The analogy was a little off-kilter, but what I was going for is that Yanafal Tarnils cultists are not "traitorous Humaktis", because they are NOT Humaktis. I agree with everything in the above paragraph. The fact that Yanafal Tarnils WAS a Humakti and attacked Humakt makes him more loathsome than Zorak Zoran is to a Yelmalio, especially since Yanafal Tarnils not only betrayed Humakt by attacking him, but by breaking his vows. The Zorak Zoran/Yelmalio and Krarsht/Stormbull comparisons were merely to point out that Yanafal Tarnils cultists have no more off a "connection" to Humakt than these other examples.
By the way, I've never been called Pam Carlson before. I was thinking, though, that having Carlson as a last name would have saved me much grief during my childhood.
Peter Metcalfe:
I did manage to read your posts...
RQ2 free sword training: The only time anyone in my campaigns could benefit from this practice was when other characters were spending large amounts of downtime learning languages, etc. Since it required 2 weeks/ 5% of training and only to a maximum of 75%, this was not much of boon. Characters could increase their skills faster by adventuring.
Truesword: All I can say is, try playing the old Truesword rules for a few games...
Shield: Taking Shield away from "non-combat" cults has the undesirable side effect of pushing followers of these cults into "character class" boxes. I have always thought that one of RQs strengths was that anyone could attempt to do anything they wanted. Now, to some degree, it's back to: "I am Biturian Varosh, Issaries; I own a pack mule and a staff" (apologies to Bugs Bunny & Elmer Fudd). Why should Lhankor Mhys and Chalana Arroys have to fall down and/or run away when a 1m Shade says "boo!"?
Powered by hypermail