Religious Background Reform

Name dcss:brainstorm:background: religious backgrounds
Summary How should the religious classes be organized/reformed? What about a separate class for each starting god?
Related toClass Tweaks, Death Knights, Class reform, sorear style, Makhleb
Somewhat related to Spellcaster Backgrounds and Starting Books, Fighter, Components for Backgrounds
Added by napkin
Added on 2010-06-22 07:12

Some ideas about religious classes, continuing the discussion from 2782067. Written by xyblor. Add comments.

A Plan for Religious Background Reform

This would result in only one god per background, and reduce starting god selection.

  1. remove Pa, replace Gladiator's starting short sword with falchion done (with falchions available to Fighters and Gladiators)
  2. remove CK[Makhleb] (or if that's too unpopular, rename it to “Blood Knight”) done
  3. remove Pr[Yredelemnul], bring back DK[Yredelemnul] done
  4. rename CK[Lugonu] to “Abyss Knight” done (renamed to “Abyssal Knight”)

> Note lots of of support for “Corruptor” for this class name below….</plug> — jeffqyzt 2011-02-18

  1. remove Pr[Beogh], make early Beogh altar guaranteed

xyblor 2011-01-14 22:28

I support this, including removal of Makhleb as starting god. Patch welcome! There will be quibbles about what “early” means for Beogh altars — I'd say up to and including Orc:1. I am fine with “Abyss Knight”, although later on (with new Lugonu) “Corruptor” or so might be better. But that's of little relevance for now. — dpeg 2011-01-14 23:33
I'm making a start on this, I like the look of the proposed changes too. I'll mark off things I get done above. — marvinpa 2011-02-18 07:29

edited to reflect dpeg's comment below — xyblor 2010-06-30 17:19

Trog = Berserker
Elyvilon = Healer
Yredelemnul = Death Knight
Lugonu = Chaos Knight or ? (see the Lugonu section)

Zin = Priest or remove
Xom = Chaos Knight or remove
Beogh = Priest or remove

The Shining One = Paladin
Makhleb = Chaos Knight

dpeg 2010-06-25 14:17: Here is my summary (see below for comments):

  • Stage 1 (scrap right away): TSO, Makhleb
  • Stage 2 (later/conditional): Beogh (if we guarantee an altar early enough), Zin (if we're fine with just one good god available at start), Xom (if we're confident about removing the Xom starts).

Starting God Popularity

For a rough idea of each god's popularity for starting with, here they are ranked according to the number of games per starting god from cv 0.3 to 0.6, excluding quitters and dungeon leavers.

  1. 24536x Trog
  2. 12928x Makhleb
  3. 12419x The Shining One
  4. 8987x Xom
  5. 7477x Lugonu
  6. 7014x Yredelemnul (4832x DK + 2182x Pr)
  7. 5405x Beogh
  8. 4002x Elyvilon
  9. 1809x Zin
How many of those TSO starts did it for the falchion and abandoned for Okawaru at Temple? — mrmistermonkey 2011-01-04 08:36

Allowable Starting Gods

This is a somewhat separate issue: which gods should the player be allowed to start with? Currently there are nine - is this too many?


Trog adds a lot early survivability, playstyle (no magic), and flavour. I haven't seen any opposition to Trog as a starting god

Yes, Trog is a prime example of a cool starting god. — dpeg 2010-06-25 14:17


The healing potions and abilities help the early game a lot (healer has the best winrate of any class, even excluding goodplayers). Ely could potentially define playstyle if you use pacification a lot. Definitely the most useful “good” god to start with.

Yes. Of all the good gods, Elyvilon is best early on. Note how pacification is useful right on D:1, especially against poisonous monsters (all of which will be animals, too). — dpeg 2010-06-25 14:17


Useful right away and good flavour. Doesn't define playstyle very much.

I think the armored/melee death knight was much better flavor than a robed/staffed priest - just improve the kit a little, perhaps. — og17 2010-06-22 22:00
I think it's good to have Yredelemnul as a starting god. I am willing to change the gear, there's no need to use the priest trope (which I don't like much anyway). To me, Y makes for a playing style where you try to choose your first battles on (every new) level such that the (hopefully) resulting corpses can be zombiefied, until the level collapses to your zombie army. That's unique and fun (to me). — dpeg 2010-06-25 14:17
This isn't exactly unique, though - it plays outright identically to a zombie-using necromancer. Yred just gives a couple floors' head start and early Recall. — og17 2010-06-25 21:34
Yes, of course. The unique point about Y is that you can go this without spells. That's just one more reason to give them armour and a weapon, I think. So +1 to DK. — dpeg 2010-06-26 12:42
Yes, without extra modifications it plays like a zombie-using necromancer. However, Yredelemnul is awesome if you need allies but Summoning or Necromancy is out of reach. To be more specific, I had great fun playing Enchanter of Yredelemnul. Lots of targets for Haste, and Corona is not too bad. Hasted bone dragon or two can carry you through the entire game. I frequently try weird character combinations. If there was a reliable way of getting permanent living allies, you'd see me running with Polymorh Other/allies already ! — b0rsuk 2010-06-26 18:31
I like armored/melee gear for Yred as well. The priestly flavor seems to fit more of a “go out into the world and spread undeath” theme than a “lock yourself away from the world” theme. — dolorous
Perhaps you could give Yred's Death Knights Bone Armour and a Scythe? —jeffqyzt 2011-01-05
Scythes are suicidal and that armor is both silly and giving a casting bonus to an invo character. I think plain steel is thematic enough, DK doesn't need to be dressed for halloween. — og17 2011-01-05 20:36
+1 to DKs instead of Priests. — kilobyte 2010-06-25 16:05
Another +1 to DK. — evktalo 2011-01-04 13:58


Good flavour and usefulness. Defines playstyle insofar as heavy armour is favoured. Beogh altars are rare. Beogh is by far the most popular god choice for priests.

How does Beogh “define” armor? You start in a robe without skill, and the effect's rather minor regardless. You also can't make much use of smite without burning through what little piety you have. Things pick up when you start converting orcs, sure, but the popularity is out of necessity - anyone that intends to play Beogh is forced to take him at creation. — og17 2010-06-22 21:49
I meant that Beogh worshippers will have a tendency to use heavy armour, since you get a boost to AC, not EV, and also the higher the AC of your armour the higher the boost will be, which is incentive to wear orcish plate, which in turn creates a bias toward melee rather than magic. So if someone says they are a HOPr, you have a pretty good idea about a lot of things about their character.

Anyway, in my opinion, Beogh has to remain a possible starting god. The real question is what class should Beogh belong to; currently priests, which is somewhat problematic since they are likely to go around in plate mail and a battleaxe. Is that similar enough to what priests of Zin and Yredelemnul do that it makes sense that they share a class? Is their starting equipment similar enough (hand axe vs. quarterstaff)? Personally, I would be happy if Beogh got his own class, but I realize it would be a big deal to have a class available to only one race. —xyblor 2010-06-22 22:00
I am not sure about Beogh as a starting god. It is appropriately “priestly” in some sense, and we had to do it as B altars are not granted. However, I would like it much more if a B altar was granted in the following range: D:2-(Orc entry+2) and Orc:1,2. — dpeg 2010-06-25 14:23
I like the idea of early B altars. In terms of flavor, there are enough cave orcs in the dungeon to make this feasible. — dolorous
Beogh would be utterly useless if he's not either a starting god or there's an altar of him BEFORE Orc. Most of his appeal comes in levels between D:3 and, say, D:12, and later he's as bad as TSO is on Beogh's levels. His orcies just die like flies when facing any harder opposition. — kilobyte 2010-06-25 16:05
What about some meta-game cheating: If the player is an orc, place a shallow B altar (say D:2-4)? — dpeg 2010-06-26 12:43
Why should this only appear for orcs? Undead characters get altars to good gods, and limited-slot characters get tons of items they can't use. This sort of thing makes it look like the dungeon exists independently of your character; there's no reason to “cheat” with Beogh. If you want shallow Beogh altars, they should appear for everyone, just like everything else. — og17 2010-06-26 21:45
If you meant that the altars would always be generated, but would reliably spawn early for orcs, forget I said anything! — og17 2010-06-26 21:50
Guaranteed altars, spawning quite early… hmm… let's see if we have anything similar. Like… Temple? — kilobyte 2010-06-26 22:38
I don't think that Beogh fits as a Temple god. But I have no problems with guaranteeing an “overflow altar” for the orc god. — dpeg 2010-06-26 23:47
I support removing B and making early B altars more likely to appear. Personally, I'd like to see one on orc:1 — xyblor 2010-06-30 17:40B
Just want to point out that Beogh is useful throughout the midgame and early endgame. A bunch of orc warlords can deal with most threats in D, V, C… Of course, completely useless in Swamp, Shoals and Zot and in the extended endgame. IMHO the “problem” with Beogh is him being a starting god. You want Beogh, you play HOPr, plain and simple. Adding more B altars and removing him as starting god would give players some in-game choices, not only before-the-game choice. — qui 2010-07-02 00:30
Beogh's fine in swamp and shoals - you'll notice that he has built-in recall, yes? I do agree that orcs don't stand a chance against end-game threats, skewing him towards the midgame, though really that just seems like a good reason to keep him as a starting god option. — og17 2010-07-02 04:16
I think that removing Beogh as a starting god and putting a guaranteed altar in the early dungeon is a great idea. Particularly I think that dpeg's idea of two guaranteed Beogh altars (one between D2 and Orc Entry+2 and another one Orc:1 or Orc:2) would work perfectly. That way an Orc planning to worship Beogh could still take his pick from the usual complement of classes and know that he could worship Beogh before diving into the mines (or find Beogh therein). Also, and this might be a bit bold, I think that Ogres should be allowed to worship Beogh. Based on the demographics of the Orcish Mines, it seems that Ogres and Orcs live in a communal society, so surely they worship together. Also, it would give Ogres a needed boost to help make them more than simply Trolls without claws or regeneration. — 256 2010-07-20 17:37
Many things live in the mines, more or less including the majority of the game's elves. Current Beogh is orc-centric as heck, and ogres are neither particularly similar to trolls nor lacking in any way that following Beogh would address. I imagine that converted ogre mages' banishment would be fantastically annoying, too. — og17 2010-07-20 20:37
Here's a far-out idea: remove Beogh as a priest option. Instead, *all* hill orcs who do not start with a religious background begin as worshipers of Beogh. I know, you hate the idea. But! (1) Beogh is a favorite god among players, and it would be a crying shame if hill orcs were unable to begin the game as devotees of Beogh. (2) It has great flavor justification: there is no other god devoted to a single race, this would reinforce the relationship between orcs and their god. (3) It would help differentiate hill orcs and mountain dwarves, two races that are nigh identical. (4) Retaining the option to begin as other religious backgrounds allows people to begin as devotees of a few other gods if they so choose, and I think it's fine if one race has a bit less religious freedom than others (see also mummies, vampires, ghouls), at least initially (renouncing Beogh is always an option). (5) This would avoid nastiness such as guaranteeing a Beogh altar for all races, or guaranteeing a Beogh altar only for hill orcs, or having a single class devoted only to hill orcs, and it would guarantee against the worst nastiness of all: removing Beogh as a starting option. — wensleydale 2010-10-23 06:56
One more justification: to quote the God Wrath page on wrath redesign goals: “encourage god switching (milder wraths for early characters)”. For new players especially, switching gods is a terrifying prospect (I myself never attempted abandoning a god until my first all-runer). Having a race devoted nearly entirely to Beogh creates a “tier-0” of god-having that's exclusive to hill orcs, where “tier-1” is normally achieved at the temple and “tier-2” is achieved just before the endgame, and the boundaries between tiers represent the best opportunities to switch gods. Gently encouraging hill orcs to renounce Beogh when they get to the temple would create a non-contrived situation where new players could (semi-)safely experience wrath mechanics for the first time and achieve the goal stated above. It could also aid in introducing players, both new and old alike, to redesigned god wrath. — wensleydale 2010-10-23 16:03
An interesting thought is what to do about invocations in this idea. The choice that seems most fun to me would be for most orcs to start with 0, but keep orc priest of Beogh as a class choice (as well as priests of Zin/Yeredemnul) who starts with several points of invocations, letting him get a lot more out of smiting (ironically, he might be the one most likely to switch gods at the Temple, since he's not trying to preserve piety to gain followers as early as possible and training invocations with many temple gods is difficult). — brickman 2010-10-27 06:16
This is by far the best way of handling Beogh and orcs, which as said have a lot of overlap with other races. Invocations would be fine starting at 0 (or 1 for Beogh starts if you want some flavor), since it's true that starting with invo would be most attractive to players who aren't even staying with Beogh. Keeping a Beogh priest class around defeats the purpose, of course; people that stay with Beogh can just train invo normally if they want to. — og17 2011-02-18 21:19
In theory, yes. In practice, not so much, because training Beogh invocations can only be done with one skill which costs piety, and I'm not even sure it scales well enough to be useful late in the game unless you're willing to spend several uses' worth of piety on one fight. — brickman 2011-02-19 17:21
Smite cost and invo use could be reevaluated, but that's no argument for giving out a handful of skill at creation - if anything, it'd be better to rescale the ability so 0 invo gets you current hopr starting damage, though I'd avoid that, as starting Beogh with a full background is a buff in itself. — og17 2011-02-19 19:38


The least popular god. Lots of flavour, but Zin doesn't define playstyle very much and doesn't add much to early game survivability. I think Zin tweaks are still underway though. Currently sharing the priest class with Beogh and Yredelemnul.

New Zin is better, including D:1 (testing welcome!). Still second in place (among good gods) after Elyvilon for D:1 usefulness. Can stay as a starting god, doesn't have to— dpeg 2010-06-25 14:23
The buff to recite has changed things considerably and from what I've seen the new Zin is quite powerful as a result. Recite is a potent weapon against humanoids in all stages of the game, from kobolds to titans and draconians.— xyblor 2010-06-30 17:07


Lots of flavour, but doesn't define playstyle at all. If you want to worship Xom, you're better off starting off with no god and taking Xom at the temple. At that point in the game you're more likely to be able to survive the bad stuff Xom likes to do. Again, the solution here could either be to forbid starting with Xom, or tweak Xom to make him more merciful at low levels. On the other hand, choosing Xom is supposed to make the game more unpredictable. Xom is the god most suited to the class of Chaos Knights.

I think Xom's a given, as if you want to play a Xom game, you're going to want to do so from the gate - “survivability” isn't really a consideration. — og17 2010-06-22 21:49
I am unsure. It is probably best to remove starting gods in stages, and defer the Xom decision to the second (or later) stage. It is true that Xom is less lethal if taken on later. It is also true that some players like starting a bunch of Xom games, hoping for a good item etc. The latter may be seen as a reason to remove Xom as a starting choice, I guess. — dpeg 2010-06-25 14:23
Being able to start with Xom is a great feature. In non-serious play, it offers lots of surprises and flavour for both experienced and new players, the latter of which may not be able to make it to the Ecumenical Temple. Xom is a signature feature of the game and should be available from the start. — evktalo 2010-07-01 12:05
I completely agree with Eino's reasoning. — jpeg 2010-07-01 21:16
Xom needs to stay in as a starting option. The fun of Xom would be drastically reduced if you couldn't have him for the whole game. It's a good flavor fit for CK, though it could also work as an option for Wanderer. — 256 2010-07-20 17:53
Count me among the people who believe that leaving Xom as a starting option is essential. If people truly want to worship Xom with some survivability, as dpeg notes, they can always start as any other background and pick him up at the temple. For new players, Xom is one of the biggest selling points of Crawl (he certainly was for me and my friends, at least), and for new players simply reaching the temple is often a challenge. Xom is an excellent starting god. — wensleydale 2010-10-23 07:15

The Shining One

Among all-rune wins, TSO is the most popular god (by a wide margin over Sif), and paladin is the most popular class. Paladin is a very well defined career path, but at the beginning TSO is probably more of a liability than an asset, due to the conducts required. Starting with a long blade means that in the long run you will waste less experience on short blades, but the reduced speed and accuracy probably makes them inferior at xl 1. One suggestion has been to remove paladins, and make falchion one of Gladiators' weapon choices.

I'd suggest making TSO more useful from the start and less overbearing at the end, though I don't know how to best go about doing that. I do agree that as is, there's little reason to start with a god who isn't useful in the early game. “Paladin” is a pretty strong archetype flavor-wise, for what it's worth. — og17 2010-06-22 21:49
Clearly, TSO should be not a starting god. There's no undead to speak of early on and the cool halo flavour is just as cool if you pick up TSO at the temple. TSO is quite well-defined, and I wouldn't like to make the god broader early on (what og17 suggests) at expense of the theme. — dpeg 2010-06-25 14:23
I disagree about Halo ! Halo is great laser targetting system, it has strong impact on accuracy of missiles, spells (Lighting Bolt becomes efficient), and even Bolt of Inaccuracy from the rod. Halo is “just as cool at the temple” only if you use it for melee. If you want to improve ranged attacks with halo, you need to build it up as soon as possible. — b0rsuk 2010-06-26 18:31
We could change halo growth so that it is quick with early piety. — evktalo 2011-01-04 13:58
I'm on dpeg's side with this one. TSO is probably the most clear-cut late-game god. I'm not denying that the may be circumstances under which he can be useful early on, but that's probably true of any god. — jpeg 2010-07-01 21:19


Second most popular starting god. Currently, doesn't start with any useful perks from Makhleb, although once you get minor destruction it's possible to get through most of the game by killing things with invocations. In that sense, Makhleb can definitely define a playstyle.

It takes all of five piety to start getting replenishment on kills - starting piety could be bumped up if this needs to work out the gate, I guess. — og17 2010-06-22 21:49
Makhleb is a great god, with appeal to almost all builds. But there's no reason to make this a starting god. You can just as well choose M atthe temple. — dpeg 2010-06-25 14:23
Makhleb is no doubt effective, but he hardly defines a playstyle at all. Furthermore, he's one of gods with pretty much no downsides; you can take Makhleb and it's strictly better than no god except for god switching and Lugonu. I also don't like that Makhleb's powers are conceptually redundant. Random magic missile - bigger missile. Random demon - bigger random demon. — b0rsuk 2010-06-26 18:31
It seems like getting rid of the Makhleb class is a done deal, which will help clean up the class roster a lot. However, I just want to point out that it's possible to have a “career” using Makhleb invocations, not just as support, but as your main killing tool. Also, Makhleb is the only god that offers this. I think it's kind of cool that there is a class that encapsulates this playstyle and makes it easier for beginners to experience by making it a starting option. On the other hand, I do recognize that the vast majority of M worshippers don't follow this route but instead they are just after the healing and emergency summons. So in that sense losing CK(Makhleb) is not that much of a loss. On another note, no more pre-temple Makhleb makes DD more difficult, which IMO is good. — xyblor 2010-06-30 17:58
As much as it sounds like the removal of Chaos Knights of Makhleb is set in stone, I'd just like to say that I don't think it's such a great idea. From a more novice perspective, I've always found playing Chaos Knights of Makhleb to be one of few interesting, reliable ways of getting non-magical warrior-type characters off the ground. You give up so many useful options by foregoing magic, and the only way to make up for it is with items (which you don't have reliable access to at the start of the game) or invocations (with Makhleb and Lugonu being the only particularly strong starting options on that front). It's easy to say “Oh, you can just grab Makhleb once you hit the Ecumenical Temple”, but among less experienced players that's hardly a sure thing. And let me tell you from personal experience: losing a bunch of fighters in a row to seemingly-unavoidable deaths to snakes, orc priests, or whatever else with no magic, no useful items, no invocations, no real options of any kind…well, before long it starts to make a pretty convincing case for never playing anything except casters. Removing one of the very few ways for a non-mage character to start the game with fun and useful tools and abilities just moves the game further in that direction, and I don't see who it's helping. Granted, the resurrection of Death Knights of Yredelemnul with more warrior-focused stats and equipment would help offset this somewhat, but I still think Makhleb has a place among the starting gods. Especially since the removal of Reavers has left the Chaos Knight of Makhleb as the only background which promotes a hybrid fighter/blaster style right out of the gate (which could easily be reinforced conceptually by switching Minor Destruction with healing from kills, along with maybe switching from leather to low-end heavy armor). — sjohara 2010-10-15 00:06
If beginners are looking for an easy ride to temple as melee, they'd be better off starting as a troll and/or Trog. — og17 2011-01-07 20:34

+1 to Sjohara. My first win was as a Chaos Knight of Mahkleb and it really allowed me to experience the game and get me started playing. — tenaya 2011-01-07 19:20


Controversial. Lugonu isn't that useful as a starting god, but Lugonu has a definite niche for speedrunning, with distortion-brand, banishment and corruption, allowing players to bypass difficulties. Starting in the abyss has two ramifications: 1) the surprise of a strange and dangerous branch is spoiled, since you don't need to make any progress in the game to see it, and 2) players are less likely to suffer the loss of promising characters in the abyss, since they have unlimited opportunities to see how it works without any time investment.

Currently, Lugonu rather awkwardly shares the class of Chaos Knight with Xom and Makhleb. It's awkward in the sense that Lugonu isn't really that chaotic or random, at least compared to Xom. Also the Chaos Knights of differing religions don't really have playstyles that are all that similar. Possible solutions are to forbid starting with Lugonu, give Lugonu his own class (e.g. Warp Knight), or just live with it.

I disagree Lugonu isn't useful as a starting god. I think he's the *most* useful as a starting god. Early blink when escape tools are very scarce. Banish for removal of early nasties - ogres, orc priests, orc warriors, hill giants. Lugonu itself is not very playstyle defining, but distortion *absolutely* is, and the brand is extremely combo friendly. I don't like how Lugonu stopped being an Abyss god, though. The same argumentation can be used to enable Jiyva as starting god.— b0rsuk 2010-06-26 18:31
What do you mean that “Lugonu stopped being an Abyss god”? — xyblor 2010-06-30 19:19
He's only nominally one. He used to be found only in the Abyss. It meant that when you saw a character of Lugonu he was generally after some traumatic experiences. Later, Lugonu chaos knights were introduced to combat desperate attempts at reaching Lugonu as quickly as possible. Lugonu essentially became a character class, similar to Beogh and those with rare books. — b0rsuk 2010-07-01 06:13
Please stop calling the lady a 'he'. — studiomk 2010-07-28 17:50
Lugonu is very much chaotic - for mechanics, look at corruption's effects, or distortion, or questionably-uncontrollable blinking. If anything, considering Makhleb's directable random-effect invocations to be chaotic is much more of a stretch. I'd also question that seeing the abyss on a CK makes a character more likely to survive it later on, as the place isn't exactly complicated in concept. It's still fantastic flavor, though. — og17 2010-06-22 21:49
The original analysis is spot on. I value 2) much higher than 1), so I am in favour of keeping Lugonu as a starting god. Also, there are plans to extend the flavour/gameplay of the god considerably (desecrating altars of other gods), which makes for very fine starting flavour, if you ask me. — dpeg 2010-06-25 14:23
If we could make Tloc a viable spell school, it might be a good idea to redesign Lugonu as a god of warpers instead – using TLoc skill instead of Invocations and so on. If we can add some real “warp space” spells that affect the topology itself, such a connection could be insteresting. — kilobyte 2010-06-25 16:05

xyblor 2010-06-30 18:40:
From looking at the discussion on this page, it seems like we're heading toward a situation where each starting god has its own class (which I favour). However, I don't see a lot of desire to get rid of Lugonu or Xom, so CK could be a point of contention. If we assume that Makhleb is going to be removed no matter what, here are some scenarios for what could happen:

  1. Lugonu gets scrapped and Xom is the only CK
  2. Xom gets scrapped and Lugonu steals the Chaos Knight class from the god of chaos. (still neat and tidy.)
  3. Both gods stay and continue sharing the CK class (historically consistent, but yucky; probably the only two-tier class selection left: god and weapon.)
  4. Both gods stay and the Lugonu class is renamed to another “knight”, which helps indicate starting gear (suggestions: Warp Knight, Black Knight, Doom Knight, Abyss Knight)
  5. Both gods stay and the Lugonu class is renamed entirely (suggestions: Space Bender, Corruptor, Weaver)
  6. Both gods stay and Warpers start with Lugonu. This would give Warpers some needed personality. Kind of weird having only one class starting with both a god and a book. Also weird to have redundant sources of blink.
  7. No one starts with Lugonu, but Warpers start in the Abyss (due to a miscasting accident at the Academy of Translocation)


I support 4 and 5. (Don't care about the actual name too much.) 1 is out of the question for me; 2 would be okay but I am fine with keeping Xom. 3 is not good: the idea of having one background for every god is a good one. The idea of linking Warpers to Lugonu (6) or the Abyss (7) is cute, but I don't think it's practical: the link Abyss↔Lugonu is much stronger. — dpeg 2010-07-01 02:16
I see no reason to link warpers with Lugonu. As said, they'd be both a caster class and a divine class, which is a problem in itself, as warpers don't need to be restricted like that - their starting spells have a number of useful support roles, none of which can be fully used with Lugonu. Also, it doesn't even make sense flavor-wise, as Lugonu isn't the official abyss god as much as she's simply banished there and twisted to reflect it - that is, a warper has no reason to follow Lugonu. Even if Lugonu was the god of translocations, a warper shouldn't be roped into her any more than a necromancer is forced into Kiku or a FE into Vehumet.
7 would be cute, though I think Lugonu's a good starting god mechanically (for speedrunners if nothing else), and warpers obviously wouldn't have the god's “exit abyss” button, making surviving rather iffy. I like 4 and warp knight, though 5 with corrupter or whatever would work. — og17 2010-07-02 04:16
I don't see any link at all between warpers and Lugonites. Lugonu is concerned with distorting space, not transporting crap. Warpers teleport; Lugonites bend space. There is no link at all and forcing one upon a Warper is the same as making Necromancers start with Y (eg. pointless). — studiomk 2010-07-28 17:52
What about letting Lugonu have Chaos Knight and moving Xom over to an option on Wanderer (who currently have no sub-menus)? It's a little bit of a stretch game flavor-wise, but a great match in terms of gameplay and meta-flavor. And a Wanderer of Xom will certainly appeal to the kind of people who already love Xom games. — 256 2010-07-20 18:01
I like the idea of giving CK to Lugonu and moving Xom to something else, if nobody can think of a better Lugonu background name; I don't like the idea of moving Xom to Wanderer, specifically, however; I like dpeg's idea of “Chevalier of Fortune” for Xom, though I don't know how well-known the word “chevalier” is. — mrmistermonkey 2010-07-28 20:31
Note that “Chevalier” refers to the knight's horse, so unless the introduction of mounts is eminent, I'd recommend against. — jeffqyzt 2011-01-05

names for Lugonu class

Warp Knight

the similarity to “Warper” might cause some consternation.

It's no worse than having both death and chaos knights, is it? — og17 2010-07-03 03:50
Having multiple “knight” classes is fine because it highlights the similarity in their melee-based starting equipment. However, to a new player confronted with two classes with the word “warp” in them, it will not be evident that one warps things with magic while the other warps things with the help of a god. — xyblor 2010-07-27 22:14
I am opposed to this as by the reasoning above. And also because is sounds stupid. — studiomk 2010-07-28 17:55
Abyss Knight

nice analog to hell knights

Void Knight
Rift Knight
Honestly, this sounds like a title to me, though it'd work better as a class name if Lugonu gets more corruption mechanics. — og17 2010-07-03 03:53
This works as a class. Isn't similar to 'Warper' but works well on its own. A fitting title would be 'Agent of Corruption'; Corruper is fine as a class. — studiomk 2010-07-28 17:59
I like Corruptor. I've also changed the spelling from Corrupter to Corruptor, feel free to dispute me. Both are valid spellings, it's a matter of taste. — wensleydale 2010-10-23 07:41
Another vote for Corruptor! —jeffqyzt 2011-01-05
Corruptor is a great name for Lugonu's servants —zasvid 2011-02-18 15:25
Space Bender

named after the bend space ability. kind of lame sounding.

This would be a title too, but a lame one. — og17 2010-07-03 03:53
Sounds too un-serious. — studiomk 2010-07-28 17:59
Bite my shiny metal ass! — coolio 2010-10-27 15:34

related to the idea of banishment, but we don't really know how the lugonite ended up in the abyss in the first place

Also better used as a title, I think. — og17 2010-07-03 03:50

sounds good, but doesn't indicate what you'll be doing

Again, this would be a good title. — og17 2010-07-03 03:50

Lugonu seeks to bring about the destruction (or at least debasement) of the entire natural world. Let's stop beating around the bush and call her followers what they really are: apocalyptic cultists. This has the advantage of getting away from the “$Foo Knight” trope as well as suggesting an interesting new initial skill buildout. I'm thinking: Fighting(1) Short Blades(2) Dodging(1) Stealth(2) Stabbing(2) Invocations(3). The stealth/invocations combo is one that no starting class currently does. — 256 2010-07-28 18:53

Sounds like decent flavour, but how well would it play? — mrmistermonkey 2010-07-28 20:47
I remembered an idea from that Lugonu page about splitting Bend Space into Expand/Contract space; if this doesn't wake up monsters, it could be useful for stabbing. — mrmistermonkey 2010-10-23 02:54


The class names above don't really fit. The first few push too much on the 'knight' idea. Lugonites are agents/advocates, not knights. They do not 'battle in the name of Lugonu'; they act in her name, delivering her tools of corruption to the dungeon floor. We all call Lugonu worshippers Lugonites, so why don't we use this existing title. — studiomk 2010-07-28 17:55

“Lugonite” isn't very descriptive for new players, and basing a background name on a portmanteau from the crawl community is just weird. How about naming it Lugoknight, just to make everyone unhappy? — mrmistermonkey 2010-07-28 20:31
Logged in as: Anonymous (VIEWER)
dcss/brainstorm/background/concept/religious_backgrounds.txt · Last modified: 2011-12-22 20:27 by XuaXua
Recent changes RSS feed Donate Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki