From: Alex Ferguson (abf@interzone.ucc.ie)
Date: Thu 03 Jul 1997 - 05:23:16 EEST
I try to sell another Slightly Used Dichotomy, Jane Williams warily
considers buying.
> > o the Rune Priest path
> > o the Rune Lord path (cum proto-Hero)
> I like this idea. Not sure how playable it would be,
Me neither! This thread encourages a sense of heady irresponsibility
in that respect, doesn't it?
One point that may (or may not) help address the assorted concerns
with this first: I think that the two paths are substantially the
same (or about as similar as Quests with possible different personal/
social outcomes generally are -- whatever _that_ is), though with
possible diffences in depth, obviously. They differ _in essence_
only at the Drink the Elixir moment. (In practice, Caveat Questor.)
Or perhaps they differ also tend in the following, general ways.
Priestly/social quests depend most on Support; on having an actual
congregation on an actual holy day, in fact, ideally. Heroic/personal
quests depend more on personal qualifies, such as traits and skill.
And certainly, the second tend to be deeper/harder, and more open-
endedly so, to boot.
> And there was a strong suggestion floating around that any cult that
> did had merged from two others.
There was such a suggestion, but now modified nigh unto the point of
retraction, and was still looking pretty shaky at that point, IMAO. But
your basic point is true enough: for most cults, the above distinction
is not reflected in their structure, though there will still be to some
extent different people, with the same nominal status, who tend towards
one side rather than other.
Also, I should mention most Rune Lords' actual ordinary rune magic will
be learnt by the maximally prosaic route that ordinary initiates use; in
the second instance, I'm thinking of the stuff "beyond" that.
> Are you saying that for cults with only one rank, that rank
> counts as both, they just have to choose which they're going for todaay?
Effectively, yes. It may not be as simple as a choice, though; not
every cultist is going to have the wherewithal to be able to do both.
Most priestly functionaries won't be prepared for a more personal,
deeper HQ to "embody" magic; more "heroic" types may have less ready
access to run-of-the-mill spells.
> 2) Suppose someone's both a priest and a RL? If they have, say Shield
> reuseably as a priest, do they have to sacrifice all over again to use it
> on the HP? Or could they choose to "burn it up" on a HQ?
Salient question. For the sake of sanity, I'd tend to assume that when
you reach a particular Status, like Rune Priest, or "HeroQuester", as
soon as you have any magic usable in that "mode", it all is, just as
when you become an RP, all you magic becomes reusable. Or at the least,
on a spell-by-spell basis: having to have different versions of the
_same_ spell on the _same_ character sheet would be a bit too much.
Conceptually, I think the latter is better, but I reserve the right to
plonk for the former in case of it being too much like trouble.
So provisionally, I'm saying that if you have both the Heroic version
of Shield, and the "ordinary spell", then you can use one as the other,
more-or-less interchangeably. If also using Runepower, this may need
Tweaked somewhat.
> 3) Did I understand you to be saying that only the Priest route allows
> you to teach the spell?
That was my thinking, yes indeedy. That's what priests do, after all.
Or at any rate, the priestly version ought to focus on this aspect much
more, so that it's the most "efficient" way of learning it. Who in
their right mind would want to follow Rurik Ruinspoon just to get a
casting of Catseye, fercryingoutloud?
> If so, how does anyone learn the RL version,
> since there can be no teachers?
You can learn the _Quest_ from anyone who accompanies you on it (or from
an oral account, or essentially any sufficiently detailed representation
of the myth. You might have to Extrapolate a bit, of course -- but
that's half the fun, isn't it? Having a senior RL to show you the
ropes surely helps somewhat, but I feel it won't be essential.
(Whereas a cult with no priests is really in the mire (as Richie Benaud
would say).)
In at least two minds,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:57:04 EEST