And just how can my statement of what happens in my game be "incorrect"? That *is* what's going to happen in my game. Unless there's a very good reason to change things (like, it would be more fun for the players and still consistent with what's gone before).
> > Quite why Ernalda's magic should go when it was Orlanth who
> was Dead, not
> > her, is still beyond me, though, even in Sartar. Her magic
> doesn't derive from his.
>
> to which I respond:
> Because she was "killed" as well.
Ah! So I was right, killing Orlanth does *not* kill Ernalda. OK, who killed her, where, how, and how do I get the PCs into it?
> But as the title of a book, *Orlanth and Erlnalda are Dead*
> just doesn't ring properly.
Well.... It would be possible to have the fact of her being killed being stated somewhere other than the title, perhaps?
> And, to head off the obvious question: "How? Since Ernalda's
> center of cult worship is not in Whitewall?"
> I reply:
>
> Orlanth and Ernalda are a single religion, one dependant upon
> the other.
In Esrolia, where she has six (at least) husband-protectors? Would killing off any one of them have the same result?
> Becasue, as you may or may not know, it was not the taking of
> Whitewall that
> killed Orlanth. Many other ceremonies and events were going
> onas well, to acheive the desired effect.
(shrug) According to official published material, it was the taking of WW that killed Orlanth. If that's going to change, it's a bit late now, it's already embedded in games. And I can't see any dramatic advantage in diluting things. As it is, get the players involved in the fall of WW, they're involved in the death of Orlanth. Start saying "oh, that wasn't what did it really", you're removing their involvement, and that's never going to be a good idea.
Powered by hypermail