From: Sandy Petersen (sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com)
Date: Sat 08 Jan 1994 - 11:00:21 EET
Andrew Raphael opines:
>I think that Waha's Covenant forces morokanth living under it to
>make a careful distinction between herd men (who lost the toss) and
>humans (who won the toss). Assuming that sable riders don't eat
>bison riders, then no morokanth initiate of Waha or Eiritha would
>eat a human without risking apostasy.
Clearly I disagree, based on my recent opinionating on this subject. One: The morokanth are creatures of Darkness, with emotions, lusts, and needs alien to humanity. Two: it's not "cannibalism" to eat a human if you're a morokanth -- a social faux pas at worst. Three: why is it "apostasy" to eat a human for Waha or Eiritha morokanth? It's not apostasy to eat a number of animals not included in the Waha covenant (jackrabbits, cattle, birds, locusts, etc.) Humans possess the cultural norm (and I think rightly so) that it is bad to eat any sentient being. I concur with this cultural norm, but it doesn't mean the morokanth concur.
I think the picky social distinction between man and herd-man is MUCH more important to the humans than it ever is to the morocanth. After all, Waha said that the morokanth are supposed to eat people, right? I believe that a sizable fraction of morokanth feel that the proper order of things, according to Waha's covenant, is morocanth eat people who eat herd-beasts who eat grass. The herd-man spell is simply to make the humans more tranquil and easy to handle.
Even among the humans of Prax, I believe that the herd-man situation results in a good deal of ambivalence among the beast-riders. It's clearly distasteful (though technically okay) to eat a herd-man (just as even the Lunars won't eat the human parts of a walktapus), so what do you do with one? I bet there's lots of ribald jokes in Prax about milking herd-women. In the end, I expect most captive herd-men are sold back to the morokanth, or sacrificed in rites of darkness. But I don't think many herd-men are captured. The morokanth are not as easy to raid as the human tribes, and their "cattle" are not so valuable.
I generally play the morokanth rites of Waha and Eiritha as being significantly-different from the human ones. Many humans don't even want to think about the implications of morokanth that are highly skilled in the Peaceful Cut (i.e., killing humans with a single blow -- the origin of the morokanth Martial Arts?)
On the other hand, I've been called a morokanth-basher. I've also been called anti-elf, anti-dwarf, etc. I think that the secret is that I try hard to make sure that the non-humans in my campaign don't behave like humans, or even in acceptable-to-human manners. I find highly colorful nonhumans far more interesting than the usual D&Dish "humans in a furry suit".
STORY TIME: While running a pickup RQ game, I suddenly discovered that one of the participants was playing a dwarf. I made a comment that it was a good thing the party was in a bar, because no doubt she'd be drinking plenty of booze. She said no, she was a teetotaler. I thought that was unusual. Because my NPCs generally react to the (unusual) presence of nonhumans, the barmaid made a crack about the dwarf being short and stubby. The player said that HER dwarf was tall and willowy. I was amazed, and said, "What an unusual dwarf you have. I'm very impressed." Then the player lectured me about racial prejudice and stereotyping.
I said, "They're RQ dwarfs, mostali! Who the heck cares if I racially stereotype them?" She was adamant that stereotyping of non-human imaginary races was JUST AS BAD as such stereotypes about blacks, jews, or other ethnic groups. Almost speechless, I gibbered, "But the entire purpose of nonhumans in fantasy games is to provide stereotypes to play off of! Even when people run 'different' nonhumans from the rest, like tough elves, it's to provide contrast with the bulk of their species." She didn't see it, and wouldn't even buy my theory that "clearly your dwarf is different from most dwarfs," saying that I couldn't fairly have preconceptions about ANY dwarfs. In the end, wishing to get on with the game. I just said, "well, most of the humans in this area are racially prejudiced, I guess, and they have a lot of preconceptions about dwarfs." That satisfied her. This was in the days before Political Correctness, by the way, but I guess she was ahead of her time.
>There's a Waha Rune spell that turns humans into herd men. That's
>part of the magical ecology of Prax. I think it should work on
>Wereran humans only.
I feel that the Kralorelan, Agimori, and Veldang humans are not a different species from the Wereran, so the spell should work on them. Though their ancestors (might) not have participated in the covenant of Waha, they certainly engaged in some other similar rite of prehistory in which mankind was differentiated from not-men.
I never heard of kuru being called the "ghost disease" before. I always heard of it as the "laughing sickness". And it was not the cause of the elimination of cannibalism among the Fore tribe (they ate their own deceased family members as a sign of respect). Rather governmental intervention caused the cessation of this funeral rite.
Lewis(?) says:
>Great Trolls were a half successful attempt by Crag Spider to
>recreate the Mistress Race.
I think they were actually made to break the trollkin curse, one of
two such semi-successful attempts. The second such attempt resulted
in the birth of multiple trollkin per pregnancy (before that,
trollkin came singly, just like trolls). This second attempt was
pretty important to the trolls -- imagine the pitiful status of the
troll race if trollkin were not even plentiful!
Watson asks:
>What is the result if the various different types of elementals are
>set against each other in combat?
I think they should have a definite effect upon one another. In
addition, elementals of "dominant" types should have an advantage
over their inferiors.
Here is my suggestion (I've tried this and it works, but of course some other technique might be even better). I have the elementals fight one another in a sort of spirit combat. A victory costs the defending elemental 2d6 MPs, and 2 cubic meters of SIZ. When a "dominant" type attacks its inferior, the dominant gives the other 3d6 MP/3 cubic meter loss on a win, while the inferior does only 1d6 MP/1 cubic meter on a win. Combat must continue till one elemental is destroyed. Anyone entering the elemental combat zone suffers automatic attacks from both elementals. Normally I don't bother to figure out the new stats of the victorious elemental (assuming its lost cubic meters of SIZ) until the battle is entirely finished.
Darkness > Earth > Air > Water > Fire > Darkness
Lunes are not dominant to anything.
Dave Dunham:
Once more tries to defend the Aztecs.
>The only protein source is humans. (Note that some people think this
>is almost the same situation facing the Aztecs, who packed a whole
>lot of people into the Valley of Mexico).
See here Dave, the Aztec crime was human sacrifice, not cannibalism.
Sure the priests ate portions of the sacrificed bodies, but this
didn't solve any protein shortage for their teeming population. In
any case, they had beans and corn for effective protein substitutes,
plus plenty of fish in the lake they lived on.
>Why can't YA have both Kill Horse (really annoys the leader of the
>nomads) and Frighten Horse (to work against the whole horde)?
She can, she can! But Kill Horse is a new spell, not previously included in her cult. How about if Kill Horse cannot be resisted, but is a 2-point one-use spell? Does that seem fair? Remember that most Kill Horse attempts will be against very special (maybe even sentient) horses.
Anti-Cavalry tactics:
The techniques used by the peasant Jacquerie rebellion in 14th-century France is probably inappropriate to Lunar training, but certainly bears repeating. Both techniques required waiting until the knight had completed his charge and was engaged in melee, slashing with sword or axe while the horse kicked and bit.
One technique was to use long hooks (either billhooks, or metal pitchforks with one prong bent back) to pull a knight off his horse. The other was to have a (ballsy) guy actually roll UNDER the horse with a knife and slash at its tendons. Both techniques had the immediate goal in mind of dismounting the rider. Once down, guys armed with mauls would pop open the knight's armor to get at the meat.
The Jacquerie methods, and Nils Hammer's method of combining a tower shield and greatsword both are pretty much only good vs. heavy or medium cavalry. The basic Lunar problem would seem to be the fact that properly-trained infantry can generally defeat any cavalry force except for horse archers. You need light cavalry of your own to beat the horse archers, and they'll get whupped by the Pent medium and light cavalry, who are (let's face it) likely to be superior to the Lunar cavalry, few of whom were born on horseback.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:32:45 EEST