly ignore jivya and play normally, although I guess having some less loot would make the earlier game more annoying.

Ash is pretty impractical *and* is uninteresting, at the beginning, he does literally nothing, ?rc are too inconsistent for you to have any reasonable idea of whether he will ultimately be of any significant use outside of the early game, the reason you want to take ash later is so you have an idea of whether you can use him effectively or not. So he doesn't start by confining your play to something nonstandard, and he restricts you from selecting a god, and he may not be useful at all until you are well outside the early game.

Your suggested Kiku start is literally "necromancer, but you have a pre-selected optimal god" there's literally nothing unique about playing a Kiku zealot other than being a more powerful necromancer earlier, "power bump, but with no differentiation from a standard start" is the literal definition of a bad zealot.

Trog's problematic, he's only marginally different, start-wise, "no spells" only really comes into play for non-Be starts a little later into the game, so his conduct doesn't exactly provide any major breaking points from the norm, he's a marginal at best zealot god and I think the game would be better overall without it, but having it in the game does give a new-player friendly introduction, so it's not without any merit.

[syringe]

I agree with much of what you say. I'm not sure you read OP. 1-5 are the only gods for whom a Zealot start may differ from picking the god with a different background, and 6-7 are merely conceivable if you stipulate 2 things:
- don't needlessly push Zealots to start with no spells or random spells, and
- don't give any background a choice of book

Makhelb doesn't fit this bill because while you can play invocations-only, there's no particular reason that you have to do, plus Makhelb's invocations are mostly similar to spells. Makhleb zealots could be played as Fi/Gl+heal-on-kills (they did exist previously, and that's exactly what got done with them a lot) "be exactly like an existing start, but better" is a bad zealot.

A good Zealot adds something to the game that simply isn't there without that background, but how often? Does it have to be 100% of games with that background?

Cracking skulls gladiator-style with Makhleb healing works identically with Zealot and non-Zealot Makhleb worshippers, but invo-only killing is only possible with the Zealot option. So while a Makhleb Zealot can be a bad Zealot, akin to an Oka Zealot or Lugonu Zealot, it can also be a good Zealot, depending on how you play. I believe that it is a more subjective matter, whether the potential for playing like a good Zealot vindicates a background, or whether the potential for playing like a bad Zealot disqualifies a background, but you must acknowledge this.

BTW it is generally not best to pick Necromancer for a Kiku worshiper.

you can mostly ignore jivya and play normally

alrighty then

[watertreatmentRL]

The best god for a zealot background would be Chei. It's immediately different from other backgrounds and it forces you to do something that's otherwise a bad idea: Worship Chei. It would also breathe some new life into turncount speedrunning in current crawl. Snail Knights 2017.

[syringe]

Unfortunately, being a challenge god does not automatically make for a good Zealot. Qazlal has as much right to be declared a challenge god. It's a slippery slope. You could even argue that gods like Beogh and TSO are always bad choices, and (using your logic) support backgrounds that force you to do something that's otherwise a bad idea: worship Beogh/TSO/etc.

Xom goes above and beyond merely being a challenge god. Quite notably, Xom is in full force from turn 1, circumventing the entire piety curve (which Chei adheres to) completely, and is a major selling point for Crawl.

And what equipment would a Chei background get? Just a weapon? Chei slows you on D1 but so does atheism if you're a Naga, and a Naga can choose any background. You get the "early Chei" experience by playing a Naga, approximately, making the Chei zealot redundant.

e: Upon reflection, a Kiku zealot can start with Pain memorized, no book, and no more than 15 piety.

[Shtopit]

Chei start is interesting in theory, but it would still mean having to start with or without a spellbook, which determines your later choices quite strongly (especially if you start without a book and find your first one in Lair). Something of this sort already happens with AK.

[Siegurt]

A good Zealot adds something to the game that simply isn't there without that background, but how often? Does it have to be 100% of games with that background?

Cracking skulls gladiator-style with Makhleb healing works identically with Zealot and non-Zealot Makhleb worshippers, but invo-only killing is only possible with the Zealot option. So while a Makhleb Zealot can be a bad Zealot, akin to an Oka Zealot or Lugonu Zealot, it can also be a good Zealot, depending on how you play. I believe that it is a more subjective matter, whether the potential for playing like a good Zealot vindicates a background, or whether the potential for playing like a bad Zealot disqualifies a background, but you must acknowledge this.

If playing as Mak in any way *strongly encouraged* using a unique play style, it wouldn't be a bad zealot, he doesn't. While it's possible to play an invocation-only makhleb zealot, it's hardly encouraged over playing a more standard sort of character, in fact it's discouraged by virtue of being harder (minor destruction is spammable, but does poor damage past D:5 or so, and the rest of the invocations aren't spammable)

[VeryAngryFelid]

We have 20+ species, 20+ gods, 20+ backgrounds. Introducing new backgrounds with unique gameplay do not decrease variability, they increase it as OP proves.

[syringe]

Even if spamming invo is a relatively difficult way of playing Makhleb, it is nevertheless alluring and unique, as can be seen with https://crawl.develz.org/info/inline.php?q=makhbat conduct. It is like you are applying a principle of "if it's weak, it doesn't exist" to backgrounds, assuming everyone will adhere.

But I think you are underestimate minor destruction. If you train invo to a moderate 8, which is necessary and sufficient for 0%-hostile lesser servants, Minor Destruction can well be your best offense, well beyond D:5, especially taking its range into account. And you can later adapt to floor loot without having spent experience to improve swinging a +1 unbranded crap weapon.

e: could your perception of Makhleb and Minor Destruction be colored by it being virtually impossible back in 0.7 as today to have ** Makhleb piety without having developed an alternative way of killing monsters?

[Factorialite]

I think I come down on having 0 zealots, not more. To compensate, Xom/Lugonu/Jiyva altars should be guaranteed to generate somewhere in Lair via a Ecumenical Temple of the Strange. In fact, if I had my way, there would be fewer altars in the Ecumenical Temple (8-12), slightly fewer altars in the dungeon, and slightly more altars in an auxiliary temple (6-10), while guaranteeing that every altar occurs at least once between D:2 and D:10 or Lair:1-5.

[Sprucery]

Imo Xom, Lugonu and Jiyva should have zealots. Starting with them gives a different experience than getting them later.

I would also like less altars in the temple and all altars guaranteed by D:15.

[Siegurt]

Even if spamming invo is a relatively difficult way of playing Makhleb, it is nevertheless alluring and unique, as can be seen with https://crawl.develz.org/info/inline.php?q=makhbat conduct. It is like you are applying a principle of "if it's weak, it doesn't exist" to backgrounds, assuming everyone will adhere.

But I think you are underestimate minor destruction. If you train invo to a moderate 8, which is necessary and sufficient for 0%-hostile lesser servants, Minor Destruction can well be your best offense, well beyond D:5, especially taking its range into account. And you can later adapt to floor loot without having spent experience to improve swinging a +1 unbranded crap weapon.

e: could your perception of Makhleb and Minor Destruction be colored by it being virtually impossible back in 0.7 as today to have ** Makhleb piety without having developed an alternative way of killing monsters?

No, i did that challenge myself about 3 weeks ago, my perception is colored by using it recently. Minor destruction is fine for clearing low level chaff, ok for adders, on the poorer side against ogres, and definitely worse than say a flail or war axe at skill 8 against orc warriors (but its range is nice for priests and centaurs). It is also even more inconsistent than standard spells and weapons.

Summon lesser demon is very useful for much longer, but can't be used as your *only* offense.

"Can be used for an optional challenge build" is not anywhere close to "forces or actively encourages a unique play style that isn't otherwise available"

It is very similar to the complaint about the removal of the evy zealot removing the possibility of a pacifist run.

[syringe]

Ely only became a typical bad zealot with other changes made in the same version. Ely used to be in the same boat as Makhleb.

I don't think fsim does minor destruction but it took me 14 minor destructions on average to kill an Ettin, over 10 trials, which is almost 5 damage/turn. Same char with stats of 15 and 8 in all skills does 5.5 damage/turn with a flail versus an ogre, 3.2 versus the ettin which is similar to orc warrior. And I have no idea how you can say it's good against adders and poor against ogres when ogres have identical AC/resists and worse EV.

Imo Xom, Lugonu and Jiyva should have zealots. Starting with them gives a different experience than getting them later.

But Lugonu doesn't play any different from the beginning. Lugonu is a pretty standard kind of god that starts you off with an irrelevant passive and gives you useful powers as you gain piety.

[TeshiAlair]

The only good gods for a zealot background are gods that you can't get in temple, and possibly Veh because bookless magic start is Kinda Neat.

and xom because weapon of chaos start is fun as heck. Hell, remove Xom, have chaos knight start with a cursed chaos branded weapon.

[Sprucery]

But Lugonu doesn't play any different from the beginning.

If you exit the Abyss immediately, yes. I always search for an exit first to save piety. Most often I have to bail out anyway when something dangerous appears but this makes the very beginning different.

Hell, remove Xom, have chaos knight start with a cursed chaos branded weapon.

But Xom actions are the thing imo.

[duvessa]

my cent is that all zealot backgrounds are bad