Re: Glorantha Digest V2 #481

From: Mmohrfield_at_aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 22:43:21 -0400


Me
>Peter, I think that you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
>Your own version of Malia requires several changes from the rules.
>This is your right of course, but you can't prevent others from doing
>the same thing with other cults.

Peter Metcalfe replies
>I don't think so. IMO There is a great deal of difference between
>postulating a cult variant in a different region (which BTW hardly
>qualifies as changing the rules) and postulating that members of a
>well-known cult in a defined region have some ability that overcomes
>a intentional deficiency in the published rules
The key words (or in this case, abbreviations) here are "IMO". Apparantly, in the earlier poster's (Brian Fantome?) opinion there isn't much difference. Also, your version of Malia does require some rules changes. The requirements for non-broo voluntary initiates have to be changed so that they are no longer carriers, the Disease Master's (or whatever thy're called now) allied spirit/fetch can no longer be a Disease spirit, and Malia's "spirit of reprisal" , which consists of turning the shaman's body into a binding enchantment for all his disease spirits which then wander about a 1km radius circle attacking everyone in it must be changed. Again, there is nothing wrong with changing the rules, it's just when you say that someone else isn't allowed to do the same thing to, say, Chalana Arroy, that you're wrong.
>(or should we give
>the Sartarite Healers the ability to use weapons and kill as >well?).
Yeah, sure. Of course, they're only allowed to use blunt weapons:-)
                                                                 Mark
Mohrfield

End of Glorantha Digest V2 #483


WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail