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, Fri, 08 Jul 1994, part 2
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
---------------------
From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
Subject: More rules-lawyering
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Jul 94 13:24:56 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5065
Devin Cutler in X-RQ-ID: 5054
> I play that you cast the Control (Species) spell initially, and that spell,
> in and of itself, lures the normally reticent spirit into combat.
That's a great deal for a 1-point spirit spell. And highly abusable -
imagine a party teaming up against a ghost, the first participant
softening up the spirit, then the second casting control and taking over,
and so on. Even hairier than the current "there's no way to control a
spirit while corporeal" rule. And it makes Subere's Attack Soul a lot less
effective (still great against corporeal entities...).
> Otherwise, without non-affiliated spell spirits allowable for capture, I find
> the spell choice for many cults (not Lightbringers, who have so many
> associated cults, but try Yelmalio or Humakt) to be restricted and boring.
You don't need to be associated to buy a spell from a temple, it just costs
more. And Yelmalio initiates are more often than not active Ernalda
Lay Members, with access to loads of friendly cult spirit magic.
> No, the shrine does not have spell teaching, but the Priest who tends the
> shrine (a PC) knows the True name of the Bladesharp and knows Summon Spell
> Spirit and Control Spell Spirit, so in a sense the shrine to which he is
> affiliated teaches that spell.
Ok, but then there is the next problem: the priest has fought the spirit
down to zero MP. How does this sorry remains of a spell spirit initiate
spirit combat?
And: is the Summon Spell Spirit the priest uses a divine or a spirit
spell? If it is a spirit spell, where did he get it?
> "Yes there is, especially when regularly using Resurrection: the priest has
> to spirit combat the resurrectee's spirit to force it back."
> Not a big deal when, according to a strict interpretation of the rules, the
> CA has only to cast (or better yet, have a loyal initiate attendant cast)
> Spirit Screen 4 or Spirit Block 1.
Nope. The discorporate spirit can try break off combat if one side has
Spirit Block or too high Spirit Screen. These are spells which make
interaction with a spirit difficult, so I rule they cannot be used
offensively, neither in attacking nor in trying to get a spirit spell.
> There is still some ambiguity re: Resurrection anyways. Does it require an
> entire spirit combat (i.e. beat the soul down to zero MP) or merely one roll
> as per RQ2?
> I run that Resurrection requires 1 roll, which effectively makes Spirit
> Screen and Spirit Block useless.
RQ3 knows two outcomes for actual spirit combat: either participant is
fought to zero MP, or one has a 10 point+ advantage, is discorporate and
breaks off.
> "I think that the disease rules are way too simlicistic, and the stages
> too crass. However, I don't see how disease is easily shaken off."
[...]
> So, for a CON 9 Dex 9 person to die of, say, terminal Shakes would require
> fail 4 rolls just to get terminal shakes (very unlikely). Then he would lose
> 1 DEX. Every minute thereafter, he gets another 45% chance to throw off the
> disease. To die he would then have to fail EIGHT 45% rolls IN A ROW!!!! Not
> bloody likely.
For a mundane disease, ok, not deadly, only extremely inconvenient (I mean
you burn off characteristic points, extremely hard to regain). What I
was thinking of were disease spirits. Get only a mild affliction, and
you're doomed without outside help.
> The average person who gets terminal Shakes loses 2 Dex points in 2 minutes
> and then shakes off the disease. This is not easily shaken off?
The average CON roll would be CON*3, which gives you considerably worse
chance to make your roll.
But the switch from Terminal to Cured is way too quick, I agree. I
played that you reach the next milder stage as soon as your CON roll
succeeded, and that treatment entitles you to additional CON rolls
out of order.
> "That "Sartarites all know Spirit Magic, it is cheap to obtain,
> commonplace". To learn spirit magic from a cult draws on the cult's
> potential to cast rune magic. Three Spellteachings for Heal cancel out
> one potential Resurrection. Ok, the Heals in the field may cancel out
> the need for the Resurrection in the first place."
> But the rules don't imply this.
Don't they? You seem to play temples as open-ended ressource wells of
magic, then.
I'd expect that CA Healers prefer to treat wounds over resurrecting
casualties, and they prefer to treat diseases sent by Chalana's arch-foe
Malia over treating wounds on people who (viewed from a CA POV) deserve
some punishment for their violent ways.
> Let's start again by saying that I am in
> agreement that Spirit Magic is probably way too mechanistic in the RQ rules
> and way too easy to obtain, and should be more of a mystical, hero questic,
> communal affair.
At least the procedure as described is too bland.
> Certainly Divine Magic should be moreso. But the rules do
> not reflect this, and the rules are where I and a lot of tohers get their
> Gloranthan info from.
This is why this forum exists, and the (now fairly numerous) RuneQuest
and Glorantha magazines. The rules alone give next to no info how Glorantha
works.
> KoS does not , IMO, debunk the RQ rules, it ignores them.
Yet KoS describes Glorantha accurately. It is a primary source of Glorantha
info, like it or not. Chaosium is planning to provide more Glorantha
background without rules references, which is a good way to show the world.
> This is not a solution. It merely argues that there IS a desparate need
> for a well-though out RQAiG.
Yes, we need an "official document" which deals with these problems. Maybe
the rules, maybe only a guideline how Glorantha can be run. From the
discussion on the RQ4 list about power levels, there are multiple way how
Glorantha is run. What we don't need are rules telling people that they did
it wrong all the time. Nor was that my intention with the number crunching.
Call it thought-provoking.
> The GoG rules state that Spirit Magic costs 45L plus 15L per MP cost. The
> cost in RQ3 to summon up spirits is also quite cheap.
If you assume that cash is readily available in Glorantha, there is no
problem. If you have to pay with a heifer, you get a whole scenario out
of bringing the silly beast across two ridges and three creeks, staying in
two inns, and getting it through the city gate, keep it from panicking in
the crowded city streets, and then enter the temple with the beast in tow,
and clean up after it. A proud entry into the city and the temple, isn't
it?
> Ecomonomically, this
> low price implies ease of access and ease of use. Supply is large enough to
> meet demand. Either that or the info in GoG is highly broken (I'd opt for the
> latter, but we have no evidence to support this).
Economy rules in the rules are way too generalized to accurately describe
any society, Gloranthan or not. Prices for magic services are little more
than a rough guideline, and don't reflect local economy at all.
> "Taking a look at Sartar, and crunching numbers:
> (numbers crunching deleted):
> Then it implies that:
> 1) Spells are a lot less common than even 1 point every five years (and that
> rule should be changed) or
> 2) Priests make up more than 1% of the population
I'd opt for both to be true. A priesthood that provides Bless Crops, Cloud
Call and Cloud Clear is quite productive, and can be a specialist group
within society.
The magic ecology described by the RuneQuest rules seems to work overall.
Even the desasters in the magical ecology of Glorantha (like the Third
Council overextending its ressources) can be understood in its terms.
The point I wanted to make is that people knowing up to their INT in
spirit magic are unusual, and will likely be regarded as evil sorcerers
or powerful priests by strangers. Also, priests have better things to
do than teach spirit magic for free, they need to be buttered with
suitable gifts, or to be pressured in some way. (The latter method is
not recommendated...)
> "Do you believe all rumours? Faltikus being an illuminate is a rumour, not
> a fact. Fact is that he tries to keep things civilized, which is a typical
> trait for conservative Thunderous priests, and that to do so, he even
> cooperates with Lunar authorities if this keeps his temple open."
> Bah! That scum Faltikus is a proven Lunar bedfellow and worships Gbaji the
> Deceiver. My friend Rat tells me so and Rat knows everything! Say, you been
> askin a lotta strange questions lately.......
If this is directed to my Pavisite alter ego, this comes from studying
Auld Wyrmish too intensely, which can affect your mind in odd ways.
Now your friend Rat, isn't this the guy who hangs out at Ogre Island?
And being a Lunar bedfellow, there is this rather charming girl from
Sor-eel's household, who also lets out one or two good tips if tickled
the right way...
> "However, if the ranking Orlanthi really thought Faltikus was a chaos simp,
> why don't they excommunicate him?"
> Because I would have to reason that Illuminates being immune to Spirits of
> Reprisal are immune to Excommunication.
Arkat was excommunicated from the Brithini. He was lucky, they did so in
his absence...
--
-- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de
---------------------
From: sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com (Sandy Petersen)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 07 Jul 1994
Message-ID: <9407071902.AA10344@idcube.idsoftware.com>
Date: 7 Jul 94 07:03:22 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5067
David Baur asks:
>Sandy, does your campaing have visual spell effects? And if so, to
>what extent?
I play by the "official" rules which are that just about
every spell has both visible and audible effect. Plus you can usually
feel them, too. If you fire a Disrupt, a thin pencil of light zaps
the target; Bladesharp makes your sword glint and ring momentarily;
etc. This doesn't mean that all spells are easy to spot -- stuff like
Mindspeech or Absorption might be very subtle indeed. I play that if
you're being watched by guards and you cast a subtle spell, the guard
needs a perception roll to notice. If the guard's watching you very
carefully, he can see you do it for sure, tho. If the guards are busy
playing cards or something, they'd only notice if you cast something
like an attack spell.
This opinion has been mocked by certain other Digest folks,
so I haven't bothered to defend it verbosely. The main objection
seems to be that it makes certain spells less useful if the enemy can
see you cast them. My response is that no one on Earth gets to cast
any spells at all and we get by okay. Even if spells are visible, a
Gloranthan is still better off having them than not.
Now, an overtly underhanded spell like Lie probably has no
vislble component. And there's probably a few other such indetectible
spells. But I feel that Detect Enemies is obvious when cast, and most
others.
Devin wonders:
> is the Slow spell MP vs MP on an unwilling target?
It was so intended.
>it is the only Mp vs MP spell for Wahas and Erithans
Except that they can get any spell they want from shamans.
>The average person who gets terminal Shakes loses 2 Dex points in 2
>minutes and then shakes off the disease.
Okay. Two Important Points. First off, the RQ rules are
remiss in not stating that once you catch the "terminal" form of the
disease, you don't keep making your CON rolls. Instead, you just keep
losing stats till you die, just like in RQ II. That's an error which
I apologize for on behalf of the RQ II author who was responsible for
the mistake (not me).
The rules ALSO state that "particularly tenacious" disease
may require a roll of CONx4, CONx3, right on down to CONx1. If you
always give your players a CONx5 roll to shake off disease, then OF
COURSE they'll never get seriously ill! Try some of the less-mild
diseases, and see how your players do.
By my calculations (admittedly using the RQ II rule that
failing your CON roll 4 times in a row kills you automatically)
catching a "normal" (CONx5) disease is fatal 9% of the time for the
population at large. Here are the rest of my results:
CONx5 disease = 9% fatalities
CONx4 disease = 14% fatalities
CONx3 disease = 25% fatalities
CONx2 disease = 41% fatalities
CONx1 disease = 66% fatalities
And of course, the survivors are largely weakened by disease,
so a second occurrence is MUCH likelier to kill them.
For some time you've been talking about the disease rules in
RuneQuest and how undeadly they are. These rules may be "broken" in
the sense that they don't reproduce actual real-world mechanics for
infectious and other diseases. I happen to know quite a lot about
parasitic and infectious diseases (and once had to be physically
restrained from writing a supplement on same for the BRP system), and
the bottom line is that they're not particularly fun to roleplay out.
If you give a player malaria, so that every few month or so he has to
suffer a relapse and be incapable of adventuring, and might die, how
does that add to your campaign? What fun is it to run a character
who's lost his eyesight to River Blindness?
The advantage of RQ disease as written is that it is scary to
PCs (it destroys your stats! a prospect horrifying to any PC), and is
loathsome, while not necessarily murderous. YOUR player characters
might "shake off" losing 2 points of DEX, but that's considered a
catastrophe in my parts.
---------------------
From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Subject: Gods and free will.
Message-ID: <9407071917.AA20610@sonata.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 7 Jul 94 09:17:48 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5068
The way I see Gloranthan gods vis. free will can be best understood in
the results of long-term heroquesting. In order to become a great
heroic power, one is forced to surrender, bit by bit, one's "will". It
is this "will" that powers heroic and divine acts on the heroplane/godtime.
It is already established that an act on the heroplane is a-temporal, in the
sense that one can "go there" again and again and the act is going on
"again and again", but still only for the first time. However, this is NOT
time travel. To change the path as it is requires an expenditure of a bit
of one's free will. This will powers the new path. The more powerful one
becomes in the realms of myth, the less choice one has. Let's put it
another way: Jo Blowgrath, anonymous Sartarite is faced with a solar
cultist who happens to be a Lord of that cult. Jo can say "hiya, Dave,
how's it hangin'?" or anything else Jo wants to say or do. A Wind Lord
has to do the riddle challenge. Orlanth must kill him or rescue him from
hell. A typical person has the option of fighting or running away from
Broo. Storm Bull (the god) MUST fight them. It is his "divine nature".
His myths, which ARE his existence, do not permit him other options.
To be a god is to be constrained by the fact that one IS a god. Thus, it
is mortals who change the world, and it is mortals who actually change
the divine in Glorantha.
Gods do not have "free will" in any way we normally mean this. Humakt
CANNOT suddenly decide to go be the god of picking daisies and singing
"tra-la-la-la-la" (although there is a former Babeester Gor cultist who
was caught doing this in my campaign). Humakt is Death. He has no choice.
Humakt must kill Grandfather Mortal. He has no choice. Orlanth must kill
Yelm. He has no choice. Look at the Holy Dramas every year. Look at
how the gods always do what they must. Remember, myth is not an historical
account of what was, it is a constant view of a transcendent "is".
A western perspective: The so-called "gods" are trapped within the webs
of lies and powers they have wrapped around themselves. If they do not
maintain their hollow masks, they will lose their power and their following.
A theistic perspective: The Gods are True. They are not like us fallible
mortals, who can change and stray. The Gods are always what they are,
they do not change. That which does change does not deserve to be called
a God. Holy is Holy. Profane is Profane. The Gods have never changed.
They may have been misunderstood in the past, but it is WE who change, not
the Gods. They are too perfect to change.
A Lunar perspective: Gods cannot change except for those who have embraced
the Lunar way, for clean Chaos (as opposed to corrupt Chaos) is the only
origin of true change.
A naturalist perspective: Look at the chief. He cannot just scratch his
ass whenever he feels like it. He cannot have a tantrum whenever he is
mad. His power constrains what he can do and when he can do it. Thus,
the big spirits that the stupid build-cave-people call "Gods" are also
limited. If they want to keep their jobs as big spirits, they have to
act properly. If they start acting wrong, they will be replaced. This
has happened, you know--but don't tell that to the stupid people, they'll
just get mad at you.
An Eastern Perspective: It is an amusing paradox, is it not, that an
Emperor has less freedom than a peasant? Let us look at the petals as
they float down the stream.
Just some ideas.
---------------------
From: Urox@aol.com
Subject: apology, etc.
Message-ID: <9407071551.tn113400@aol.com>
Date: 7 Jul 94 19:51:02 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5069
Martin said:
>Urox:
>I'd watch the use of the word "Kafir," though. It's derogatory
>enough in Arabic, but it's a racial epithet in South Africa.
My apologies if any offense was taken. :-(
I've sent a more detailed apology to Argrath offline.
Sandy sez
>>Mark Foster sez:
>>being a homeless wanderer who kills stuff to get their treasure
>>really sucks
Emphasis on the "who" not the "homeless wanderer"
>I feel I must defend my campaign, in which every person is a
>homeless wanderer. I can only point out that there's a difference
>between being "a homeless wanderer", and being "a homeless wanderer
>who kills stuff to get their treasure." I strive to make my own
>campaign one of the former rather than one of the latter, and the
>players trade, make friends, explore, etc..
Oh dear, now I'm apologizing again. I would never in a million years think
your campaign was at all in need of defending. (Unless you run characters as
a Broo gang. "We just want to procreate, is that so wrong?") I was responding
to the discussion on women's roles and the equation of "interesting" with
violent because people were talking only about Babeestor Gor, Vinga etc (as
far as I could tell). But you pulled my quote out of context, I went on to
say: "unless you're playing a game that makes it '"cool"' (refer to most D &
D campaigns)." Which RQ by definition does not do. From what I heard at RQ
con your campaign is one the most creative ever.
I was thinking of my first five years of gaming in 70s/80s when it was
always: "An elf, a dwarf, a halfling, two human paladins, a cleric and a
ranger meet in bar and instantly trust each other. They have no homes,
culture or family background but they all have +1 swords and 18/00 strength,
they want to kill orcs and giants and take their stuff. It's not murder or
theft because they're Lawful Good Adventurers." Off course those were the
best of times because we didn't know any better. (nostalgic sigh). What I'd
do now, if someone cut off my ears to force me to run D & D, would be to say,
"OK you've killed all these monsters and you're very rich. Now you get taxed
like crazy or arrested as thieves or thrown in jail as dangerous subversives.
Isn't this fun?"
>>being a soldier, warrior etc. is only "fun" in movies and games.
>I agree. But it CAN be fun in movies and games. It doesn't
>even have to be glorified to be enjoyable -- SCHINDLER'S LIST doesn't
>make the Holocaust look like fun, but it's tremendous to watch.
Huhhh??? I'm not being facetious, but I really don't get that comment! Are
you saying we should play Nazis???? I was thinking of Rambo and the Beavis
and Butt-Head genre. I think films like Schindler, Born on the Fourth of July
or M.A.S.H are great because they _don't_ glorify war. And Schindler is
hardly told from the soldiers' point of view. Although I suppose some
Neo-Nazis could remake it to make their role look good. But that would be
horrible! Please elaborate.
Devin Cutler sez:
Paul writes:
" ???? We had a demonic crow in a flashback, it could not be killed by
any normal means. What is this demonic crow?"
He is a demon from an excellent article (by Jon Quaife?) in WD which details
some very powerful demons...inclduing Magaera and a Shanasee of Yelm.
MAGAERA!! Are you saying just because I left the Earth temple now I'm a
demon? ;-)
Mark Foster
aka Urox aka Megaera Wyrmsbane
---------------------
From: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu (Loren J. Miller)
Subject: Mundane and Sacred
Message-ID: <01HEFJJJQB6S8ZEIPO@wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: 7 Jul 94 11:42:40 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5070
Colin Watson writes:
> Essentially my current thinking (influenced by others on the net)
> is that any mundane action is reflected in the godplane. Whenever you do First
> Aid you're following the healing path; whenever you tell a lie you're following
> the path of illusion. The gods did things for the First Time; and people who
> specialise in following the paths of the gods (by copying the activities of
> the god; repeating the method of the First Time; and thus preserving the
> knowledge) comprise the cult. This includes mundane activities as well as
> magical ones.
Very nicely stated.
Furthermore, I would de-emphasize "mundane" as a category. Sacred acts
are those that were performed and approved by the gods. This includes
almost every act of any significance, from sex to eating to death to
bathing to lighting a fire. Taboo acts were the cause of some
disaster in the myths, and so are prohibited by the gods as
profane/evil/bad. If a "new" act comes to light, then the priests and
theologians search through the myths to discover some incident where a
god performed that act or something a lot like it, and decide whether
the act is to be sacred or profane. Within a normally active religion
there will be very few activities that are neither vetted nor vetoed
by the gods, so the mundane turns out to be an empty and meaningless
category.
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
"Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite