Morgan:
>
> One thing I find interesting about the "new view of Humakht vs.
> Orlanthi" is that it flips my older 20 year old views.
>
> Back in the "old days" (hey sonny, when we walked through 2 feet of
> snow to school) Humakti PCs tended to be cautious, since they knew
> they couldn't be ressurrected. 90% of the rash Humakti I had
> encountered eventually ended up dead, with only Ray Turney's Alzira
> the Expendable hanging in there. Orlanthi PCs, who could be
> ressurrected and also had Guided Teleport, were the rash banzai
> charge we don't fear death types. Orlanthi had to challenge "foul
> slime" Chaos, go on dangerous quests for sweet green ladies, while
> Humakti didn't.
Isn't that the way we all did it when we only had RQ2 and CoP? It is very easy to draw conclusions about Glorantha from the game rules, especially if the rules are the only information you have.
Andrew Solovay:
>
> Okay, help me a little with this. Humakti don't ambush, right? "Don't
> ambush" geas, "sense ambush" skill, all of that. I *assume* the reason
> they don't ambush is because it's not "honorable" to attack a
> defenseless foe. So... wouldn't that apply all the more to a prisoner?
>
> I could see a Humakti fighting every battle to the death. But if he
> *did* take a prisoner, if he accepted an enemy's surrender, I'd think
> his honor would compel him to protect the prisoner, not kill him. If
> nothing else, I'd think accepting a prisoner's surrender is (implicitly)
> making a promise not to kill him--and Humakt doesn't much like
> oathbreakers.
That's an apt observation. "Humakti don't take prisoners" is obviously a slight exaggeration to make a point, like so many other arguments in this debate. One could temper it to say that Humakti don't fight with the intent of taking prisoners, but to kill the opponent. However, an opponent who surrenders may certainly be given quarter.
Powered by hypermail