> Maybe, but I can't help this becomes, in a way, too easy.
Especially
> when you consider just how piddling *small* a culture the Orlanthi
> are, I worry about this notion of a proliferation of subcults. I
> also think it makes for a more interesting story to explore just
> *how* a chieftain or king who doesn't have the obvious magical
> background rose to power and applies his/her own distinctive
powers
> to the job.
I fully agree with Mark. There are too many leadership subcults as it is (if it were up to me, I'd actually drop the Argar Argan ruler subcult and have the Torkani still use Dar - what makes the Torkani weird it that most Torkani leaders will likely also be Argar Argan initiates).
>That's one thing I tried to bring out when I wrote up
> Ranulf in GT: how a Barntar king might approach kingship from a
> different perspective. Just creating, say a Barntar the King
subcult
> which is closer to Dar or whoever, seems IMO to be diluting this
> story potential.
As well as diluting the mythical issues as well. As a writer, I don't like having a perfectly tailored subcult for every potential situation. For example, right now in the Seattle Farmers campaign, the players are supporters and advisors of the new prince Temertain (an initiate of Lhankhor Mhy without much interest in the other myths of the Storm Tribe). Will he initiate to Dar or Vingkot (in order to gain rulership magic) - or will he just offer communal support to the Storm Tribe as part of the traditional rites of the Sartarite princes? What happens when the leader doesn't have access to leadership magic (except for what his ancestors will provide)? These sorts of stories would be bypassed if Temertain could simply worship Lhankhor Mhy Rex.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail