This is, as I understand it, the working model for G:tG, or was at some point in the relatively recent past. Personally, while I understand its appeal as an ideal, I don't think it combines well with a Pendragon model of traits. If there was, say, a list of traits for each culture (as planned for G:tG), which religious emphases of those within the culture, then the problem arises when you have religions and cultures intermingling, such as in Tarsh. All gets a bit ugly.
The alternative (which may have been what you were suggesting) seems to be a system like Ars Magicas, where only a few notable traits are recorded for each character. Unfortunately, this loses the rather nice aspect of personality traits a la Pendragon, where the trait system forced you to develop aspects of your character that might otherwise be overlooked. You actually had to think about, say, whether your character was generous or selfish, even if it hadn't come into play much.
>Now, each deity would also have personality traits associated with it, and
>high scores (15+ maybe) required in all the relevant traits to achieve Rune
>level in that cult, along with some skills of course... a much better
>system than the current RQ one IMO.
While I agree that the system has appeal, and I used it myself at
one stage, I've gone of it a bit. The reason is simply because it doesn't
seem very realistic. Are all important Christian priests notably Forgiving?
Or Merciful? Are all ranking buddhists extremely unworldly? It seems to me
that to expect all Gloranthan leaders to be paragons of their gods virtues
is
a) unrealistic - certainly earthly religious leaders often aren't
and
b) not as much fun that highly fallible priesthoods no longer exist
and
c) tends to lead to PCs with relatively identical personalities, even more
so than usual. It also leads to an unhealthily powergaming attitude to
traits as well. 'Like all the other Orlanthi in the party, I am extremely
Generous, Just, Proud and so on. We're all trying to be WindLords, so we
have regular boasting competitions, gift each other constantly, and set
each other legal teasers over lunch. Luckily our constant traipsing after
adventure and insistence on setting watch (even when sleeping in an inn)
ensures we all get enough Energetic checks.'
I agree that the virtues should be considered. But I think the system needs to rather more fallible. Perhaps a success on 3 or 4 of 5 virtue rolls replaces the 'Test of Holiness' - but there are always those who slip through with a lucky roll or two.
>Each _rune_ would have trait affiliations too
Apart from the cultural bias of assuming everybody uses the same Runes, there is huge cultural variance in what traits are associated with Runes. eg to the Praxians, the biggest fire god around is Oakfed, so they think Fire is associated with wildness, rebellion, and irresponsibility. To the Pelorians, the Fire god is Yelm, who is exactly the opposite. Their both right.
And its not even cultural, either. Within a culture, deities often represent different cultural values (ie value different traits) while being linked to the same element. ZZ and Xiola Umbar, for example.
I think this a fundamental thing, too - the Runes represent Powers, not ways of behaving.
>I'm sure Illumination could fit in here neatly
Greg thinks of Illumination as being the ability to reconcile the impossible contradictions within yourself. He suggested that Illuminates would be able to have 'impossible' trait pairs. I'm not really sure what mechanics you could use for it, though.
Cheers
David
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #4
Powered by hypermail