Talk:Priest

disambiguation problem here. there are priests (role) and priests (temple) -- PraetorFenix

My guess is that we can describe them on the same page. It is easier to link [[priest]] everywhere than to do something like [[temple priest]] and [[priest role]], or perhaps [[priest (temple)|]] and [[priest (role)|]]. However, NetHackWiki is not explicitly a dictionary, so info about priests need not be at [[priest]]; if someone thinks it good to split this page (after it becomes longer), then they should try it. --Kernigh 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question

Does being a Priest make Atheist conduct not possible?

Nope, in fact it makes it really easy since you start with holy water and you don't need altars to BUC test items. You still have to avoid sacrificing, praying and chatting to priests, and you can't use your #turn ability, but even so maintaining atheist conduct is a lot easier than it is for other classes. ContraDuck 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Avoid abbreviations in the explanation text of articles

This is an encyclopaedia. I dont think we should use abbreviations like wis and int in the explanation text. NetHackWiki needs to adopt a formal manual of style..

The Longbow of Diana

I really can't agree with the article's suggestion to use the Longbow. It's a terrible artifact weapon (since it doesn't deal extra damage), and it's a lousy quest artifact compared to the Key. Therefore I've decided to remove this advice until someone wants to back it up. -- Killian 08:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lure wraiths out of quest?

Under the quest section, the article states that one should lure the wraiths out of the graveyards. but my understanding is that one would have to lure them off of a graveyard level to increase their chances of leaving a corpse. Seeing as how the whole quest is made up of graveyard levels, it seems like luring wraiths out of the quest could be quite time consuming (similar to the VotD). Should I just delete the comment about luring them out? Derekt75 01:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It would make more sense (to me) to change it and mention that they need to be lured out of the quest branch. That doesn't have to be time consuming – you could use a wished-for (or found in bones) Eye of the Aethiopica; branchporting them out is quite efficient. --Bcode 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

God question

I've just started playing Priest, and I've noticed that despite the fact I have the same beginning stats each time (human neutral female priestess), the God that comes up in the beginning description is different. I've had Ishtar, Crom, and plenty of other ones that I can't call to mind right now. Is it some quality of the Priest that he or she can be a servant of any of the other gods? ——209.152.75.216 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is. It has absolutely no gameplay effect, though. -Ion frigate (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Starting with 2 cloves of garlic

Wiki entry says that you start with one, but I have two. I'm not sure if this is NAO specific or something, so I'm not going to edit the article, but it seemed like it should be on this page if someone more knowledgeable wants to add it. -KevinCarbonara

I guess you start the game with one stack of garlic. Most of the time, that means just one piece as a stack all by itself, but occasionally a stack of two (or perhaps more). --Tjr (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Very Minor Edit,

I am relatively new to the wiki, so I'm not sure how to format this but the doppelganger link under the list of races for the SLASH'EM description of the role links to doppelganger rather that doppelganger (starting race)

I apologize if this is not the right place for this. I am new.

--Esteron (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Guidebook problems

To me, the guidebook's mention of prayer with priests is even worse than the "physiological need" for liquids mention under the "foodless" conduct (a need that characters do not, in fact, suffer from). It certainly tricked me when I first read it. (I'm sorry if I'm being a bit stubborn, but it is preferable if an informational site is clear, not allusive.) -Actual-nh (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There is being clear and then there is excessive elaboration. As I'd stated, there was already an acknowledgement that I had added into the text - which, as it so happens, I was in the middle of adding the words in parenthesis to when I got edit conflicted. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ouch! Sorry about that... I can see how you would be rather irked. -Actual-nh (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Also the initial gripe you've based this on isn't even correct. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You are interpreting it in light of knowing that NetHack characters don't need liquids specifically. To me, it (without clarification) suggests that characters in the game do have a physiological need for water, and that is why they're still allowed to consume it under a foodless conduct. (A more rational way to state it is that foodless is doing without the food portion of "food and drink".) Admittedly, given that I have Asperger's, I may be interpreting it differently than most readers; OTOH, thanks to over 20 years of teaching experience, I do have some ability to anticipate how people new to a subject can read a statement.

Another way to look at this is a more-specific version of Murphy's Law (which my experience has taught me is eminently correct): If there are multiple ways to read something, at least some people are going to interpret it wrongly. -Actual-nh (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, further evidence on this: see Why_do_I_keep_dying?#Drinking_water. -Actual-nh (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"I do have some ability to anticipate how people new to a subject can read a statement."

The "physiological need for water" is the basis for liquids not breaking the foodless conduct, and the Guidebook states it in a way that to me - who is also on the autism spectrum, thank you - can readily recognize as such. That it's not clear to you may not be your fault, but neither is it the Guidebook's in this particular case. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I was trying to find an explanation for why we were reading it so differently; I did not mean to offend (and do understand the strong desire to have things done right...). (This may be also an aspect of why I don't particularly like "spectrum", which to me implies one dimension of variation - there are rather more.) I am evidently not the only one to interpret the Guidebook that way - see the provided link - but the same is certainly true of you (e.g., the Guidebook's authors). -Actual-nh (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)