From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Sun 15 May 1994 - 22:43:25 EEST
Joerg:
> I wanted to stop writing about initiation. Oh, well, another Looong piece...
Obviously we need a Pact of Silence or something. ;-)
I had asked:
> > Are you counting "Orlanth" as one of the possible `free' "minor
> > cult[s]", or is everyone effectively "in" Orlanth _and_ a "minor cult"
> > _*and*_ a "pantheon initiate"?
You didn't answer my question, Joerg. You want to keep the existing cult structure more-or-less intact, right? Hence you propose that a cultist may join more than one, getting exactly the stated benefits, but without the usual "penalties" in time and tithing. Am I correct so far?
However, you seem to imply that "extra" cult memberships do require a POW sacrifice, at least. You don't state how many you may join before this becomes necessary. That's what I asked.
Is it one, presumably Orlanth? Or is it Orlanth and one other? Or is it as many as you like?
If you have concrete ideas about (dare I say it?) rules for pantheon worship, it'd be helpful for you to be more specific.
> > If the first: Okay, I join my "free" cult <X>. How does this differ
> > from me being Initiated into <X> under the RQ3 rules? I'm also a
> > "pantheon initiate", but that just means I'm an associate of various
> > cults, which I'm associated to anyway via <X>.
I stll think you should clarify what being a pantheon initiate/associate initiate, whatever, means, if it's beyond what I outline here.
> [Tithing, temple duties]
> > These aren't _penalties_, they are _consequences_. How do you plan on
> > getting something for nothing in the magical ecology?
> I don't.
Then you need to make clear what limits there are on what cultic-type benefits you get for one cultic-type outlay. Constraints on powergaming based on tetchy priests and innocent farmers don't work very well if it's the priests and farmers doing the powergaming.
> > But each cult, however unique it is, must worship _something_: something
> > identifiable, and identifiable _with_, for a fairly clearly conceptualisable
> > "purpose", not something hopelessly vague and open-ended like a "pantheon".
> How about a cult worshipping Orlanth and his companions and friends, each
> of them at the appropriate time, and for the appropriate benefit?
Not a very well-defined group, and certainly not a small one. And even if this cult did exist, it would _not_ be simply the "sum of the parts". Not unless the time/tithing requirements were about 2000%, and the POW sacrifice in the region of two hundred.
> > Anything more than seven is a committee.
> A ring, to stick with Orlanthi nomenclature. A necklace, for Pamaltelans.
None of the traditional "rings" are anything like the number of thingies in the whole pantheon. Lightbringer Ring, Brother's Ring, yes. Everyone- in-the-whole-Storm-Tribe Ring, I don't like at all.
> > Are these time
> > and tithing requirements just something imposed by wicked game designers,
> > referees, and priests, or do they fulfill some game-world purpose?
> There is _one_ religious tithe to the temple (community, parish, whatever)
> I am initiated to.
i.e. the equivalent of one GLised cult's worth, for which you seem to propose the initiate gets open-ended benefits from every cult in sight, as long as it isn't for evil, selfish, powergamingly adventurous purposes.
> > How do you plan on telling the difference? If communities can get Free
> > Lunches, why not us, I hear your players crying.
> Easy. Don't do it for selfish reasons, but for the good of the community,
> and you'll get preferred treatment.
You're proposing that for the same amount of magic effort as with the cultic rules, the community gets a much greater, and possibly open-endedly greater, magical benefit. This is a Communal Free Lunch from my point of view.
I think that sufficiently pious and committed initiates have fairly ready access to one-use RM (of their _own_ cult), if they really want it. The expendtiture is mainly theirs, not the officiating/supervising priest's. An a priori assumption that someone wanting a combat-oriented spell from their own god, the god of warriors in this, would be obnoxious interference on the priest's part, frankly.
Note that having spells cast for you by a member of a cult, for which you obviously _do_ need to have the priest's active approval, is hardly an argument in favour of having to actually _join_ it.
> Generally adventuring magic is frowned upon by village or town priests,
> it upsets their magical ecology by abusing their ressources.
This smacks more of referee-hosiery than magical ecology, for a god one of whose aspects is Adventurous.
> This still cuts the financial benefit of the
> village priest, but at least it leaves his spiritual account largely
> unchanged.
I think his spiritual account is already badly overdrawn, myself, from trying to maintain several sets priests on the ammount of commitment due to one single cult.
> This the reason why I don't really like David Cheng's Rune Power system
> for divine magic. It smacks too much of presacrificed DI (like for RQ2
> priests) to me.
Personally, I like the idea behind the Rune Power system, though not the details. The distinction between DI and rune magic seems too artificial to me to be worth enshrining in The Rules, more than is unavoidable for playability reasons. The fact that DI is sometimes treated as a source of endless amusing abuses by players is, admittedly, one good reason for maintaining the distinction.
Thinking of DI as postsacrificed rune magic, Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:20 EEST