> > 2. Why not? It appears that there's no game benefit of not
>being an> > initiate.
The main game benefit, I suppose is the freedom of the character. He has no duties of any kinds and is freer to do his own will and none other (typical non-initiates, IMG, are sorcerers, wheter atheistic or not). Being an initiate, IMO, could be abstracted by a cost (in money or time) but the basic point is that if you are an initiate or higher you have more responsibilities than those who aren't. Young people, as a matter of facts, are not initiated (not in G and neither in RW).
> Is this simply an imperfection in how HW reflects
> > Glorantha? Or is there really no benefit in Glorantha to just
>being a
> > lay worshipper?
lay worshipper, in my campaign (HW or RQ rules) have a basic knowledge of their cult, but have scarce or not at all duties and rights. They should not pay the religious taxes, but aren't supported by the cult in any way (no discount on training, for instance, no spirit spells or more difficulty in obtaining only the less powerful ones) et cetera.
I think pantheistic aspects should reflects the kind of campaign you choose: if you choose a simple, basic, one culture campaign, no pantheism; if you manage a campaign with vampire demitrolls who worship Yelmalio (by day) and Zorak Zoran (by night), you should adopt pantheistic rules. The in-betweeners...
How does this is linked to my hero question?
I suppose that one of the main greater purposes a character/minor-hero could
foster would be that of enhancing his cult's
power/influence/richness/credit/victims in the world.
Ciao
Gian
Powered by hypermail