Re: City gods

From: Mike Holmes <homeydont_at_...>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:21:32 -0500


>From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...>
>
> >Looking at this from a players view this doesnt seem overly player
> >friendly, and somewhat restrictive. Nobody would player a follower of
> >Pavis in such a campaign.
>
>Which is as it should be for Pavis cultists are not found outside
>Pavis. If he wants to go to Sartar to help his fellow Orlanthi, then
>his loyalties aren't really with the City.

Eh, the player is choosing to focus on one of the character's loyalties - presumably to Heortlings everywhere or something in this case. In any case, the GM can still make the Pavis character interesting. For one, the character should be approached by other religions or something. Something to make him wonder about the limitations of his powers. That is, make the absence the center of play for the character.

In fact, this is pretty important as an overall concept for play, IMO. Characters away from home never have the sort of access to their homeland relationships that they're "used to", for instance. I can't rely on Friends with Shaman Bob to get him to do stuff for me, 'cause he's back in the homeland. But that can be an issue itself. Perhaps somebody comes along and tries to convince the character to go back home instead of doing some duty? These relationships should definitely become negative augments to resist the pull home, IMO.

If the Pavisite is challenged on the basis of his city's religion in Sartar, then I'd allow the magic ability to augment with a modifier. The idea being pride in that ability. Working harder to make up for the lack in question. Sure he can't use the abililty for magic, but that doesn't make it less interesting, just different. Narrate the character kicking ass with the magic in some contest as a flashback, and then the character compensating for it's lack in the current contest. That's double bang for your buck.

Another example like this is dead relations. People often say that if a character with whom the PC has a relationship is killed that they player should either lose the relationship, or change it. But I say it should remain. It's applicability changes, of course, but that doesn't mean it goes away. A relationship to a dead wife could be used to get vengeance on her killer, for instance.

Even more generally, all abilities have multiple situations in which they're applicable. Sometimes modifiers apply, others they don't, but that doesn't mean that there's only one "real" place for an ability to be used. For instance, one can use Muscular to help with lifting something, or to impress somebody, pretty reasonably. The first is only applicable if there's something that needs lifting, the second when there's somebody about who might be impressed by muscle. If no situation exists where the ability can be used, it's not the fault of the ability, but of the GM failing to make one arise.

Similarly, a Pavis Affinity is useful to cast magic when in/near Pavis, but can be used for other things when other situations arise where having known that magic might be useful. It's up to the narrator to make these situations occur. Just like with any other ability. I'd admit that it'd be harder in this case, but it can happen. As long as the Narrator considers the character first, and not the campaign.

Mike



Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee� Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Powered by hypermail