>I always assume that all tribes of Sartar (minus the Poljoni) have a
>King or Queen, even if the tribe is known to be very small.
>
>
Well, the Telmori and Sun County dudes presumably don't either, but
otherwise, yes, such is my understanding.
>The Amad, Bachad, Princeros and Tovtaros tribes did not get a King or
>Queen listed in the Barbarian Adventures volume, so I took that to
>signify that the Narrator is free to make up rulers for their own
>campaign.
>
>
Seems a safe assumption.
>Generally, is it reasonable to assume that most kings and queens
>are devotees - if nothing else is explicitly indicated?
>For example, if a passage in the books states that "[he] is a
>worshipper of Doburdun," that could mean a communal worshipper, an
>initiate or a devotee.
>
There's certainly been dispute about this on the list in the past, and
different Narrators do it differently. IMG it's certainly possible for a
King or Queen to be a devotee, but only so long as they're a devotee of
a kingship cult (Dar, Orendana, or Anatyr) - otherwise they probably
wouldn't have the time! And, as you suggest, IMG, this would be far from
uncommon.
Other Narrators take the view that devotion is a religious duty entirely separate from mundane ones, so that even devotion to a kingship cult isn't possible for a king, while yet others find that the story is best advanced by not worrying about it, and allowing a king to be a devotee of whomever they like. I'd suggest picking whichever approach works best for you. YGWV and all that :)
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail