Just to clarify, I never meant to imply you *should* have a leadership option for every cult. Just that if you really wanted to, you could. I agree with both you and Mark that the "square peg in a round hole" thing that Jane mentioned is usually the far more interesting way to play. (And to write stories about.)
But, that said, if my player *really* wanted a Humakt clan chief who wasn't a misfit, but that it was always that way, I'd probably accommodate him. Most likely by way of a Dar initiation (with all the same problems that came up when you were all talking about Vingans and Dar) but if push came to shove, a Humakt chief cult. It would depend on what the game was about, and how relevant any of that was to the themes of the game and what the player really wanted to play. (I'll stick to GAG as much as possible, but the needs of my personal game will trump it during play, obviously.)
On 9 Mar 2005 at 17:08, Jeff Richard wrote:
> >I personally think there is
> > an Issaries Rex or Issaries the Chief subcult out there
> >somewhere.
>
> I respectfully disagree. Argan Argar (or Argar Argan) is a ruling
> god as much as a trade/communication god - he's the ruler of the
> surface world. He's independent from the Storm Tribe but was a
> husband-protector of Ernalda when Orlanth was exiled (as was Elmal).
>
> Issaries has no ruler aspect - he's strictly a communication, travel
> and psychopomp god. Issaries is definitely part of the Storm Tribe
> and his recognition of Orlanth's leadership is central to the
> Lightbringers' Quest - one of Issaries' core myths. He is not a
> husband-protector of Ernalda - in fact, Issaries really isn't a
> protector of anything.
I think a long talk on this would get very digesty, quickly. (Not that I would object to an
interesting talk on it, though.) I still think there is probably and Issaries rulership cult in
Glorantha. I don't particularly think there is one in Sartar or Heortland. As you say, in the
core Storm Tribe myths of that region, it simply doesn't make sense. But I am pretty
sure I could write a myth using Issaries that put him in a leadership role. (Conciliator,
trader, negotiator, it is do-able.) Off the top of my head, I'd put it somewhere closer to
the Trader Princes-influenced area. (Not the TP themselves, though, who are Malkioni
IMG.)
> > Lhankor Mhy could possibly have one, although I think it would be
> the "Philosopher
> > King", which I believe has been mentioned before. (Mind you, I
> love the idea of lots of
> > wacky LM cults. I'm still upset the Elasa cult wasn't the
> Inspiration one.)
>
> Again, I don't think there is Lhankhor Mhy rulership subcult.
> Temertain (and the other princes of Sartar) likely invoked Vingkot
> the High King in their kingship rites. The "Philosopher King" is
> not, IMO, a subcult but is instead a personal conceit of Temertain
> and his associates. Not every conceit, nickname, personality type
> or opinion has a cultic foundation. In fact, most probably don't.
This was truly me being unclear. I should have continued with the "mentioned before" to point out that it was mentioned before in connection to Temertain and obviously *doesn't* work. Mea culpa on that, I thought it assumed.
> > I think with work, your Glorantha can have any god have a chieftan
> subcult. I just think
> > some are far easier to do than others.
>
> Maybe, but I can't help this becomes, in a way, too easy.
Well yes. See above for the explanation as to why I'd do this in a game.
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. 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.
Not arguing that at all. The better story is the conflict. But for the sake of a given game, I might sacrifice the better story for the easier play if that isn't the story focus.
On 9 Mar 2005 at 17:53, Jeff Richard wrote:
> 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 would work too. But surely I'd think you could make a case for Argar Argan in Esrolia?
> 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.
Agreed. But your players are playing advisors to the king, where these kinds of dilemmas are and should be important. If a bunch of my players wanted a Humakt clan, I might be inclined to let them if they insisted and came up with a good story about it.
In fact, the only reason I asked this to start was that I need a clan that's a bit obviously "odd" in its structure/leadership. So while I knew of Elmal clans, I wondered what else was out there in GAG.
Cheers,
LC
Powered by hypermail