Imryn

Would it? I don't know, that's why i'm asking. And if it can give the god full details of a geas breaking why is the gods knowledge of the worshippers actions so limited outside of breaking a geas?

That's not how @Jeff wants us to think it works when a geas is broken I'm attempting to get some clarity that reconciles the version of what a god can know from the description of the divination spell and this view

Oath 2 Points Ritual, Permanent (see below), Stackable The Oath spell binds two (or more) people into a pact. Anyone that breaks the oath receives an attack of Sever Spirit (see page 338) with magic points equal to the total magic points placed into the Oath spell to start it. The greater the Oath sworn, the more magic points are committed to the swearing. For example, if two Humakti each placed 15 magic points into an Oath Rune spell and one later broke the oath, 30 magic points would be matched vs. the oathbreaker’s POW. If overcome, the oathbreaker will die. Each additional Rune point added to the Oath allows an additional participant. The participants need not be Humakti—the spell can be cast by a third cult member. An Oath rune spell is fuelled by magic points donated by both people who enter into the pact. A worshipper sacrifices POW when he becomes and initiate so any oath sworn at that point does not work the same as an Oath rune spell. To be clear, the donated POW could be used to power some other type of oath, but it would not necessarily work the same way as an Oath rune spell.

All of this is interesting, but tbh its all a bit beside the point in my opinion. I think we would all be happy to accept that the Gods know everything about their worshippers and everything about their primary spheres of interest, if it wasn't for that pesky bit of text in the divination rune spell. @Jeff I gotta ask. What were you guys thinking when you decided to limit the power of divination by NERFING THE GODS! You must have realised that it would spill over into every other interaction between the world and the gods. Surely there was a better way to limit the power of divination? Right off the top of my head I can think of one: The Gods exist outside time and have no concept of how to exist in a linear fashion. Any vision granted by divination has no indication of when it is happen(ing / ed) and sequences will be disjointed and may jump from the past, to the future, to the present at complete random.

According to GTG V1 there is a god of truth. Neither Odayla nor Yinkin is described as "The God of Hunting" anywhere that I can see (or even as "A God of Hunting"), neither is claimed to be paramount. Humakt is the only death god in the lightbringer pantheon - he is "The God of Death" for those who worship any of the Lightbringers pantheon.

Regardless of the runes that a god is associated with, every god would expect their worshippers not to lie to them. Given the description of how the gods get information (forgetting about any specific mechanism for geases for the moment) the god has no way to know if a worshipper lies to them in a prayer, so I expect there to be pretty stern instructions to never lie to god, and appropriately cataclysmic penalties if you do it and get caught. So a god does not need to be "The God of Truth" or even "A God of Truth", and they don't need to be explicitly linked to the truth rune to expect truth from their worshippers.

There will only be one "god of truth" in the pantheon. There may be others who honour and respect truth, but only one paramount god of truth. If there were more than one god of anything, there would be conflict between the gods which would be reflected amongst their followers. Comparing who worships Lhankor Mhy and who worships Humakt I think Lhankor Mhy would have no worshippers left by now.

And Lhankor Mhy, who has the truth rune as the main runic association does not offer gifts or geases, so yes, I think it is a coincidence. Just noticed this in GTG V1 P37 Orlanth: Chief God, King of the World, Storm God, culture hero, men’s god. Ernalda: Earth Goddess, Mother Goddess, culture heroine, women’s goddess. Humakt: God of Death, war, honor, swords. Issaries: God of speech, communications, travel, merchants and trade. Lhankor Mhy: God of Truth, knowledge, writing, and law So in that tome Humakt has had his portfolio expanded to add honor and swords, and Lhankor Mhy is officially the god of truth as well as knowledge writing and law.

Many gods are associated with runes that they are not the god of. If Humakt was the god of truth it would say so right there in the first line of his description. Humakt is the god of war and death. In the Lightbringers pantheon there doesn't seem to be a god of truth, but Lhankor Mhy would be a better candidate for the job than Humakt.

I should have said "if the players even try"

There isn't a difference. If another player said it and the Humakti's player went along then kaboom. The only response the Humakti player could make under those circumstances to avoid censure is to make his best effort to kill the character of the player who suggested it. Any other response would result in censure and possibly a politely worded message that perhaps he doesn't really have the right attitude for the cult. And I would enforce that even if the players later claimed the were only joking around

The previous and the next sentence provides context and describes how the deity acquires that knowledge: "Secondly, initiates and Rune Masters are extensions of the deity, and can tell the deity many things through prayer. Thus, a deity will know what has happened to its Rune Masters and, to a lesser extent, its initiates. The god does not know what a Rune Master or initiate is thinking and cannot deduce motivations. A deity cannot invade anyone’s mind; though it knows when a worshiper has lost faith. Other knowledge given to a god by a worshiper must be volunteered through prayer." It is clear to me that the words in the book require the god to be told something, through prayer. This description is better, to my way of thinking. Wrapping the geases into the oaths a lay member swears upon initiation provides a framework for the god to plausibly know the instant a geas is broken. Would the god get context though? the previous quote would seem to say no ("The god does not know what a Rune Master or initiate is thinking and cannot deduce motivations"). So the god knows the character broke a geas; how does it react? Does a god try to investigate the circumstances or does it not care and just smite? Does the god automatically know all of the circumstances surrounding the breaking of the geas, including the characters motivations? Does that knowledge include the motivations of the player as well as the character? Sure, it can be presented as a deus ex machina, and that will certainly keep players in line, but I prefer my rule systems to be a bit more internally consistent.

This is true, but the god can't see the deed, he has to be told about it by a worshipper. A faithful worshipper would tell their god of their infraction at the first opportunity, failure to do so indicates a loss of faith which the god would be aware of.

Sorry if I sounded confrontational, but everyone, even @Jeff is bound by the written rules. He might have the power to say "OK that's not what we intended, this is how its supposed to work" but until he invokes that he has to play within the same limits as the rest of us. The god has to know about an infraction in order to act. What the god can know and how they get that knowledge is pretty clearly laid down in the rules for divination on p271. If a geas is a special case it isn't in the rules (yet), which means we should follow the rules we do have to make it work. Oaths are in the rules - we have the rune spell to look at. Beyond that the word oath has a definition: "a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behaviour." From the definition of the word we can see that it cannot be imposed on someone, it is something that someone makes of their own free will. Even if the player did make an oath it wouldn't work in the same way as the oath rune spell. That spell works the way it does because the people that swear the oath donate power to fuel it. Creative in-character reasons would be fine - I was talking about weaselly rules-lawyering - e.g. "OK we need to move fast. Someone knock me out and throw be over a horse and lets go!" Smoking footprints I suppose.

I think the best way to handle geases is through the "loss of faith" clause. If a character deliberately knowingly breaks a geas this is a loss of faith, the god knows immediately and its smite time. If a character involuntarily breaks a geas (put on a horse when unconscious etc) the god does not know, but the character confesses in worship and a penance is imposed. If the player even tries to rules-lawyer or weasel it, its super mega smite time - pair of smoking boots is all that's left.

Sorry, you are both wrong. Humakt is the god of death and war - he just happens to be pretty keen about truth as well but doesn't have a portfolio for that (just had a marvel moment: "you are not the god of hammers") A geas is not any type of oath. An oath is an agreement between two parties that is negotiated in advance, and once both parties agree they fuel the oath by putting magical power into it. A geas is a restriction that is imposed by the god with no negotiation and no magic power is put into it. The limits on what a god does and does not know are pretty clear (RQG 271) : "Secondly, initiates and Rune Masters are extensions of the deity, and can tell the deity many things through prayer. Thus, a deity will know what has happened to its Rune Masters and, to a lesser extent, its initiates. The god does not know what a Rune Master or initiate is thinking and cannot deduce motivations. A deity cannot invade anyone’s mind; though it knows when a worshiper has lost faith. Other knowledge given to a god by a worshiper must be volunteered through prayer." Gods can't read minds, not even their worshippers minds, and have to be specifically told of events in prayers. I am now wondering what happens to gossipy worshippers who pass on information that they heard from a friend of a friend etc

<Hangs head in shame> You are right, I don't know what came over me.

I think determining when and if a geas has been broken depends on three things - what the god knows, what the character knows, and what the player knows. From the description of Divination on P271 RQG we know that for a god to know something from the current world it must be told it by an initiate or above in their prayers - specifically told it, not just have the worshipper thinking about it. The character knows what the character witnessed, and what other people tell them happened. The character may or may not believe things they are told, and may or may not pass them along to their god in prayers. The player probably knows all. Thus, if a character breaks a geas, and is a good worshipper they will tell their god next time they pray. They may try to conceal it, but this would represent a loss of faith and gods are immediately aware of that. If a character breaks a geas but is unaware that they have done so they won't tell their god, and won't lose faith because of it. If other worshippers of the same god witnessed the geas being broken they will tell their god next time they pray. If they hear about the geas being broken they may or may not investigate further, and may or may not tell their god. Once the god is aware that a geas has been, or might have been broken, they will react according to their nature. Impulsive or violent gods will probably smite first and ask questions later, more temperate gods might investigate further before smiting. If a character broke a geas involuntarily there should be some process of penance whereby they can win back their gods favour, If they broke a geas deliberately the consequences should be far reaching and permanent. That brings me to the player. If the player attempts to rules-lawyer, or in any way weasel there way around geases the character should be absolutely hammered. Geases are restrictions imposed by the god the character worships and the character should want to follow them, to the point of being willing to die or allow loved ones to die rather than break them. The players should be willing to role play their characters properly, and this should be explained to them (if they don't know already) when they take on gifts and geases.

Well, yes, but its not the same as worshipping. The 99 others would have to take part in the enchanting ritual and each have to sac a point of POW. Most GM's wouldn't let a player exploit 99 npc's in that way.

No, i don't think it matters how many RP points the caster has - it is created by sacing POW. As long as he has 1 RP he has access to all common rune spells and if he used that 1RP to get access to the enchantment spell he can create a spell matrix for Extension 5. Just to be absolutely clear that same player could also make a matrix with shield 10 and a link condition to have the extension and the shield fire off together. RP has absolutely nothing to do with enchanting, it is all done by sacing POW

Again, I agree with you in theory but for the purposes of this thread (i.e. munchkinnery) there is nothing in the RAW to prevent it. Every group of munchkin players should create an Extension 5 spell matrix as soon as possible and share it around to get all those year long buffs. If i were posting in another thread I would note that as a GM I would describe a rune spell matrix differently to the RAW. It would be a spell matrix with an associated RP pool used to cast the spell. The matrix and the RP pool would be created when the enchanter created the matrix and the RP pool could only be recharged by worshipping the god that granted the enchantment spell to the enchanter. any attempt to tap the RP pool for any other purpose would result in the matrix being destroyed and a visit from the gods spirit of "explaining stuff to idiots".

Using two different pools does not apply, because the way it is written in the RAW the matrix is created by a POW sacrifice. There is no RP used in the creation, use, or recharging of a matrix.

I feel that same way you do, but the RAW has nothing that prohibits casting an extension from a matrix and a spell from RP. The source of the magic that created the matrix is only relevant for recharging it, and recharging it is not limited by anything but availability of a proper temple. If they had described a rune spell matrix as a single purpose RP pool that could only be used to cast the specific spell it was created with, then the situation would be much clearer. By describing the enchanted matrix as a combination of a spell matrix, an RP matrix and a condition that caused the spell to use the RP pool, then the rules would be clear as day. I imagine they didn't do it that way because they wanted to avoid even hinting that you could pool RP in enchanted objects like you can with MP. I think that trading a spell should count as a use of the spell, so if you trade a spell you previously gained through trading you would lose it.

I absolutely would have someone waste the extension if they failed a cast. It's actually more likely to go the other way because the chance of successfully casting against a favoured cult rune will probably be higher than POW x 5, but I would definitely have the spells fire or fail based on the rolls. Them's the breaks when you cast from a matrix and RP; if you cast both from RP I would allow one roll against your cult rune to see if both spells fired. See my response above - @Crel changed my mind about recharging I just noticed you mentioned "Extension RP" - do you think casting a rune spell from a matrix costs RP? My understanding is that there is no RP cost but the matrix is discharged until you worship at the correct temple to recharge it.

This is a solid thought. I expect that a character will only ever achieve Rune priest / Lord status with one cult, no matter how many RP pools they have, so that cult will be the source of their enchantment rune spells and that cult would be where their enchanted items get recharged.