svensson

@Brian Duguid Insofar as the Hsunchen Pralori example, I was looking for a Hsunchen people who would a] have access to the Hunter Transform spells, b] were different from Odayla, who does have the Transform spells and are familiar to a Sartarite, and c] were far enough away from Sartar to be 'foreign'.

Remember that Pralori don't know the Stranger's Greeting and are not culturally Orlanthi. Sartarites have enough experience with smiling faces with deceit in their hearts from Lunar missionaries and are quite defensive in this era [ca. 1625 ST]. Telmori are more familiar to them, but are also not Orlanthi and are cursed by Chaos. Heort was a good Orlanthi Hero and was many generations descended from Doe Woman and the Elk Clan of Sartar is understood to be a Hunter-worshiping clan and their transformations are identifiable as 'culturally Orlanthi'. From where the average farming carl is standing, a stranger Pralori may very well be lycanthropes until proven otherwise.

This is why I think RQG players and referees need a list of labels and criteria to answer simple questions like 'What is the definition of lycanthropy in Glorantha?' and 'Is lycanthropy tied to the Chaos Rune?'.

11 minutes ago, Agentorange said:

Agreed, hsunchen feel totally different to the lycanthropes presented in RQ2, the Telmori of course edging a bit closer to that view than the others. . Which is why I asked my question at the top of the thread. I kind of like the notion of irascible Wereboars.😊

Let this one bake your noodle....

Tusk rider were-boar.

THAT would seriously throw a wrench in the PC's program...

Boxers are the 'orange cat' of the canine world.

Prove me wrong.

So, in our discussion of Hunter cult spells, we also talked about the various Hunter cult 'animal shape' spells of attack form, protection form, and the collective spell of Transform. To an outside observer, it's very, VERY easy to confuse a Rune spell use with a Telmori transformation. This leads to a whole bunch of misunderstanding and prejudice. A Sartarite seeing a Pralori transform into an elk might legitimately think "WTF?! WERE-DEER???"

I think we have to define what 'lycanthropy' is for Hsunchen beast-cult societies.

The way I personally define it is this: "Are they afflicted with the benefits and deficits of classic lycanthropy?" To whit:

- Uncontrolled shape changing

- Immunity /resistance to 'normal' weaponry

- Inordinate vulnerability to certain Rune metals.

- And the loss of Human intelligence and memory for the duration of the transformation.

Now, something that needs to be said here is that @Scotty specifically stated in the Hunter cult spells discussion that the various Hsunchen or Hunter cult Transform spells are NOT 'lycanthropy', the recipients of those spells do NOT have protection from normal weaponry or susceptibility to Rune metals, and that they retain their human intelligence [including the ability to cast spells].

We all ran into a similar situation earlier this year talking about the RQ definition of 'undead' being significantly different than the 'normal' [aka d20] definition. Ghosts and spirits, for example, are NOT 'undead' as Humakti define the term.

Second comment....

Something else to remember is that RuneQuest generally and Glorantha specifically don't have a tier system for races such as is found in d20 systems. There is no kobold < goblin/halfling/gnome < orc/human/elf/dwarf < hobgoblin < bugbear system. In RQ, you take every race one at a time, accepting it as unique in and of itself, and each is able to generate opponents that will take the head off of your Sword of Humakt bad-assed Hero if he's lucky and you're not.

Think I'm wrong? Have a trollkin or baboon throw a javelin at you [1d10+half dmg bonus], get an impale result, and hit you in the head. That's an average of 6pts of damage, doubled to 12 pts. for the Special result. No matter what result you roll in a d20 game the average tribe-goblin will never get an instant kill the way it can happen in d100. Remember, in every RuneQuest fight you have a minimun 5% chance of dying outright no matter how badass you are. There is no such thing as a 'warm up fight'.

Even if a given race is ill favored in this statistic or that aspect, there's always a chance they'll kill you.

14 hours ago, Darius West said:

I seem to recall that the writers of Trollpak reached a similar conclusion as we did.  The writers of Broos and Tusk Riders, not so much.

Except that the RQG rules specifically tell us that CHA is not about attractiveness, so there in fact is no Attractiveness stat.  According to the present rules Hon-Eel the Artess can only have a strong will and ability to lead.  She may well have a face like a robber's dog according to RQG.

As to beauty being an individual choice, nothing in Anthropology bears this out.  Beauty standards are remarkably consistent across cultures, with the notable exception that the Middle Easterners used to be "chubby chasers" prior to 1900.  And before anyone says anything, please remember that Kink Shaming is my kink.

Well, I think even a human can see the 'charisma' of a Uzuz Matriarch even if he's repulsed by almost everything else about her.

I mean, to take an extreme example, look at Adolf Hitler. He wasn't handsome, quite a bit of what he said is very ugly, and even his speaking style was overwrought. When he started out, he was so poor a public speaker that he had to take classical rhetoric lessons. I've watched a fair number of his speeches in their entirety as a military historian and what cannot be denied about the man is that had a certain magnetism, that indefinable 'something' that drew people to him. Reagan, Thatcher, Bill Clinton, all those had that same quality as politicians. You don't have to like them, I certainly don't, but identifying their ability isn't 'liking' them.

Getting more Glorantha-specific here, it may simply be that some races are ill-favored and lack that magnetic personality trait in the genome. If we can accept enlo [trollkin], newtlings, baboons, etc. are lacking certain traits [intelligence, willpower, whatever], it's not unreasonable to think that broo and tusk riders lack the magnetism and leadership ability for what the 3d6's call 'Charisma'.

And if you want to change that at your table, have at it. YGMV and all that.

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Please not derail this thread with Ducks, they have 3D6 CHA and as such do not have the incredibly low CHA. If you need to discuss Ducks further, please open a new thread.

Chaosium Scotty: Duck Wrangler 😁

I appreciate the replies, guys. Thank you.

With some of my commentary about several subjects, I'd wondered if I'd let real history intrude too much into the Arthurian Mythos.

I tend to gravitate towards the grittier end of the spectrum when I'm dealing with High Medieval /Courtly Love settings... More 'Lion in Winter' than 'Romeo and Juliet'. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the idealization of one's lady love, my wife and my ex-wife both will tell you otherwise. I just prefer it to be more human and less mythic.

I am however constrained to stipulate that if Julia Ormond looked at me with those eyes in the otherwise hugely forgettable 'First Knight', I wouldn't happily commit the atrocity of her choice and probably wonder why everyone else was mad.... 🤣

On 12/10/2022 at 12:00 AM, Agentorange said:

I'm curious why these CHA scores for these and other races are so incredibly low...especially for Tusk Riders.

Uh... because they are half troll, half pig and tend to take after the latter.

I understand that 'charisma' takes into account more aspects than just attractiveness and an inspiring personality to a Tusker is going to be different than that of a Sartarite. But the basic behavior favored by the race and their leadership techniques tends to degrade their CHA stat.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't custom design your own Tusk Rider super-boss. A highly charismatic and magically powerful Tusk Rider chieftain could seriously upend the balance of power in the Dragon Pass region. Tuskers are a pain the fundament now, but if they ever got really organized they could be terrifying. Think 'Ralzakark of Dorastor' with cavalry. That could be a Very Bad Thing that might require some real thrillin' heroics [nod to 'Firefly'] to put right.

I have a habit of playing the oddball character, the strange guy who fits the scenario in unexpected ways. For example, I'm playing in Twilight 2000 4th ed. game right now as a Polish supply sergeant. Part of that is that I'm a US Army veteran and when I play 'modern' games, I like to give the other guys a change to let their inner Rambo out. 😁 But if I were playing a KAP game, I'd almost certainly play a Pagan in Arthur's court. No matter how pious or worldly the other guys were, I'm likely to have an uncontrollable need to play a Pagan Castillian knight named 'Don Roderigo' or something, who's battle cry would be 'Cargo, Caballeros!' [loosely, 'Charge, comrades!'] or some such. I'm just that kind of weirdo... lol!

So it's a lot of fun watching your Pagans trying to let their 'Lusty' out while everyone around them is trying to be 'Chaste'.

So, how many medievalists or are students of the Medieval period are there in KAP.

I've seen quite a few who play the Harn setting, so I got curious.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I was in the SCA in the Pacific Northwest for many years and consider myself reasonably well read-in on the Crusades era.

6 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Now, we don't know exactly when 6th edition will be available, so if you want to start a game now, go ahead with 5.2. Many of the rules will be essentially the same, you will get experience with the system, and depending on your desire, 5.2 starts with Uther (Arthur's father), so you can run a campaign of 25 years or so and then update to 6th edition when it comes out. 

Morien, on the KAP discord, has excellent suggestions on how to do this.

Thank you. Worth considering.

Thanks. You just saved me $30... 😁

Quick question for you KAP fans out there.

Is the 'Sixth Edition' the Version 5.2 listed on drivethru?

The covers look the same, but I was dropped on my head as a child so it's best to check 😁

A couple of notes about playing the intrigue game.

When it comes to servants, don't threaten, entice. A couple of silver Marks in the right pockets and you could have a pair of ears in every castle you visit. I don't know how KAP handles player wealth but if your 'Winter Campaign' includes wrecking the reputation of a rival while still protecting your own, it's a wise expenditure of capital to buy a pair of ears in several castles in the land.

Another thing: DON'T TAKE IT TOO FAR! I can't emphasize that enough. There is fine line but a wide moat between 'taking the arrogant twit down a notch' and 'utterly ruining a man out of unseemly spite'. Know when to stop.

Lastly, never EVER admit that you resort, have resorted, or ever will resort to these tactics. They are unchivalrous in the extreme, and being too obvious about it can ruin the reputation of your entire family for generations to come. And that's not hyperbole. History is rife with sons having to atone for the sins their father's fast lip caused the family. And no father will marry his daughter to a 'carpet knight' who can't win glory of his own and so resorts to underhanded tactics. You really, REALLY don't want the Crown to 'augment' your heraldic arms with 'cross in saltaire sable' [a great big black X in the middle of your heraldry] or some other symbol of disrepute... and it is entirely the Crown's prerogative to do so if they've a mind to do so. So don't give them one.

Watch Tyrion Lannister.

Memorize everything. 😁

OK, first is the public snubbing. Refuse to greet them, take their hand, or even look at them without a direct order from the host or sovereign.

Second, commission several troubadours to sing embarrassing songs about them. If you really want to stick it to the guy, the story has to not only embarrassing, but TRUE. Remember that time the guy fell off his horse on a hunt? Have the harper say that 'as a result, Sir So and So examined the fewments closely'. 'Fewments' are a Medieval term for herbivore dung, whereas 'scat' is dung from carnivores, and both are the 'polite' way to refer to animal shit when discussing a hunt.

Third, rumors. Rumors are awesome. Mutter to yourself complaining about your target in front of a stable boy or body servant and it'll be all over the castle by morning, and all over the country by spring.

Also remember that your servants are 'agents in place'. They hear everything about everyone and can be an invaluable tool for you. All too many nobles treat cooks and stable hands like they don't exist, so don't make that mistake. Treat your staff well, including pay, and you'll have a fairly good intelligence service at your disposal. Treat them poorly and they're like KGB moles in the CIA.

Additionally, take a look at 'Downton Abbey' for some good examples of the Politics of Gossip.

Now, be aware that if you open this bag of scat, you're probably going to be splashed with some. Things like this ALWAYS come back to haunt you, most especially if you're talking smack about a royal favorite. And men have been executed for less. So, just like you were told at your first jousting tourney, BE CAREFUL.

Oh, PLEASE....

It needs to be on Queen Leika Ballista.

A cross-post from the KAP forum that might be of interest to many of you.

A crew digging a parking lot in Harpole, Northamptonshire, found the grave of a wealthy, influential Christian woman who was buried with a fair amount of grave goods. Museum of London Archeology Department excavators are calling it 'the most significant British archeological find since Sutton Hoo'.

I've linked the Guardian story below. I have a distinct feeling that jewelry makers for Medievalist groups all over the world are gonna be getting busy a Hell this spring 😁

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/dec/06/medieval-female-burial-site-found-near-harpole-is-most-significant-ever-discovered-in-uk

So, it was announced today that crews digging a parking lot in Northamptonshire have found "the most significant archeological find in England since Sutton Hoo'.

Archeologists at the Museum of London Archeology department are excavating the burial site of a wealthy influential Christian woman buried in 650AD.

Below is a link to The Guardian story. Let's just say that there are a lot of jewelry makers in Medievalist groups all over the world who are gonna be busy as Hell this spring 😁

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/dec/06/medieval-female-burial-site-found-near-harpole-is-most-significant-ever-discovered-in-uk

2 minutes ago, Ormi Phengaria said:

Sometimes, destruction is good! Sometimes, you just have to make yourself a little breathing room between heaven and earth.

'Change' will happen with or without Chaos. It is the very nature of life that change happens. Beings are born, live to effect the world and die, the quintessential changes of existence. The seasons pass and the land changes. The only constant is change. Sorry to upset all the Mostali out there, but there it is.

Chaos is not like that. Chaos is nihilistic destruction solely and only for destruction's sake. Chaos destroys NOT to make way for the new, but because its only impulse is to destroy, infect, subvert, demean, and befoul.

1 hour ago, Ormi Phengaria said:

As a "religious Daoist" in my beliefs first and foremost, much of the more accessible material on illumination, Vithelan enlightenment, draconic consciousness, etc. did come across that way to me– initially. Equating the Void with Chaos maps pretty well to equating weiwuwei with acceptance of evil. But the presented conflicts and perspectives relating to those things are not what they might first seem, and now I can't help but read them as being exceedingly mischievous.

The problem with Gloranthan 'enlightenment' is that accepts the existence of Chaos. What's more, it rationalizes for the existence of Chaos. It mistakes the Chaos imperative as being 'change', when in fact it is 'destruction'.

And that's a problem for most people.

There is a reason why many [but not all] prohibitions exist. That reason is that what is prohibited is bad for society as a whole and the human psyche personally. Now, I'm not talking about 'alternative lifestyles' or religious beliefs that are different than my own. I'm talking about more universal things like 'murder', 'theft', 'child abuse', and so on. There are MANY 'ought to do's' and 'ought not to do's' that most religions, lifestyles, and legal systems agree on. These are what I'm referring to here.

And in a Gloranthan sense, you can add 'Thou Shalt Not Suffer Chaos to Live' is a perfectly reasonable stricture.

Ducks are STILL Illuminated.

The Proof is Out There.

Ohhh! SHINY!

SPIFFY!

I'm running a faux Atlantis campaign for my nieces and this will be a BIG help!

[I'm not really a sailor... only what I've read about ancient sailing technologies]