From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer) To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest) Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily) Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 03 Feb 1994, part 3 Content-Return: Prohibited Precedence: junk --------------------- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (User Database Administrator) Subject: Expired account, mail returned to sender Message-ID: <9402020830.AA22749@cs.utexas.edu> Date: 1 Feb 94 20:30:57 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2982 [This mail has been automatically returned to you.] Your mail message was directed to a user account "mckinney" which has expired and which has been deactivated pending final deletion from our systems. We regret that we are unable to provide additional handling of this message. Your message as we received it follows: ============================================================================== From henkl@Holland.Sun.COM Wed Feb 2 02:30:50 1994 Received: from Sun.COM by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22734; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:30:50 -0600 Received: from snail.Sun.COM (snail.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AB20435; Wed, 2 Feb 94 00:20:06 PST Received: from Holland.Sun.COM (isunnl) by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12983; Wed, 2 Feb 94 00:19:32 PST Received: from glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM by Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1e) id AA26049; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:19:22 +0100 Received: by glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13663; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:15:43 +0100 Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:15:43 +0100 Message-Id: <9402020815.AA13663@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM> From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer) To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest) Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily) Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 02 Feb 1994, part 2 Content-Return: Prohibited Precedence: junk --------------------- From: email@example.com (David Cake) Subject: RQ3 spirit, etc. rules questions Message-ID: <199402020500.NAA09747@cs.uwa.oz.au> Date: 2 Feb 94 05:01:20 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2975 > From: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: RQ3 annoying rules questions > Message-ID: <email@example.com> > Date: 30 Jan 94 10:20:42 GMT > X-RQ-ID: 2942 > > Thought I'd toss off a few annoying questions re RQ3 rules (even though the > RQ4 rules will address a lot of these problems): > > a) To bind a spirit with Spirit Magic requires casting of Control Spirit. > This spell requires one to engage a spirit in combat and defeat it BEFORE the > spell is cast. The problem is, Magic Spirits, Spell Spirits, Power Spirits, > and Intellect Spirits cannot engage in spirit combat. Therefore, how does an > enterprising young spellcaster capture and bind such spirits? In other words, > how d > oes the caster initiate combat with spirits that cannot engage in such > combat? > I assume that this limits the practicality of Binding spirits unless you can either a) cast some other control spirit spell, like Command or Dominate - many priests probably just use Command Cult Spirit OR b) discorporate, and attack it in spirit combat. Thanks for pointing this out though - it makes it very difficult for non priests/shamans to bind things - which I like. > b) When a limb is maimed or severed, is the seven day limit to cast Regrow > Limb still in effect. The RQ3 rules don't set any such limit. Does this mean > there is no limit? That would essentially mean that no one would eve > r lose a limb permanently in RQ3 Glorantha. > Well, it can always be re-severed and then Regrown anyway - if you want your limb back badly. > > e) RQ3 Creatures book says that Vampires cannot use Spirit Magic or Divine > Magic, yet the Vampire in the Sun County scenario has Divine Magic, and it is > implied that he could cast Spirit Magic had he not forgotten all of his > spells. Which is correct? Also, RQ3 mentions none of the vampire's Rune > Spell-sucking ability from RQ2 and from Sun > County. Is this ability still intact? > The question has not been answered definatively, but the general concensus would almost certainly be that the Rune-Spell sucking ability is at least intact for Vivamort vampires, and possibly others. Wether Vivamort Divine magic exists or they just do much the same things using sorcery spells is also unresolved. It seems unlikely that they are able to use spirit magic. Most of this might be resolved when Cults of Dorastor comes out. > f) When an impaling weapon criticals, does it do maximum impaling damage, > ignoring armour? In other words, if a Composite Bow Criticals, does it do 18 > points of damage ignoring armour? The rules imply this, but it seems to make > impaling weapons very dangerous. Yes and Yes. > Why would anyone want ot use anything else? > Apart from the numerous good Gloranthan sociological reasons, there is more to life than criticals. They occur very seldom, and ususally take out a location anyway, amking the excess damage rather irrelevent. Impaling weapons have this nasty habit of getting stuck in things, which can be very embarrasing, and they do not do knockback, which can be very useful at times. > g) When a Chalanna Arroy is resurrecting someone, she must engage the > departing spirit is spirit combat. May she use Spirit Block and other such > spells? If so, it would be almost impossible for the Chalanna Arroy to lose such > a combat. > I would say not, as the CA is the spirit combat agressor (attempting to bind the spirit back into the body). > h) For that matter, when a cult initiate is learning a spell from a Cult > Spell Spirit, can he use Spirit Block > and other such spells? Again, if this were true, no initiate would ever lose > such combats. > No - because if Spirit Block means that a spirit cannot attack him, then the spirit is no longer bound to remain in spirit combat, and can wander off, so cannot be bound. I think that this is how it is supposed to work - but It is not very clear. What happens when one spirit fights another in spirit combat? Do they > have to both be Visible per the spell? No. Visibility is necessary to attack embodied spirits - like living beings. I think that if one spirit has cast Visibility, the other must as well, but I could be convinced otherwise.a Can they damage each other > permanently? No more or less that normal spirit combat - in other words, mostly no, but yes for some types of spirit. What happens to a spirit when it is beaten down to zero MP, > aside from its susceptibility to binding? Is it "unconscious"? Well, that is what I would say. Also, can a > Visible spirit be affected by a basilisk gaze? > Basilisks make you dead, effectively Sever Spiriting you. Being dead in RQ (as implied by the spell name Sever Spirit) is having a spirit that is not connected to a body. So for disembodied spirits, basilisks gazes do not do anything. For Visible spirits, I woudl say it does nothing, but a case could be made that it 'un-Visibilises' them, shifting them back to the spirit plane and for bound spirits, you could have them unbound I guess, though I wouldn't play it that way (at least for Basilisks). > j) Is long-term fatigue regained like short-term fatigue? By long term, I > mean the 1 fatigue point lost per hour of Ritual or the 1 fatigue point per > hour lost due to marching long distances. It seems ludicrous that 12 fatigue > points lost during a 12 hour ritual are regained in an average of 12MR (2 > minutes). > Err.. No. And you are right, it should have been clearly stated. > I have a Daka Fal Priest in my campaign, and many questions have arisen regar > ding his abilities: > > a) When you summon an ancestor, how long does it stick around for? 15 > minutes seems way too short for a ritual that could take up to 24 hours to > perform, but forever is ridic > ulous. > Well, I usually assume as long as you can convince him to stay for. If unattended, they just wander off into the spirit plane. > b) How long DOES it take to summon an ancestor? 1 Hour per MP of the spirit? > Seems reasonable. This is why Axis Mundi is so valued. Ancestors that you havce already summoned and talked to may not need the full summoning deal, though. > c) How exactly does Axis Mundi work? It says that all Summon spells are > treated like ordinary Rune Magic. This is VERY vague. Does that caster still > have to make his Summoning %, or merely the 01-95 roll for all other Rune > Magic? Does the Summon Spell take 1 MR to cast or still take however long it > normally takes (see question e above)? If the caster fails to cast the Summon > Spell, is the spell used up, like regular Di > vine Summoning spells, or can he try again next MR like normal Divine Magic? > Certainly the spell is intended to allow summoning without long rituals - in fact the spell description says 'without going through a lengthy ritual'. I would generously assume that the summoning skill roll made by the caster of Axis Mundi (it is a ritual Summons spell) negates the need for any more Summon skill rolls. I would assume that the wasted summon is used up, I guess, but it should not matter much if they do need to make Summon rolls. > d) How exactly does the Visibility spell work? Does it make a single Spirit > Visible or all spirits within range Visible? You cast it on the spirit (shifting it from the spirit plane) not on youself (it is not a sense enhancing spell) so I would assume that only one spirit becomes Visible. What if you only want some of > the spirits within range to be Visible? For that matter, you must generally > see the target of a spell to cast the spell upon it. By definition, you don't > see the target of the Visibility spell until AFTER it has been cast? You probably need to cast a spell that lets you sense the spirit, like Second Sight, unless you can sense it some other way (like Mind-Link, example). > > e) Do spirits gain POW-gain rolls for overcoming targets' MP's? If so, which > spirits? If so > , is it the old RQ2 5% chance, or is it normal chance? > I think the 5% chance is the general feeling. > > g) Has anyone ever worked out a system for determining if a resurrect spell > is available at any given moment. Certainly, with accidents and marauding Well, I generally assume that the CAs tend to limit use of Resurrection to those that have a good chance of living (so that counts out disease and old age, starvation, many poisons, and particularly gruesome injuries), and that they use it whenever they can. I usually assume that one is available, however, unless there is some reason for it not to be (like middle of wars, etc.). Personally, I like to give my playes a break when it comes to PC death and resurrection, and not hassle them more than I have to - and besides, I do not think that the CAs regularly cast resurrect more than 3-4 times a week in a small town like Pavis. > > h) How do people assassinate others in Glorantha? Death is not permanent, so > the soul as well as the bod > y must be destroyed. I can think of a few ways: > Well, you can always just kill them and assume that the resurrect will eventually fail. Also, only CAs and Lunars have re-useable resurrect, so every one else gets resurrection only if they are real lucky or important. > 1) Dip the blade in Blade Venom and expose i > t to Soul Waste Well, that just kills them and then gives them Soul Waste - which is nasty, but not a sure kill. > 2) Use acid, enough to destroy the entire body It works, but it is somewhat complicated for general use :-) > 3) Invent POW destroying > poisons > Attack them magically is far more realistic - kill them and bind their spirit, or somehting. It does sound rather extreme, but I suspect that this sort of thing and worse happens a lot when the powerful of Glorantha clash. > The rules for resurrection also imply that if the head is severed, > resurrection cannot > occur. However, there are no rules for severing heads or vitals in RQ3. How > is this done? > With a big sharp thing :-) Realistically, If you want rules, assume a blow that kills a PC instantly either severs or otherwise ruins a location, and if they are already dead, then just allow people to do it. > i) What are the exact benefits that a Priest gets over an Acolyte? Until I > know, I cannot figure out why anyone would be the former. > In amny cults there is a difference. But the main answer is for role-playing reasons - Priests get much more temporal cult support, and are much more well-respected, etc. There is also the chance at an Allied Spirit, I guess. > j) Can Magic Spirits be taught other spells? Yes, but they need to beat up Spell spirits like everybody else (except Etyries:-)) Also, do Sorcery-oriented Magic > and Spell spirits also have Intensity, Duration, Range, Multispell, etc? For magic spirits, the answer is sometimes, maybe even most of the time for intensity at least. For Spell spirits, such spirits are highly unusual and non-standard, so there is no real answer. > What > if a spirit knows a ritual; how can it cast the spell, since it has no body > and presumably cannot perform many of the dances, gestures, etc. required by > such? > My general answer would be no, bad luck. That is one reason why spirits might want to possess someone. There are probably exceptions to this general rule, however. > l) Why am I asking so many questions? Didn't anyone playtest RQ3, especially > the spirit rules and Daka Fal rules? > Well, the answer is that they did not playtest enough, a point that the RQ4 gang, to their credit have very much decided to rectify with RQ4. I have no big problem with the Daka Fal rules (other than why any shaman would cast Gift Power when he can get away with Gift Spell), but the general spirit rules are, indeed, very badly playtested. Wait till you get into the specifics of the spirit plane ! > Devin Cutler > firstname.lastname@example.org > Dave Cake --------------------- From: email@example.com (Mr Robert McArthur) Subject: How big is the Temple accruement? Message-ID: <199402010847.SAA16684@fitmail.fit.qut.edu.au> Date: 1 Feb 94 23:47:31 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2961 Kirsten K. Niemann wrote ... > It was also important to provide refs with an example of just why PC > should not consider knocking off any temple bigger than a shrine. Its true! My SB will *not* be thinking of knocking off a full temple of chaos anywhere...........by himself ;-) > When I think of how the Spirits of the Directions of the Sun Dome > defeated the Bison Founder, I do not think of a single spirit combat > between the largest spirit and the Founder. The spirits of the Temple > are much better organized than the shamans of the Bison people. They > all worked together to defeat them. One of the spirits probably > possessed some important Khan in the chief's retinue, and forced him > to stab the chief in the back. Another probably obably attacked the > support shamans, etc. In a spirit-on-spirits attack, for a tribe of Bison riders, who do you think would win? eg. you can have 100 spirits, but if they are 10 power less than the attacker, they don't stand much chance of actually doing anything [apologies for game dynamics intruding here..] according to most of the rules... > The question to draw from that section of Sun County was: Is this > really a reasonable way to protect a temple, and can I use it as a > model for designing temples in other places? As the writer, my > immodest opinion is that, yes, it is reasonable to think that the Sun > Dome or a comparable temple would have been defended this way. I liked it, actually! I think its a *well* defended temple. Its great to have actual details of a full temple at last (in print). > In fact, the one place Ken edited my work was where I had listed the > EXACT amount of POW available to the GM for assignment to "other" > enchantments for the temple's defense. He loves generalization and > vaguesness, and changed the defined number to some line like " a > number of" . I was trying to show what a temple would accrue over a > year, taking into account failed enchantments, theft, purges, > vandalism and so on. Then I multiplied by the number of years the > temple had been around. It came up with a big number. hmmm, you have interested me... how big? Robert --------------------- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (User Database Administrator) Subject: Expired account, mail returned to sender Message-ID: <9402010940.AA24987@cs.utexas.edu> Date: 31 Jan 94 21:40:05 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2962 [This mail has been automatically returned to you.] Your mail message was directed to a user account "mckinney" which has expired and which has been deactivated pending final deletion from our systems. We regret that we are unable to provide additional handling of this message. Your message as we received it follows: ============================================================================== From henkl@Holland.Sun.COM Tue Feb 1 03:40:01 1994 Received: from Sun.COM by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24971; Tue, 1 Feb 94 03:40:01 -0600 Received: from snail.Sun.COM (snail.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12467; Tue, 1 Feb 94 01:38:54 PST Received: from Holland.Sun.COM (isunnl) by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10358; Tue, 1 Feb 94 00:17:23 PST Received: from glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM by Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1e) id AA10858; Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:17:17 +0100 Received: by glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12777; Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:15:47 +0100 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:15:47 +0100 Message-Id: <9402010815.AA12777@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM> From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer) To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest) Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily) Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Tue, 01 Feb 1994, part 2 Content-Return: Prohibited Precedence: junk --------------------- From: email@example.com (Graeme A Lindsell) Subject: Humakt, Dorastor, Illumination... Message-ID: <9402010714.AA18263@cscgpo.anu.edu.au> Date: 1 Feb 94 23:14:02 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2959 Bryan J. Maloney writes: > In Dorastor, Humakt took a different aspect. There he is DEATH first > and foremost, death with honor but DEATH, nonetheless. He is the > inescapable and terrible TRUTH of DEATH that haunts all beings and > claims all things. I am of the opinion that this aspect is not just > Dorastor's but is the more commonly known aspect of Humakt throughout > Carmania (Dara Happa) ... a terrible, grim being, devoid of mercy, > devoid of pity I think that this may be believed by the Orlanthi of Talastar as well: there are no Humakti around Hazard Fort, and none mentioned in CoT. I suspect there are more Storm Bulls to make up for it (:-)), and they take on similar roles to the Humakti. Humakt seemed to be rather downgraded as an Orlanthi god in KoS as well, though this might be explained by Greg's apparent dislike of the cult I've just started GMing the Riskland campaign, and one of the players is playing a Sartarite Humakti. He seems very upset that there are no Humakti temples around at all, and is puzzled by the strange looks people are giving the Death Rune tatoo on his face. I told the player that there aren't any Humakti in this campaign (after he generated his character) but of course I lied. Ralzakark's bodyguard, Platewalker, maybe the lone Yarnafil Tarnils at Hazard Fort will suggest worshipping at his temple instead... MOB provides the >Mercenary Contract of Leonidas the Short, Wind Voice Just a comment: you'd have to be pretty dim to sign this. Devin Cutler writes: > 1) Can illumination be reversed? It seems to be more an insight into the nature of Glorantha rather than a magical effect or illness that can be "cured". You can try to ignore it like Nick suggests. It might be more helpful to try other philosophies as well, which is what the Kralorelans seem to do. There is also the question as to whether the other philosophies of Glorantha possess similar insights with strange effects. The "RuneQuest Sight" of the God Learners seems to have been such a philosophy. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a firstname.lastname@example.org "When Stalin says dance, the wise man dances" N.Khrushchev --------------------- From: email@example.com (David Dunham) Subject: Hsunchen/not; Humakt quest Message-ID: <199402010726.AA05608@radiomail.net> Date: 1 Feb 94 07:26:04 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2960 Joerg quoted: >The Telmori "hold permanent rivalries only with the dog-people of >Balazar and the cat-people of Dragon Pass." To which I reply, it's obvious that the Orlanthi of Dragon Pass keep cats as pets/allies, and it's also pretty apparent that the Balazarings do the same with dogs. You do raise a good point that Hsunchen are never domestic animals. (Assuming that the Galanini are wild horses and the Kralorelan Hsunchen are wild yaks, and the Uncolings are really caribou, not reindeer [reindeer are domesticated caribou].) >Subject: HeroQuesting again (by Paul Harmaty) >At RQ-Con Greg Stafford stated he could find no Humakti willing to go on a >Humakt HeroQuest where he is guaranteed to meet Humakt (and thereby die). > >So.... given that it would have to be a noble cause / righteous > death / yada, yada... what would cause a true believer to avoid this >HeroQuest? Not really being a true believer. --------------------- X-RQ-ID: Extro [The rules of the game] Send submissions and followup to "RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM", they will automatically be included in a next issue. Please include a Subject: line. Articles without it will be ignored, returned, or delayed. Selected articles may also appear in a regular Digest. If you want to submit articles to the Digest only, contact the editor at RuneQuest-Digest-Editor@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM. Send enquiries and Subscription Requests to the editor: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld) --------------------- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Nils Weinander) Subject: Vithela Message-ID: <9402011210.AA10584@ppvku.ericsson.se> Date: 1 Feb 94 14:10:52 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2964 Sandy P writes: >Vithela is a mysterious place where Kralori go when they die, >if they're lucky. I smell interesting info here. Do you mean Kralori humans in general or Kralorelans (ie citizens of the empire)? The latter I thought were supposed to gather in a kind of 'way station' after death to await the transition of the current emperor and then follow him to the next stage of existence. Anyway, if the mentioning of Vithela is a fragment of eastern myth I would very much like to know more. /Nils W --------------------- From: MOBTOTRM@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au Subject: Codex Message-ID: <01H8E29VSEBY90N6AJ@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> Date: 2 Feb 94 11:20:56 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2965 No education news, promise! Let me share in Nick's enthusiasm for CODEX, Mike Dawson's new RQ zine which had its launch at RQ Con. Production values are content are both impressive: you wouldn't think this is a first isuse just by flicking through it. However, as Nick said, it does lack the robust primitivism that made the early issues of TALES so endearing. And Hayward the Pickled Onion (issue #1) still remains the definitive work in the field. Mike has consciously made an effort to produce a zine with a different outlook to TALES; in my opinion, a damn good thing. CODEX is well worth supporting! Let me also add my voice behind Nick's praise of Oliver Jovanovich and Mike McGloin's RuneQuest Adventures in Glorantha. Although still a weighty tome, a lot of the early fears about a rules overload are gone, and world of Glorantha is now the frame around which the rules are based, rather than a tack-on as was the case with RQ3. Finally, it has come to my knowledge that a highly skilled Lhankor Mhy sage was present at RQ Con and managed, by dint of successive Reconstruction, Knowledge and Clairvoyance spells, to record such events as the SuperTroll on a strange matrix marked with the VHS runes. No doubt he'll soon be in touch (once he's prayed to regain all those spells).