> > I'm confused. I thought the 'sample common religions' provided
> > example templates for these? i.e. worship of Donandar, Imarja,
> > Lanbril, Seven Mothers, and Vai Madar Sa are all examples of
> > religious practices that fall under the Common Magic keyword.
>
>That's what I thought too.
I don't have the book handy - does that section say that these religions take 10% commitments? I'll stand corrected if they do.
I agree that there are common magic religions, and that common magic comes from them. And that common magic that comes from common magic religions falls under the common magic keyword. You just don't get a separate keyword as you do with a specialized keyword, that's all that I indicated. So the question is whether or not that adds up to any committment at all, percentage-wise.
> > Not really, not. In fact, it might even anger members of the
> > religious practice.
>
>Only if you want. Common Magic is fairly casual, rules-wise, it would
>seem. It really is sort of like the old battle magic: You learn it
>but you may not stick around for Coffee and Cookies in the Fellowship
>Lounge afterwards.
If there even is a fellowship lounge. It seems to me that these are really less organized for the most part. Certianly Lanbril's worship is "on-the-spot" only, and only as needed. And most of the "folksy" ones I see as things practiced in the hearth mostly.
>Yes. The % system is a fast and dirty rule - its there to help,
>especialy if you get a player who insists that being a member of
>Odayla, Orlanth AND Brotherhood of the Woods is much less than 60% of
>his time so why can't he join Humakt anyway?
The percentages make for a guideline, but it's the kind that informs players that the only thing to consider is whether or not they have enough time. When what I think is more important is whether or not they Odaylans and the Humakti get along. I mean, if two religions do mesh well, I'd be willing to cut the character some slack saying that some of the duties overlap. Other combinations, of course, would be very hard to justify at all. Basically I want players thinking more about what this all means.
In any case, I've yet to see any player become a "religion collector" so I think the point is moot. I think that the game does promote the sort of thought that I want, and so they percentages are ancillary.
>Yes, its a case of 'what works for you' - just be mindful of play
>balance.
But that's my point - I don't have to worry about play balance, because the game takes care of it in other ways. The percentage system seems to be there to prevent D&D players from going nuts collecting religions. I don't have any D&D players, and I think that HQ would make converts of most if not all who were coming from that tradition of play. So, again, the system is ancillary. It protects against a non-existent threat AFAICT. Has anyone run up against the time limit in a meaningful way in play?
Mike
Powered by hypermail