Flexibility of interpretation

From: Graham Wren (wren@fortwhyte.mb.ca)
Date: Thu 02 Jan 1997 - 14:58:14 EET

In an earlier digest (40? 41?), someone stated that according to Greg
Stafford, elves really were plants and trolls can actually sustain
themselves on rock, etc. I have no real contact with Mr. Stafford,
but rather I work from his writings. If others have privileged
information, then I am out-and-out WRONG, and I am sorry.
If others like me are working from rules and books, then I will
continue to use free interpretation of most of that material. Almost
all of the descriptions of gods and races (apart from the actual
rules) are written from the viewpoint of a contemporary of a RQ
character. A Sartarite human would certainly believe that trolls ate
rocks, and this is reflected in the "writings of the time" which we
are using as a basis of our fantasy world, and were in reality
composed by Mr. Stafford. That same Sartaite would believe that
Humakt is the god of death and war, and would not be able to conceive
that there are other death gods in other lands with overlapping
responsibilities, etc. People on the southern continent would have a

different set of gods, a different story about the origins of the sun,
moon, and universe. Put those two theologies together and they cannot
mesh. Everything that I have read (Cults of Prax, C of Terror, King
of Sartar, a couple of Avalon Hill things) was written to make the
PC's believe in their own gods and other beliefs, not to make us
believe them.

I am saying that I cannot take this all as dogma, like others seem to
do. I still feel that a campaign background must sit well not only
with PC's but with the players themselves.

If Mr. Stafford stands up and tells me I'm off my nut, then I'll just
continue to play RQ - the Science Fiction version. Maybe I am in
violation of some licensing right by having my own version of


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:55:47 EEST