Well, let me be upfront about my motives and say that I remain skeptical about this suggested status, and I certainly don't think it describes the majority of "normal Orlanthi", so the last thing _I_ want to do is to make it an overly attractive option. If it does occur, though, I think the underlying reason is a drift away from the "everyone joins Orlanth" principle, especially for urbanites, meaning that some would effectively procrastinate before becoming "proper initiates", or in some cases but it off forever.
I see this status as being a sort of "Orlanth Thunderous Lite" initiation, or possibly as I suggested in an earlier message, O. Lightbringer initiation. The only real advantage would be less "commitment" to the Orlanth cult, firstly in material terms (floating voters will always go for less income tax, so our Focus Groups tell us), and in making it easier to change to another cult within the religion later on.
> And two, shouldn't a dedication to one god water down your worship of
> antother?
Yes, of course, and that what the initiation rules do. What I don't really believe is that there's a "best of all worlds" option over and above joining one or another.
> I suppose I WANT people to join cults other than Orlanth, and I want
> communities to be able to support priesthoods that seem ridiculous to
> maintain at the present rate.
Both our suggestions would help do the second (though whether we agree on a suitable definition of the correct level of ridiculous-seming priesthoods is another matter); neither would particularly encourage the first. Surely if anything, large numbers of "Generic Initiates" would _reduce_ the numbers in actual cults other than Orlanth?
> Now, Orlanth has a billion and one associate cults, but how about
> Lahnkor Mhy? If he only has a couple, then I suppose he gets most of
> his support from real initiates and Orlanthi associates.
Yup, that's exactly what I think happens. Plus any other lightbringers handy.
> Likewise, he would not have to go help out Mastakos, for instance.
Well, only partly true, as Mastokos' main role is as an "Orlanth sub cult", and will be a participant in several Orlanth/LB rituals.
> I don't think I
> like the idea that Orlanth A. might have DIFFERENT associate cults from
> Orlanth Rex. As I see it, either you're a friend of Orlanth or not.
This depends on how you define "associate", I suppose. Rather than regarding it as meaning "theoretically a very good friend of Orlanth", I interpret it as meaning "shares rituals and magic with Orlanth" -- meaning our Own Personal Orlanth, right here. <points to temple floor> If, say, the temple of Orlanth Adventurous in Pavis (Closing down sale soon! Everything must go!) doesn't have a statue/ritual site/whatever to, say, Heler, then as a practical matter Heler isn't an associate of at least _that_ "local sub-aspect" of Orlanth Adventurous.
> i.e. Different subcults might be more compatable with
> other cults, funnel mps better, etc. Nice idea. (Of course, I also
> wanted to make this as simple as possible.
I'll grant you it could get a bit overblown if you tried to formalise the numbers for every cult in existance. Though at least you only have the problem for pairs of associates, rather than for every possible duo, as in the Dread RQ2 Cult Compatibility Chart. In practice, though, all a GM needs is enough of a rule of thumb to convince himself that the sort of setup the clan and tribe in his campaign is vaguely plausible. Off the top of my head, I'd think something like 1:3 effectiveness would be about right, then I'd try to think of any special extenuating or deleterious circumstances that might affect the numbers significantly one way or the other -- especially if the result I got the first time wasn't the one I wanted. ;-)
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail