>I understand that being a devotee is supposed to be restrictive -
>however a devotee should be able to make promises or bargains to
>other gods that their own god made. Otherwise, I think that we are
>letting game mechanics dictate Gloranthan magic - rather than having
>Glorantha dictate the mechanics.
Nothing to stop them making promises and bargains with other gods, they just need someone or something to represent the god they are dealing with. They just can't directly appeal to another god for aid.
>For me, the key question for any game mechanic or rule is whether it
>interferes with my players' exploration of Glorantha. If Harmast
>could sacrifice a ram to Humakt for victory (and I can think of no
>indication that he did or did not) then devotees should be able to.
>If Harmast could not sacrifice to gods other than Orlanth, then the
>rule is probably right.
At an extreme Harmast could use his sword to represent Humakt although someone holding a sword would be better, a Humatki initiate better still and a Humatki devotee best of all. The use of objects as a substitute for people is the corollary of allowing followers to substitute for tools and objects discussed earlier.
I don't see that requirement as interfering with the exploration of Glorantha - merely encouraging the the players to be inventive.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail