Re: player freedom vs gloranthan norms

From: KYER, JEFFREY <jeff.kyer_at_...>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 11:00:16 -0400

"Weihe, David" wrote:
>
> > From: Hibbs, Philip [mailto:philip.hibbs_at_...]
> > Closed, Moderate, and Open, that's it. Invisible Humakti definitely belong
> in
> > the "Open" category with the "Amazon Halftroll Yinkin worshipper".
>
> Well, given that Invisible Humakt are well known from the Saga
> of the Temple of the Wooden Sword, I think that can be down-graded
> to moderate. There must be a scouting component to a War God,
> after all, perhaps in a yet-unpublished sub-cult?
>
> *Combat while Invisible* seems to be non-Humakti, though. I remember
> that there was an Invisible Sword Plunder item that had Humakt listed
> in the Enemy Cults slot.
>

Perhaps, though I think that Invisibilty became rather harder to get as the game evolved, esp between RQ II and III. Speaking personally, I'd have to ask a Humakti why he wanted to be invisible.

...and listen to his answer carefully. Most players want to be invisible to steal (not zactly a humakti way of life) or to goon folks from behind (*definitely* not a humakti thing)

Invisible Orlanthi or Eurmali, sure, but its probably an affinity with some difficulty (perhaps a D+20 or so) thus will require the character to prepare in advance or to trust to luck (and the expenditure of HP's)

Of course, when I get back to the Blind Taste Test, I expect to hear about the urgent need for Invisible Humakti Ducks in the campaign. I'm sure of it.

Jeff Kyer

Powered by hypermail