From: Thom Baguley (T.S.Baguley@open.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 02 Dec 1993 - 20:02:11 EET
Sandy writes:
>I think it's up to the GM in question. However, traditional Celtic
>tales about geas-breaking would appear to be on my side -- the geas
>is like a natural law -- if you break it, the curse follows, whether
>or not you intended to do so.
>I also submit that Humakt's nature as a Truth god indicates that he
>is primarily interested in the result, not in the intent. I have
>always played Orlanth and similar honor-oriented deities as concerned
>with your intent. If you meant to do well, and failed, you can still
>be honorable. However, truth-oriented gods like Yelmalio I have run
>as being concerned only with the actual facts of the matter -- if you
>lie, even with the best of intentions, you are still a liar and bad.
A good argument. I'll reconsider. What about the act of repentence you mentioned. RQ seems to have neglected this aspect of religion ... For some acts no repentence should be possible, but for others I would be inclined to allow the possibility (e.g. for inadvertant geas breaking).
Thom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:32:33 EEST