my four cents...

From: Andrew Joelson (joelsona@cpdmfg.cig.mot.com)
Date: Wed 01 May 1996 - 15:46:31 EEST


        I put in my two cents on Onslaught some time back, now it's time
for another two...

Martin Laurie:
> I would agree with this if he were a desperado or if he was meant to be
> a run of the mill Rune Lord. However, I wrote Onslaught to be superhuman,
> that was kind of the point. He is my take on what a Humakti verging on
> minor Herodom could be like. He is meant to be as far above a Rune Lord
> as a Rune Lord is above a lay member. Here's a challenge for you, what do
> _you_ think are convincing stats for a war god warrior who is aspiring to
> be a cult hero and isn't far away from achieving that while alive?

        Well, er, I was looking through the Dorastor Pack last night, and
read over the stats on Ralzakark. His physical stats are mostly over 21,
and his main attack was ~350%.
        I think that Onlsaught is still over-rated, although he is less
powerfull the Ralzakark; big R has been around for over 700 years! The idea
that Onslaught could get so big in a mere thirty years seems out of line.
('O' even has about 100 more MPs stored up than 'R')

        On a separate note, some effort seems to have gone into making 'O'
as impervious as possible. Example: the enchantment making all of his armor
(heavier than 'R's, if I remmeber correctly), act against criticals is the
sort of thing that cries of 'Monty Haul'. RQ was originaly a reaction versus

the excesses of D&D. No class restrictions, limited number of hit points
more realistic combat system (modeled after the SPA). The 'critical bypasses
armor' rule springs from two sources; first bronze age armor had gaps in it
and anyone with a brain would try to get around the armor if possible, second
it made combat dangerous for even for the really tough guys. This is the
sort of thing that made me say Onslaught is overdone in my first post.

        Honor: I think that Onslaught has passed out of the pale of Humakti honor.
Saying 'people who join Humakt have to give up their kin ties in

order to emmulate their god' begs the question in this regard. Sure it's
true, but get back to basics; _why_ did Humakt sever his ties to his kin?
Not because he was God of Severence, but because his honor was so offended
by Orlanth's actions vs death/Yelm. So he cut away his ties, not only to
Orlanth, but to the whole family! Thus he _became_ the God of Severence
(DP POV), he didn't start out that way. Humakt has a tremendous sense of
honor, and it includes more than 'don't attack from behind'. Most of the
things suggested as Onslaught's 'honor' seem to reflect the anti-assination
rule. Isn't there anything else? Without getting into a long debate about
just what is or isn't honorable, I will merely state that I expect to see
more here than I am; perhaps Martin would like to try covering this again?

****

Peter Metcalf:
> ...... I don't think Onslaught
> can become a Hero because he represents no-one save his shallow self....

        Sir Ethilrist is the only counter example I can give. And it was
much harder than for him than it would be for someone with community support.
It's true that he has a following (his Black Horse Troop), but take them
away and he's still a Hero.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I
Andrew Joelson joelsona@cpdmfg.cig.mot.com -+-
AKA Rupert von Harl, Seven Mothers/Yanafal Tarnils and Humakt |
"Contradiction? No, I always did tend to kill chaos creatures anyway." /

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:31:01 EEST