To my comment
>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.
Peter Metcalfe replies
>I put in IMO because I find it useful for several people to be aware
>of the fact that I am speaking for myself only, not because other
>people 'Apparantly' think differently. If you have a problem with
>that or with what I said above, then say so and explain why rather
>than point out that another poster thinks differently.
Uh, yeah. That comment sounds weird even to me in retrospect. The defendent
pleads guilty.
However, I still don't agree with you ( you didn't expect it to be that easy,
did you?)
On my comment that a rules change is required to prevent a voluntary Malia
worshipper from becoming a disease carrier Peter replies
>These has *not* changed! I have said time and time again that IMO
>the spirits are made inactive (look at LoT) and are made so by
>special techniques. Given Malia Aprophasos a new spell to >effect
>this change is not a change in the roolz anymore than giving a
>Malkioni Sect a new sorcery spell.
I guess I disagree with you as to what constitutes a new rule, since both
these things seem to me to require them. Certainly you'd have to write down
the spell effects somewere.
When I pointed out that another rules change would be needed in order to
prevent Malia's spirit of reprisal from causing apostate Rune masters from
serving as sources of disease spirits which wander about& attack everyone
within range Peter replied
>Did I ever say this was changed for the new cult? No! Then >why
>do you say I did? For the record, I think it will be >*unchanged*.
>*Think* about it.
Well OK, but I think that this is kind of hard on a healing cult. After all
the spirits are supposed to attack anyone, presumably including the rune
master's former patients.Imagine what happen to Downtown Glamour if someone
went bad! One evil priest could get the cult banned. If you do want to keep
this in the cult I can see the CA priestesses claiming at least one advantage
over their opponents;"If we should happen to fall from grace then at least
you don't die" and "Let these people into your neighborhood and soon it will
be a swamp of pestilence!"
> The inability of CA to provide any
>prior protection against disease is an _intentional_ defect >just like
>her geas against killing.
I don't think any of us know wether or not it was intentional. It might be,
but it could just as easily be an oversite or another example of what Michael
Morrison pointed out awhile ago, that the Rq rules seem intended (originally,
anyway) for wargamers and "boring" things like disease preventing magic
might not show up even if they do exist. Even if it is intentional, I don't
think that invalidates someone introducing it into his own campaign. I guess
what I'm trying to say is that I regard the "good" Malia cult and a
disease-preventing Chalana Arroy as equally valid game concepts.
Mark Mohrfield
------------------------------