> If there was a magic sword which could only be wielded by the Rightful
> King of England, and somebody was feverent to truely believe that he
> was the King of England, then he would be able to wield the sword.
That would be the reverse of the "Real World" situation, in which Arthur, squire of Kay, had no idea that he was rightwise king born of all England until his foster-father's subsequent confession.
Well, the actual condition was specific to Arthur, whether he knew it or not. Mind you, the guy who made the sword told everybody that the condition was much more vague. In game terms, you can make a sword with the condition, "Only Vagabond Retch, the Reeve of the Imperial Guard can use this sword." Then you tell everybody, "This sword can only be used by the man who killed the Death of the Pharoh. And when V.R. picks it up, he can say, "See, I told you so. And I got away with it too."
So, the moral of this story is, "You can't trust anybody, even if they have a shiny sword." (or something like that.)
DUELS: How are weapons chosen for duels? Would a Humakti accept a challenge from a heathen Y.T. cultist and demand broadswords, knowing full well that they explode in his opponents hands? Or is this a reason why they might NOT challenge each other? (A scimitar? I'm not going to use one of those bloody things!) Or is it more a matter of "ritualized combat" that uses personal/cult weapons that proves a mythic point? (See, Yelm's spear is superior to Humakts blade! Ha!)
Rich
Powered by hypermail