Rodney Dangerduck

I recall some older source material for RQ or HQ, where a Humakti was required to have a weapon (perhaps highly ceremonial) with them at all times. However, my quick search brought up nothing. Faulty memory? Or does somebody else remember this? Thanks!

This is also Glorantha, where spells like Bless Pregnancy exist. My current PC is a pregnant Vinga worshipper who last session was very harshly dumped by the cad of a father, Annstad. She still plans to bear, cherish, and love the (twin) children. And show that bastard by making them Princes of Tarsh! 🙂 I don't buy a Ulerian being too shocked that she got pregnant by a Storm Bull. What are bulls for? Though I respect that YGMV and everybody has their own personal take on this very personal subject.

Thanks That's pretty much what we have been ruling too.

It should be largely up to the players. Does the Storm Bull PC Father want to have a say in the raising of the children? What Clan is he in? If so, especially since another PC is Thane of Apple Lane, that should probably happen. One future problem is that, should the PC become a Storm Khan, he can only marry an Earth Priestess. Though I've seen lots of players ignore that. Or just marry her now. Or keep it informal. As for the Storm Bull player possibly not wanting the mother to continue with her "oldest profession", that could be interesting roleplaying. Note that Ernalda Priestesses must have already borne children, presumably by another man, so Storm Bulls are kind of used to their wives having interesting and active histories.

Those "clarifications" allow for "augmenting" a skill with a Passion. If you allow that, the whole "only one Passion/Rune per scene" limitation goes out the door. "Oh, I'm not Inspiring, I'm augmenting." These clarifications are not so helpful.

I disagree. Sure, you won't use a passion of less than 50% to Augment anything. But as an "ask for a favor" mechanism, it's just fine. You character met and conversed politely with Dappled Light 2 years ago? You can either note that in history somewhere, or note it as a 50% or 40% or even 20% Loyalty. You meet her guards again and say "remember me, please don't kill us!", you can make that roll.

Two questions As I read the spell description, it must be a lie. Not the truth. YGMV. Why is Eurmal now prohibited? Doesn't everybody still believe the Lie? There is presumably no "incontrovertible evidence" clearing the true perpetrator! And, the spell is "cast undetectably". Nobody knows when a good Lie spell has been cast. That's the true awesome power (overpower IMO) of the spell.

The rules seem clear that players don't need to roll checks. So, it's fair for the GM to award a check, perhaps at the player's urging. At the end of the Season (or whenever you do check resolution), it is the player's choice whether to roll. page 425, emphasis added: "At the end of each season, each player can make an experience roll for each check on the adventurer sheet." If my GM forced Passion increases, I'd probably just ignore that passion whenever he forced a mandatory >80% roll, and drop back down to 80%.

Bravo, very well said. IMO, a dubious design decision. Also, it's very unclear whether certain cults, like Odalya or Yinkin, are "separate" cults or "subcults" of Orlanth. Has major effects, both good and bad, either way.

Not disagreeing in the effect desired. But this really should be the player asking the GM, gee, can I increase my Hate Varmandi? Having the GM burn down the stead and then forcibly assign an increase in a Passion removes a lot of player agency.

Change "pretty" to "grossly over" and you have it right. Stealing an idea from the Dune movie, I might start having deaf opponents. 🙂

Good reminder. And in some groups the players might want to encounter slavery (or some other foulness) so their PCs can fight against it. But only with buy in.

Why wouldn't you allow this? Rune magic, usually, happens at SR 0. Effectively, it takes no time at all to cast.

So do I. 🙂

I took MOB's Mello Yello long epic in the same way: epic, creative, yet, ultimately, to me, "someone else's story". Many readers loved them. There's room enough in Glorantha fandom for both approaches. But I strongly agree with GMKen, "better to live your own destiny imperfectly than to live an imitation of somebody else's life with perfection".

Their "schtick" was to cast Fanaticism on the opponent, then hit first with a pole-axe (low SR). When they eventually took damage, they themselves go fanatic. This made them extremely effective at taking out opponents. But mediocre armor and not being able to parry always ended up badly. At the end of most battles they had taken out three+ opponents, but were dead or maimed. In RQ:G, with Shield readily available to initiates, they might fare better.

I had great fun playing minotaurs in RQ2, but their lifespans were short.

Thanks for the clarification. Good luck with the concept. Starting the PCs in Tarsh, as possible mediators between Sartar and the Empire, is a great idea.

I agree that, in general, any "switch" should come only after considerable time going with the original "bait". No argument there. The basis of this thread is that @jenh is considering non-violent Hero Wars. And it sounded imposed by her, at least based on this quote: "I'm not really concerned about my players - I think they're at least a little used to my style after years together. I'm fascinated by what others might do with either premise..." @Alexcommented that Uroxi and Humakt would be "shafted" and how it would be better to "make the buy-in more explicit". @Darius West calls the main premise "absolutely artificial". So it seems that several of us believe that Jenh's campaign would go against the players' initial expectations. Perhaps we misunderstand, and Jenh does intend to do a "Session Zero" to get player buy in. It would be nice to get clarification. And, maybe, as she says, her players will be fine with the unusual premise. I enjoy campaigns that go against expectations. Within reason. It is completely reasonable, historical, and good storytelling for a band of mercs to become unemployed, or the war to end. What happens after could be fun or not. We had a campaign where our group was assisting one team in a "Rune Chef" contest, roaming Glorantha to collect exotic ingredients and spices, and to prevent rival teams from doing the same. Not at all expected. Generally non-lethal violence. Very fun.

Glen Cook and Xenophon beg to differ. I think that would be a wonderful premise for a campaign.

Disagree, I'm with @Darius West on this one. Forcing a fundamental change on human nature, and expecting no counter reaction, seems artificial to me. We ran a long campaign, based on a Torchwood TV season, that started when over zealous Chalana Arroy questers had bound Humakt and eliminated Death. It quickly became apparent that this was a terrible mistake, and needed to be undone. It would be fun and interesting for your campaign to explore whether eliminating violence is a "good idea". I can see a lot of drawbacks.

#1 is extremely believable. Argrath, or maybe even Leika, becomes Prince of Sartar, and there ensues 20+ years of relative peace with the Lunar Empire. Could be a "Cold War" type of feel? Occasional violence, trade, gathering intel, diplomacy, "containment", etc. Frankly, I think our campaign will tend that way. We don't mind violence, yet the canonical events of the later parts of the Hero Wars are hard to stomach. #2 first sentence is fine. The Dragonrise, and the rise of Draconic energies, leads to a fundamental change in something. Mandating peace seems heavy handed to me, so I'd tend towards something else. Your group may vary.

I'd also enjoy love stories of normal people and heroes. Other than Jar-eel and Beatpot, can't think of any. There must be some that I don't know about.

Sung by the poets as "rosy fingered Dawn".

Everybody routinely ignores drawbacks or restrictions on other cults. Because of MGF. Why enforce them for YT?