Shiningbrow

1 hour ago, metcalph said:

Nope.  HQG references are valid for the discussion of the bigger picture of Lhankor Mhy.  An in-depth discussion would be out of place but merely referencing it is perfectly fine as it is an official chaosium publication.

Referencing for the world of Glorantha - fine. Using it as a source for Runequest rules - only useful as a reference, not as canon (obviously).

1 hour ago, metcalph said:

The material in the Sorcery section says differently which I have amply quoted from. You can only claim tere is no suggestion by pretending that that the whole section is optional when it comes to worshipping Lhankor Mhy., which is rather bizarre  

Not even remotely bizarre, as it's not mentioned in the cult write-up. In fact, the cult write-up for LM opposes this (@kcloser has just posted the page numbers in the other thread). And nowhere is there a suggestion that -

On 7/4/2019 at 6:18 PM, metcalph said:

All runemasters of Lhankor Mhy know and teach sorcery.  They wouldn't be runemasters if they didn't.

This is the quote from you above... there is nothing in the texts (either in the cult write-up nor in the sorcery section) that hints at this...

38 minutes ago, metcalph said:

To get away from this, people have resorted to saying this applies only if they learn sorcery.  Which is not stated in the text.

Not directly connected to the discussion - I think we'd all have to say that " logical reasoning and wisdom literature" =/= "sorcery".

40 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Quote

Upon initiation into the cult, the initiate is taught to
master the Truth Rune and the technique of Command.

Again a fairly clear mention of being taught sorcery.  To get around it, you have to again mentally insert qualifications that are nowhere present in the text.

Nope! It's in the section specifically devoted to sorcery, so it's a perfectly valid assumption to think that it only applies to those who choose to learn sorcery - especially as the (yes, limited) cult write-up completely fails to mention it as a requirement for either of their Rune Masters, and as part of the Cult Skills...

42 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Quote

Upon initiation into the cult, the initiate is taught to
master the Truth Rune and the technique of Command.

Again a fairly clear mention of being taught sorcery.  To get around it, you have to again mentally insert qualifications that are nowhere present in the text. 

Yes, again - valid inference - again, given what it says in the cult write-up which is a pretty solid "qualification" that is clearly present in the text!

It is a clear cut mention that sorcery is available (probably in most temples), but in no way suggests that it is mandatory - again, because it's not in the cult write-up!

47 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Rather clear cut to me.

Naturally - it's called "Cognitive Bias".

A greater deal of 'interpretation' is required to assert that it's a requirement for all initiates.

It's a ridiculous assertion to say that *all* Rune Master's are required to have 'mastered' sorcery to teach it to initiates.

Personally, I'd be happy to agree with you if the evidence was there to support the argument (my first RQG character would be an LM sorcerer...) - but it's not! It makes more sense to me to suggest that the use of sorcery in LM is part of a sub-cult devoted to it (but can be taught to other initiates).

3 minutes ago, metcalph said:

I didn't say all runequest sources,  I said all sources and stand by it,  My interpretation is consistent with the description of the Cult in RQG.  

 

 

So... "all sources... Except for the important ones" ... 

Please, supply a quote from the book that supports your claim! (Yeah, I'm looking at it now... And there's nothing there!!!)

2 hours ago, metcalph said:

They are called the HeroQuest: Glorantha and RuneQuest: Glorantha rulebooks.

 

That's a negative, Houston!

Firstly, we're in the Runequest forum, not Glorantha - so references to Heroquest are fairly invalid. 

Secondly, Runequest: Glorantha (currently, about the only relevant source material for the current edition) in NO way suggests (or even mildly implies) that sorcery is *required* For Runemastery, let alone teach it!

30 minutes ago, metcalph said:

The interpretation of Lhankor Mhy that I've provided is consistent with all sources (and game systems

No, it isn't.

As said above, this LM sorcery hasn't appeared in any other *Runequest* source. 

You might want to change your "all" to a "some" ... Or if you're lucky - "most".

I'm surprised by how tat-free she appears to be (although that could be my eyes).

4 hours ago, albinoboo said:

Harrek is known as the negotiator, because of his patience,  accommodating attitude and diplomatic way of dealing with conflict. 

Just made me think of a new line to try out....

"My mother is Jar-eel and my father is Harrek"

Is there any (good) reason why an allied spirit or ancestor, or even Fetch couldn't attune a powered crystal?

59 minutes ago, metcalph said:

All runemasters of Lhankor Mhy know and teach sorcery.  They wouldn't be runemasters if they didn't

You have an awesomely great canonical source for this extreme claim?

It does, after all, contradict basically everything ever written for RQ about LM.

He's not a duck... He's a new type of broo.

2 hours ago, RHW said:

Q:  I want to kick ass and take names.  How do I do that?

You can't - you're illiterate! 😛 (and, because you're an Orlanthi, I'll obviously have to explain what that means - you can't read or write...)

If you really want to take names, join Lhankor Mhy.

6 hours ago, g33k said:

Axe Orlanthi (spear and axe are their preferred weapons)?  Ernaldori-gone-Vingan?

Or just unusual... "not in the usual model" IS the usual model for PC's after all...

 

Back story.

I imagine that while there will be women who tend towards violence from a younger age (and men!!), I generally presume there's a reason people turn to the more martial pursuits.

In this case, she may have been a daughter to a forester, or even just a farmer, and was used to using an axe from childhood.

(Of all the weapons available, the sword really is the only purely martial one out there, with really only one use - killing something in combat. Most (all) other weapons are based on tools (a spear being a hunting tool))

21 hours ago, g33k said:

 

===

EDIT:  Or we could go consult the artist's own page...

 

I did see that. I didn't *presume* it was 100% commissioned.

(This is because I've seen descriptions in official books which don't always match the picture... Ie, details missing, hard to see, or descriptions of colour on B&W images)

Perhaps, to aid the OP (and maybe ourselves), we should ask some really basic questions about nature, and see what we get? (Perhaps we need a document "what my parents taught me"?)

E.g. -  why are there seasons?

What is darkness? (Merely the absence of light, or something else with its own existence - that can be stronger than light?)

Where do.babies come from?

12 hours ago, JonL said:

To my formerly-a-professional-printer's eye, the helms, the Duck's sword, the shovel head, and the axe-head all have a lot more red in them than the spear-head does.

Backing that up: here are some color samples taken  from highlights in the spear-head vs highlights on the Duck's sword, both of which are facing the Sun in their respective frames: 

Bronze alloy v natural bronze (Gods bones)???

I have a question about said Vingan - was she drawn to be a representation of a Vingan? Or was a warrior woman drawing taken to be a representation of a Vingan?

8 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Not really, and anyway not for long - if you have a category modifier of 20, then you always have a 21% chance to raise your skill. Even at 15%, that 16% chance of skill-up is probably better than characteristic training. Raising a characteristic from 17 to 18 has a 20% chance, and gives you nothing. Likewise to 19 (15%), and to 20 (10%), and then when you get it to 21 (5% chance) you get a +5. Hardly cost-effective. Sure, if you have a 16 then raising it to 17 (25%) is very worthwhile. And 12 to 13 is a no-brainer. 13 to 17? Not sure if that works out more cost-effective than training the skill.

Not even vaguely similar to my eyes!

You've overlooked two significant aspects of characteristic increases - firstly, when it hits threshold, it applies to ALL skills affected by the characteristic (if INT was raisable this way, everyone would go for it); and secondly said extra 5% is an extra 5% chance to increase each of those affected skills.

Well and truly worth the time and effort of grinding through 3 wasted points...

At RL level, it sort of becomes irrelevant,.since you can DI your way up.

But then, what's to stop an RL from upskilling the same way? What do we think a DI is worth in skill %?? (At best, a characteristic increase can give 5%... But that  stat raises multiple skills , so it's going to be hard to place a value on an individual skill!!) 

31 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I like that picture. It's very biblical!

????? 😕

On 5/25/2019 at 4:30 AM, RHW said:

We no longer worship Orlanth in this clan."

"Blue is the new Red"

16 minutes ago, EricW said:

Of course horrible things happen if the trickster tries to use the magic for personal gain, or just because ;-).

There are other reasons to use it ???

@galafrone so they can get 2 skill increases on the same skill? Or only 1 successful check?

One thing I'd consider is to have rumours - including false ones - that have been spread about. 

We have the facts and canon from the material (i.e., the books), but the people on the ground would get their information by word of mouth... And that's a terrible source of information!

Such rumour and misinformation can also be a great spur to the players to get out and do things...

ETA - don't forget intentional fake news to help stir the pot. Divide and conquer, and all. And planting false rumours are a great way to divide a people.

Just throwing my 2 clacks bolgs in...

I'd suggest that it can be a good environment to put players into who know nothing about the world, so that they can players who know nothing about the world (other than what their local priests, etc tell them). It would/should actually make the RP much more legitimate.

One thing that I think is a bit annoying is 'planning' out your character, going for the best of everything... as it presumes that the characters have access to all that information and knowledge about what's out there. This is true for any game, but given the mythos and history of RQ, it's even more relevant.

On 10/20/2018 at 12:45 AM, soltakss said:

<snip>

Player 2: When does my Befuddle go off? 

GM: What's your DEX SR?

Player 2: What's that?

GM: It's on your character sheet and you've been playing RQ for 20 years

Player 2: Oh, right, it's 3

GM: Then your spell goes off on SR 4 (3 round later - because you've been playing this game for 20 years and still don't know, and so I'll also assume your character doesn't know how to cast a spell either, and it's taken you that long to remember how... and to find your focus.... and to find a target you want to hit.....

Player 2: OK, I befuddle the NPC that has just attacked, do we take time back

GM: NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Arrrrrgh! 

 

 

Fixed it for you

29 minutes ago, styopa said:

And here I was thinking that saying "men are usually bigger and stronger than women" was oddly, just a fact.  Are objective facts still allowed in 2019?

It would be if a) it was Earth, and b) we're talking about humans (and various other animals too).

But, a) it's Glorantha, and b) they're not 100% analogous to humans on Earth... (#5...)

Ummm - chill time??

I haven't been on these boards (this time) for too long, but I've built up a healthy respect for both @Bill the barbarian and @klecser (not that I always agree with them... ) and I definitely see @Uthred's main point.

However... the mechanics are definitely the same - in that regard, @Uthred is totally correct! (other than the additional effects, which get elucidated afterwards). However, It is an opinion as to whether the repetition of this is a 'mistake' or not... I don't think it is. Especially since Crushing has a different mechanical effect (which actually makes them significantly weaker weapons.. unless you have a huge DB).

I appreciate @Uthred's frustration at copying a rule and not having it acknowledged... (in fact, argued about).

Getting back to the real topic at hand... a legitimate question... some have mentioned that it's fine to cast multiple spells in the same round - as long as they're not offensive (in nature, not, perhaps, in the words used to cast them 😛 ). Why does this matter?