Shiningbrow

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

RAW, Base skill+Category modifier (should be manipulation)+Experience. 😉

Experience??? With a herring?????

22 hours ago, Imryn said:

Once a character has access to Rune Lord DI they can get all (or most) of the gifts with no cost. There may be some gifts that are exclusive to certain gods (perhaps Humakt is the only god who can grant sense assassin?) but that is for each GM to determine, and the majority (all stat increases, cult skill increases, additional weapon damage and HP) should be available to any Rune Lord in any cult.

Thus, the benefit gained from a gift in RQG is now minor and other characters who are in cults without gifts will very quickly catch up. The benefit gained from the gift is small and fleeting, so the cost of that gift should be commensurate.

<snip>

 

In my Glorantha i adopt the following policies:

1. Geases cannot be broken accidentally. The character is assumed to be following the strictures during all mundane events. Where an action would break a geas the GM will warn the player.
2. Geases cannot be broken involuntarily. If the character is unable to resist the action that breaks the geas it doesn't count. This does not mean that the situation is just ignored, it means that the situation is resolved through roleplaying contrition, confession, penance etc. Players conspiring to contrive circumstances to evade geas restrictions do not count as involuntary.
3. Testing geases is appropriate and required. The player should be placed in situations that require them to sacrifice something of value to maintain the geas. This testing should take place early in the characters career and should become less frequent as the character advances in their career; proportional to the current benefit of the associated gift.
4. Breaking a geas (1). Testing a geas may involve requiring the player to make a choice, but it may also require actions such as resistance rolls etc. In the case where the player attempts to resist the action that breaks the geas, but fails, the geas is broken. The character suffers the consequences of the broken geas, however as they did attempt to resist there should be a path for them to regain their gods favour. A difficult path, but a path none the less.
5. Breaking a geas (2). If a player chooses to break a geas deliberately the character suffers the consequences of the broken geas. It is up to the GM to decide if there is any way to regain the gods favour, but if a path is offered it should be tantamount to suicide.
6. Removing a geas. There will come a time in the characters career when the benefit of the gift becomes negligible, and some mechanism should exist whereby the character can be released from the geas. One possibility is to use DI to remove the geas (and associated gift). Other possibilities exist, I am sure

DI for skill increases? Maybe, but that's usually a HQ thing...

Secondly, the purpose of a gift and He's a, IMO, isn't to benefit the player, it's to show devotion to the deity. Therefore, said geasa (and the gift) is extremely relevant throughout their entire career.

Re: 1-6..

1) I think accidental geas breakages are legit - but do agree the GM should warn/advise if some action is heading that way (if it's player choice). Not checking what food you've just been offered, for example (laws of hospitality and all).

2) involuntary breaks of a head may be legit. So, too, is the penance. (Ie, both are in play). You still lose the gift, but getting it back is relatively easy.

3) re: relative benefit... As per my comment above, this is a little irrelevant, as it's the sign of devotion, not the benefit that matters. Also, "testing" is a GM thing, not a PC thing.

4) fair! Could be - Passion rolls. Diet restrictions vs hospitality rules. Celibacy geas v falling head over heels in love (or dryad magic, etc).

5) really don't think it should be 100% suicidal... Perhaps just 80%, with 99% losing something deeply meaningful.

6) if geasa are related to devotion, not benefit - nope, no removals! Should be irrelevant! 

Since we've gotten to this point, I can legitimately ask - what should be the % chance of cutting down a tree with a herring?

(NB - it's on topic and sort of relevant. Hence, it's not a red herring)

2 hours ago, Kloster said:

RAW, base value + STAT modifier + 5% per Bladesharp level. You can argue that the base value is less than the one written in the rules, but watching my younger son playing, I can ensure you the base is not 00%, so magical bonus would apply.

My intention for my hypothetical was for a child that can't even pick up the sword (or barely be able to manage it).

Would you still give them that skill?

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

We don't have rules for playing children. If they have seen sword fights then that might provide a small base. I think pretty much all physical skills should have a 5% base anyway, unless they are particularly complex like juggling or martial arts.

The kid with sword thing was just the first example that popped into my head....

I'd think juggling is worth 5%... Martial Arts isn't considered physical but knowledge. (which, brings us back full circle! Perhaps it was a RoundHouse!)

2 hours ago, Gallowglass said:

I'm thinking that maybe what it actually meant was that the POW crystal stores and mp, and could also be used to bind spirits as well, when that becomes feasible.

Not at the same time. It's explicitly forbidden. You can *either* bind a spirit in it,, *or* store MPs. (I hope I'm reading your post correctly. Apologies if you already realised this).

I've always presumed that a control spell could force the spirit into the crystal, and from that point it's effectively "bound", and you can then use its MPs. And, with another control spell, order it outside and so stuff (until the spell duration ends).

No extra spells, bindings, POW loss required... 

18 minutes ago, Julian Lord said:

That's not how I'd play it -- I'd rule that no initial negative skill modifier can reduce a skill below 0%

So, a 20' tall giant with 40 POW and 12 DEX still has a 5% chance to effectively hide behind the shrubbery? 

29 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Sword skill has a basic ability percentage, everybody can figure out which end to grab and which end to move towards the target. Swimming on the other hand is a skill that needs to be learned, which not everybody does (even the dead man floating on the back position requires some training instruction, and while desperate dog paddling may keep an unencumbered person above the water for a while, it doesn't create enough propulsion to move the non-swimmer into the desired direction for more than a meter or so per melee round).

Most children will have experienced riding on their parents, uncles/aunts, or elder siblings (the latter also on their knees, the former mostly on their shoulders), which may explain everyone possessing a basic percentage.

True, but I was hoping to go to the point that the stats would bring about sufficient negative to hit 00 in my example.

However... If someone can't swim (00), and a spell of "Swim like a fish" is cast on them, can they now swim like the proverbial? As per the above discussion on knowledge skills?

11 hours ago, g33k said:

There is no "truth" here.

The "truth" I was (in my head - explicitly) referring to was a) it IS a game, and not real life, and b) what a character might do in character is not what a player (person) would do in RL. I thought the last line of both my posts had made that fairly clear...no?

Neither suggests that magic can't (over-)compensate for that...

If a character (e.g., young child) picked up a sword for the first time, and somebody cast Bladesharp, what would their skill be like?

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Maybe it's because metal (and plastic) doesn't absorb stuff like wood does. Getting rather off topic here, though, my main point is that these effects of one thing on another are magical and do not necessarily follow simplistic logical thinking. "Moving liquid" is not always "running water". "A piece of wood" is not always "a stake". "Ultraviolet light" is not "sunlight".

But... metal comes from the Earth... And especially in Glorantha, with Copper being the Rune Metal for Earth cults, it would make sense that (if your hypothesis is correct) copper weapons work effectively at dropping vampires in the same way that stakes do.

(yes, I know it's heading off topic a little...)

4 hours ago, Kloster said:

It is still, because as far as I have understood, Logician does not apply to 00% skills. You still need at least 01% to be able to apply logician bonus (my character has Logician but does not know anything in dwarven ideograms, to stay with David's example).

My obvious question is - where does your understanding come from? There's nothing written in the RQG about it... Has there been a "Rune Fix" for this? Or some other official statement on the subject? I brought the Logician topic up in the Munchkinnery thread, and it wasn't mentioned there...

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The main reason for doing this is if your DEX changes it means you don't have to rub out half your character sheet.

Yay for technology!!! PDF or Excel or whatever

16 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

 

I have a request. 

This is an incredibly sensitive topic,  I request that we all take a very  deep breath and realize that an academic debate about such a subject might not be a good idea on a public forum where we have been asked to be on our best behaviours and to not alienate folk. There is a bit of tinder for emotions to get heated and we might have a bruised feelings if we are not sensitive in what we say.

If the topic must continue please be nice!

Cheers

Yes, Bill, you are correct.  But let's not have emotion get in the way of truth.

I believe it is an "academic debate", and am seeing the issue from that perspective. Remember when it was suggested that playing D&D would lead people to devil worship? Or computer games would increase the chance of becoming violent and murdering people?

2 hours ago, Imryn said:

If you think I am upset about geases in general then you aren't paying attention. What I am getting heated about is the blithe assumption that its fine to further victimise a rape victim that is being expressed in this forum. For that matter I am also upset that anyone here could propose having a character raped just to break a geas.

I don't see anyone suggesting it's "fine" to further victimise a rape victim. Nor have I seen anyone here propose having a character raped (whether for the breakage of a geas or not... although, I have seen mention of broos, which is a standard creature in RQ, and has been for decades. I presume you remove all broos from your games - yes?)

If I"m wrong - please quote! NO, not "it can be interpreted in such and such a way", but actual specific and direct quotes.

2 hours ago, Imryn said:

Not what @Joerg said at all. What he said was that if a player creates a character with gifts and geases they are daring him to break the geas. As a GM this is trivially easy, so what he is saying is that in his Glorantha if you try to play a cult with gifts and geases he will simply destroy your character.

I don't really want to speak for @Jeorg, as I"m quite sure he's capable of doing so himself - but... I agree with what he said (which, by the way, does not include the phrase "destroy your character" - those are your words! I agree with him... geasa are tests of faith. They can be broken in many ways (which, FTR, does not require that the celibacy geas can only be broken via rape - especially since the statistical majority of initiates into either Humakt or Yelmalio are male (not that males can't be raped, obviously)). I think he's saying  - your geas is going to be tested, and quite possibly put into situations in which the geas is likely to be broken (somehow). And, as I said, I agree with him!

2 hours ago, Imryn said:

The fact that you DON'T see a difference between having an unconscious character thrown over a horse to break a geas, and having an unconscious character raped and then using the fact of that rape to further victimise them appals me.

The fact that you don't read the...

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

(There is not an argument here that will be condoning rape or sexual assault in any way, shape or form. This is not the forum, nor the people, who would even consider such an idea. Anything suggested to the contrary will not be accepted, and would only come from a Red Herring type logical fallacy...)

and the ..

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

(*NOT* equating the two )

 I wrote that preceded that says a lot...

2 hours ago, Imryn said:



The fact that your mind can even go there, and then you see nothing wrong with expressing that thought in a public forum, tells me everything I need to know about you.

This is (was) an academic discussion on the nature of geasa in the world of Glorantha, and how the gods that impose such things operate. They're not particularly kind and compassionate (Humakt being the god of death and all...). We can have this discussion about a fictional world and a fictional situation, and a fictional consequence by a fictional god.

Being a gamer, and a philosopher, and an academic (and, apparently, on the autism spectrum), my mind is capable of going many places. It needs to to be able to enjoy the fundamental concept of RPGs. In the RPGs I (and most others) play, "people" (PCs and lots and lots and lots of NPCs) die. Sometimes horribly. It can be presumed that tens of millions of people died during the invasion of Chaos in the Glorantha history...I also play Werewolf - PCs regularly kill other people. Some characters do so for sport. It's part of the "role play". Many who play D&D like to play evil characters, so they can do horrendous stuff. It, again, is part of the "role play". There are very few RPGs (PnP or video) that don't have killing as a motif. (surely that should be something to be appalled about!)

And, we are quite capable of distinguishing the fantasy of RPGs and the reality of life.

Suggesting that people who play such games with such motifs in them, and are able to discuss them (in public or otherwise) is in any way suggestive of their personality, character, etc is ludicrous (and probably very insulting!)

If you intend to reply to this post, please start by quoting this (which I wrote above)  -

4 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

There is not an argument here that will be condoning rape or sexual assault in any way, shape or form. This is not the forum, nor the people, who would even consider such an idea. Anything suggested to the contrary will not be accepted, and would only come from a Red Herring type logical fallacy...)

1 hour ago, Minlister said:

@boztakang

Thank for all that! I entirely agree and that's all the challenge to make it interesting!

I think Korgo will definitely be the secret cult name of the Dark Stallion!!

 

Why "stallion"?

That's a disgusting horsey Yelmic thing!!! 

Shouldn't it be the name for a male beetle ? (And I'm sure on this forum there's at least one person who will know 😛 )

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

It's the same as the difference between a stake and a sharp piece of wood. My personal belief is that a stake kills a vampire because it has the power of the Earth infused into it from being stuck in the ground for decades. Fresh wood doesn't cut it.

So, what about a stake that hasn't been used? Or only once for a camping trip last summer?

And if it's because of the Earth infusion, then metal stakes should also work... (and, if we crossed worlds, plastic).

25 minutes ago, Imryn said:

Ah ok, sorry I get it now.

Forget about the fact that players are forced to accept gifts and geases if they want to play certain cults, you, as GM, see that as a challenge that means you have to force them to break the geas by any means possible.

I didn't realise that Humakt was such an OP cult. I suppose since they are so OP they should be punished, it stands to reason, and at least you don't have to worry about them resurrecting right? Only have to kill of the pesky OP so-and-so's the once!

I think that's somewhat unfair.

Sure, geasa are there as GM plot points - as should be any cult stipulations (just the fact you join a cult means you've agreed to certain limitations, which makes for more dramatic role-playing if used appropriately).

As @Joerg was saying, gifts aren't meant to be "free", and not bringing the geas into it in some meaningful way would be making it free... (and boring).

(*NOT* equating the two ) would you be as argumentative about a dietary requirement which you found unappealing? I notice that the above example of being kidnapped (and tied to the horse) didn't raise an issue. 

2 hours ago, Imryn said:

If you are interpreting the celibacy geas as giving up the pleasures of fornication how on earth do you interpret getting raped as a breach of that geas? Especially raped while unconscious?

Please explain which part of the process the victim is supposed to have taken pleasure from.

No, I'm interpreting "celibacy" as not having sex (the GM and players need to agree whether that means only penetrative, or anything).

Sex is not always pleasurable, even if consensual, and so the geas is about the basic act - not the enjoyment (or lack thereof).

You're obviously not happy with the restrictions (possibly)  placed upon your characters from Humakt, Yelmalio, et al... Have you considered joining Babeester Gor?

(There is not an argument here that will be condoning rape or sexual assault in any way, shape or form. This is not the forum, nor the people, who would even consider such an idea. Anything suggested to the contrary will not be accepted, and would only come from a Red Herring type logical fallacy...)

I love the above 3 responses... A yes, a no, and a maybe  😛

As for the language issue - it's a bit of a non-issue with Logician, as Read/Write is a Knowledge skill that can be enhanced by it.

7 hours ago, David Scott said:

In RQG & HQG this is just background colour, it's the same % roll or Keyword

You're implying that the different sorcerous traditions are incompatible, and therefore LM sorcery would be a completely different skill to, say, Western sorcery (and perhaps even different branches - Brithini, Hrestoli, etc). And thus, having mastered a Rune through one tradition, you still couldn't learn spells from a different one... (completely unlike Spirit magic)

Let's not forget the weather! Some seasons are great for getting out and getting your adventurer on. Other seasons are for staying at home and sleeping in all day!

16 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Hm. I thought that was gone... but surely you still need a focus, where does that come from? It takes a week to make the focus when you learn a spell from a Rune Master.

No idea. That's why I questioned the time/cost of learning Spirit magic in a different thread.

3 hours ago, Imryn said:

I am not sure why you would chose this example. Of all the concepts from our world that have been translated across to Glorantha "celibacy" is absolutely the worst realised. In our world the whole concept is wrapped up in the christian churches hatred of women and desire to prevent women from having any form of control over men, and especially church officials. Distrust, and the desire to absolutely control women didn't start with the christian's; controlling reproduction by controlling women has been a key element in a great many religions throughout history.

Any slight amount of thought leads to the obvious conclusion that there was never any need to excerpt that type of control over women in Glorantha - If you want to know who fathered the woman's child you just ask her, after casting a truth spell.

Putting aside the historical context, the purpose of a "vow of celibacy" is to prevent the person taking the vow from being "corrupted by sins of the flesh". In the real world this refers to the pleasures of fornication, and i suppose from that point of view there is some justification for the same vow being present in Glorantha. What I am not sure about is your interpretation that a rape victim has somehow been "corrupted by sins of the flesh". I have not been raped, however I understand that is anything but pleasurable, and leaves many and varied mental scars.

I would like to know just how the unicorn was aware of her change of status - do they conduct an inspection before allowing the rider to mount? Why would the unicorn think the rider was no longer suitable just because they had been assaulted by a rapist? In a world with magical healing that can regrow severed limbs, regrowing a broken hymen is trivial, and for that matter I understand the act of riding a horse can cause the hymen to break even if the rider has never had sex - does a unicorn reject the rider if that happens?

Putting aside all of the absurdities, If I was GM I would not bring such a distasteful aspect into my games, and if it somehow did creep in I would certainly not punish the rape victim for the crime - there is way too much of that in the real world for us to also have it in our escapist fantasy world. In my Glorantha the High Priestess would task the woman with hunting down the rapist and his friends and returning their heads and genitals to the temple where they would be prominently displayed, and the unicorn would enthusiastically help with this quest.

As a complete aside, I wouldn't use any of the celibacy geases in my Glorantha because I think they are absurd in the real world and utterly absurd in Glorantha. I would substitute the "Feel no love" geas instead which has the same general effect without all the real world overtones.

The way I see this...

Firstly, unfortunately, yes, being raped would be a breach of the geas - no less so than being unconscious and forced onto a horse, bound and tied and having horseflesh or fowl forced down your throat, and any of the other unintended geas breakages.

As for why celibacy can be seen as a valid geas - because, as you point out, " In the real world this refers to the pleasures of fornication". Giving up such pleasures would be a form of actual 'sacrifice' (much moreso than killing off some chickens or cows, of dropping off some food/wine). It would represent a real 'something important to give up' to many people.

Whether Gloranthan deities would want to see that - well, Humakt I can definitely see taking that sacrifice... He's not known for being a party animal, and so ruining all your fun would be right up his alley. Another aspect to that would be pregnancy - Humakt doesn't want you connected to any form of family (and what you did have you're severed from). So, basically, the geas is severing all ties to others - including romantic.

Yelmalio, the other god offering up gifts in exchange for geasa, is also a bit of a downer god. Also, quite controlling. And, IIRC, patriarchal. Where there's patriarchy, control of sex isn't far behind!

Unicorns... hey, they're magical! They just know!

44 minutes ago, The God Learner said:

but we may ask what sort of heroquest results in godless atheist sorcery spells?

Lhankor Mhy  allows/teaches sorcery now.. and a few of the others are quite content with it. So, doesn't need to be "godless atheist" spells.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

you can't learn spirit spells this way any more either

??  p368 - "Any adventurer defeating a spirit in combat may gain one of its spirit magic spells (player’s pick). If the spirit possesses a variable point spell, the adventurer may gain possession of as many points in the spell as the spirit possesses."