Storm Bull and Lunar Cults

[GAZZA]

Could an initiate of Storm Bull join, say, Yanafil Tarnils or another Seven Mothers cult? My immediate reaction would be, "keep those Chaos loving scum away from me" but Storm Bull is a popular god in Prax, and the Sable Riders presumably had plenty of Bulls amongst them when they decided to support the Lunars. (Or did all of their Bull initiates fight on the other side?)

Not all Lunar cults embrace Chaos, after all.

[metcalph]

Just now, GAZZA said:

Could an initiate of Storm Bull join, say, Yanafil Tarnils or another Seven Mothers cult? My immediate reaction would be, "keep those Chaos loving scum away from me" but Storm Bull is a popular god in Prax, and the Sable Riders presumably had plenty of Bulls amongst them when they decided to support the Lunars. (Or did all of their Bull initiates fight on the other side?)

The cults must be compatible according to the RQG rules.  Since both are hostile to each other, the chances are slim.

Just now, GAZZA said:

Not all Lunar cults embrace Chaos, after all.

Chaos is an integral part of Lunar philosophy.  A Lunar that denies the necessity of chaos or views it as evil is not a good Lunar.  Fearing it on the other hand is an understandable reaction.

[GAZZA]

1 minute ago, metcalph said:

The cults must be compatible according to the RQG rules.  Since both are hostile to each other, the chances are slim.

The main issue I have with that is that Daka Fal is hostile to pretty much everyone, but they are also the ancestor worship cult and certainly (from sources like KoDP, for example) ancestor worship isn't alien to Orlanthi.

That said I'm on a lot shakier ground with Storm Bull and Chaos, for sure.

[Runeblogger]

6 hours ago, GAZZA said:

Could an initiate of Storm Bull join, say, Yanafil Tarnils or another Seven Mothers cult? My immediate reaction would be, "keep those Chaos loving scum away from me" but Storm Bull is a popular god in Prax, and the Sable Riders presumably had plenty of Bulls amongst them when they decided to support the Lunars. (Or did all of their Bull initiates fight on the other side?)

Not all Lunar cults embrace Chaos, after all.

I remember reading somewhere that when the Sable nation joined the Lunars, all their Storm Bulls left the tribe. That must have been a lot of people, though.

[David Scott]

20 minutes ago, Runeblogger said:

I remember reading somewhere that when the Sable nation joined the Lunars, all their Storm Bulls left the tribe. That must have been a lot of people, though.

The sables never had a great number of Storm Bulls, look at Appendix C, Cults of Prax where they had effectively 0%. Their lack of Storm Bulls has more to do with their lack of Storm Bull mythology. In the upcoming Cults of Glorantha there is now 1%, I think that's got more to do with the Lunar invasion and Argrath, not all the Sables became lunarised.

[Akhôrahil]

10 hours ago, GAZZA said:

The main issue I have with that is that Daka Fal is hostile to pretty much everyone, but they are also the ancestor worship cult and certainly (from sources like KoDP, for example) ancestor worship isn't alien to Orlanthi.

There's definitely a tension in the game between Daka Fal as worship of actually Daka Fal, and Daka Fal as an umbrella term for Ancestor Worship. 

[Lordabdul]

15 hours ago, GAZZA said:

The main issue I have with that is that Daka Fal is hostile to pretty much everyone

What do you mean? Daka Fal is pretty neutral overall. It's only Hostile to 2 cults in the RQG compatibility table. It's got no Enemy cults.

Also remember that there's a big difference between "can these 2 people belonging to 2 different cults get along?", and "can I initiate into these 2 cults?". The first question has even more elbow room for answers if you're not even considering 2 PCs in the same party, and only considering 2 separate groups of people who fight for the same war but might not even be at the same battle together.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

16 hours ago, metcalph said:

The cults must be compatible according to the RQG rules.  Since both are hostile to each other, the chances are slim.

We should wait for GoG for any final decision.  It's unlikely, but the more "honorable" cults and less "chaos focused" like YT or AJ might achieve marginal compatibility.

[Nick Brooke]

Purely for fun, I used to have some Sable Tribe worshippers of the Storm Buck who thought actually defiling the Plaines of Prax as a horse-riding Cattle Bastard a worse abomination than having hypothetical philosophical associations with a tamed and neutered form of something hardly recognisable as Chaos. Check out my ancient Storm Buck myth.

 

[GAZZA]

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

What do you mean? Daka Fal is pretty neutral overall. It's only Hostile to 2 cults in the RQG compatibility table. It's got no Enemy cults.

Well, one of us is misreading the table. I see Daka Fal as Hostile to Argan Argar, Babeester Gor, Ernalda, Eurmal, Humakt, Issaries, Llankhor Mhy, Maran Gor, Orlanth, Storm Bull, and Waha. They are merely neutral towards Eiritha, Seven Mothers, Yelm, Yelmalio.

I'm fine with PCs of different cults getting along; I'm specifically interested in whether a single individual can initiate to certain cults. I concede Storm Bull and (e.g.) Seven Mothers was always going to be a stretch, but the rules for it (i.e. that the cults have to be, presumably, not hostile to each other) do suggest that Orlanth + Daka Fal is only OK if you joined Daka Fal first, since Orlanth apparently is neutral towards Daka Fal, but Daka Fal is hostile to Orlanth; I presume this is because Orlanth slew Grandfather Mortal, and as such I'm not questioning the table, except to note that KoDP and other sources have tended to support the idea of Orlanthi ancestor worship in the past and Daka Fal is currently the only ancestor worship cult. (RQ3 Gods of Glorantha didn't even have Daka Fal, it called the cult Ancestor Worship - but I'm not saying that was the right approach, merely that we currently lack an ancestor worship deity that is not hostile to Orlanth).

Which is a roundabout way of saying that while I'm fine with Storm Bull cultists not joining Lunar cults (I am of course excluding illuminates), the "cults can't be hostile" to each other is perhaps not an entirely satisfactory way in practice of saying that because I kind of have no issue with Daka Fal/Orlanth combinations. Perhaps I should have?

[GAZZA]

10 hours ago, David Scott said:

The sables never had a great number of Storm Bulls, look at Appendix C, Cults of Prax where they had effectively 0%. Their lack of Storm Bulls has more to do with their lack of Storm Bull mythology. In the upcoming Cults of Glorantha there is now 1%, I think that's got more to do with the Lunar invasion and Argrath, not all the Sables became lunarised.

While I do in fact have Cults of Prax (didn't think to check it), I don't think that can be regarded as a commonly available resource any more. Still, cheers, good to know that the Sables are "Storm Bull Lite" as it does explain how so many adopted the Lunar Way.

[metcalph]

2 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

We should wait for GoG for any final decision.  It's unlikely, but the more "honorable" cults and less "chaos focused" like YT or AJ might achieve marginal compatibility.

I think Yanafal Tarnils and Storm Bull are incompatable as say Humakt and Zorak Zoran.  The same goes for Aronius Jaranthir.  

[metcalph]

3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

What do you mean? Daka Fal is pretty neutral overall. It's only Hostile to 2 cults in the RQG compatibility table. It's got no Enemy cults.

The Cult compatibility chart is not a mirror image.  Daka Fal is hostile towards Argan Argar, Babeester Gor, Engizi, Ernalda, Eurmal, Humakt, Issaries, Lhankor Mhy, Maran Gor, Orlanth, Storm Bull and Waha.  It seems the criteria can be broken into Friends of Humakt and Death Rune worshippers (although this leaves Argan Argar unexplained).

[Lordabdul]

46 minutes ago, GAZZA said:

Well, one of us is misreading the table.

Oh right, I totally forgot that the table was non-symmetrical. Sorry about that. So really, Daka Fal initiates don't like a lot of people, but all these other people frankly don't care much and are neutral.

[GAZZA]

15 minutes ago, metcalph said:

The Cult compatibility chart is not a mirror image.  Daka Fal is hostile towards Argan Argar, Babeester Gor, Engizi, Ernalda, Eurmal, Humakt, Issaries, Lhankor Mhy, Maran Gor, Orlanth, Storm Bull and Waha.  It seems the criteria can be broken into Friends of Humakt and Death Rune worshippers (although this leaves Argan Argar unexplained).

Right, which is why I said apparently you can be Daka Fal/Orlanth if you join Daka Fal first (since Orlanth priests won't mind). Although I'm honestly not sure when you head back to your Daka Fal priest she'll be all that happy with you.

[metcalph]

1 minute ago, GAZZA said:

Right, which is why I said apparently you can be Daka Fal/Orlanth if you join Daka Fal first (since Orlanth priests won't mind). Although I'm honestly not sure when you head back to your Daka Fal priest she'll be all that happy with you.

According to Cults of Terror, (p88-89), you kind of had to get permission from your own cult authorities before making the approach to join another.  

[GAZZA]

1 minute ago, metcalph said:

According to Cults of Terror, (p88-89), you kind of had to get permission from your own cult authorities before making the approach to join another.  

Which makes the assymmetrical nature of the table ... problematic.

[metcalph]

1 minute ago, GAZZA said:

Which makes the assymmetrical nature of the table ... problematic.

How so?  They illustrated how it worked with a Issaries initiate attempting to join Storm Bull,

[g33k]

52 minutes ago, GAZZA said:

... Cults of Prax (didn't think to check it), I don't think that can be regarded as a commonly available resource any more...

The PDF is for sale @Chaosium; all the RQClassic KS-Stretch-Goals are.

Presumably, a POD is coming, in the fullness of time.

(I presume the same content is also in the MD Cult Compendium)

Edited April 21, 2020 by g33k
RQ*C*

[GAZZA]

3 minutes ago, metcalph said:

How so?  They illustrated how it worked with a Issaries initiate attempting to join Storm Bull,

But neither of them are hostile, so really, an example wasn't even needed. The corner case is for something like Orlanth/Daka Fal. If we were to extrapolate the example:

• If you're currently an Orlanth initiate, and you ask if you're allowed to join Daka Fal, your priest would be all, "Sure dude, go for it. Say hello to your dead Mom for me." You'd then go to the Daka Fal priest, who would spit on your Orlanth loving feet and have you ejected from the temple grounds by bouncer ancestors.
• If you're currently a Daka Fal initiate, she'd probably assign you the equivalent of latrine cleaning duties for a month for even having the temerity to ask.

In any case I am not sure I am 100% on board with this rule. I believe that initiates form a connection to a god, not any particular temple. This has two implications:

• First, you can't shop around for a more chill Daka Fal priest that has Orlanthi drinking buddies. The gods themselves are opposed, even if their human representatives are not.
• Secondly, you don't necessarily need permission if the god wouldn't have a problem with it, and if you meet all cult requirements for both cults. I mean, otherwise if you find yourself far from any temples to your god - a not entirely unknown circumstance for many published adventures - then you can't join any other cults for that sweet, sweet divine magic even if the gods themselves are best buddies, because you can't contact your home temple (again, even if you know for a fact that your original temple would be cool with it).

Happy to believe that's a case of YGMV though; PCs in my games would often find it rare to worship at the same temple twice.

[GAZZA]

9 minutes ago, g33k said:

The PDF is for sale @Chaosium; all the RQClassic KS-Stretch-Goals are.

Presumably, a POD is coming, in the fullness of time.

Sure, but you can't reasonably expect players of RQG to have to refer to RQ2 supplements for the current rules. As I say I have most of the old RQ2 stuff in print, some of it in better condition than others, and I'm running River of Cradles converted to RQG - so sure, I personally could have done that, but RQG is supposed to be usable as a stand alone product (or at least not requiring any other products from older releases of RQ; it's probably fine to say you need the Bestiary, for example). Go too far down that path and you quickly start to wonder why you're not just flat out playing RQ2 instead.

[metcalph]

2 minutes ago, GAZZA said:

But neither of them are hostile, so really, an example wasn't even needed. The corner case is for something like Orlanth/Daka Fal. If we were to extrapolate the example:

• If you're currently an Orlanth initiate, and you ask if you're allowed to join Daka Fal, your priest would be all, "Sure dude, go for it. Say hello to your dead Mom for me." You'd then go to the Daka Fal priest, who would spit on your Orlanth loving feet and have you ejected from the temple grounds by bouncer ancestors.
• If you're currently a Daka Fal initiate, she'd probably assign you the equivalent of latrine cleaning duties for a month for even having the temerity to ask.

Which is the donated money was for.    I'm failing to see why you think this is "problematic" giuving that the priests freely take money for other purposes..

 

 

[GAZZA]

1 minute ago, metcalph said:

Which is the donated money was for.    I'm failing to see why you think this is "problematic" giuving that the priests freely take money for other purposes..

I'm wondering where "donated money" or even "money" was something I mentioned?

My point is that if one cult is hostile to the other, but the other is not hostile to the first, then as far as the current rules are concerned it is unclear whether you can join them both if you do it in the right order. This would not be the case if the table was symmetrical (as the existing rule covers the case where you want to join a second cult hostile to your first cult; a symmetrical table would mean that switching the first and second cults around couldn't change the hostility). Hence, the assymmetrical table is "problematic" since we have to dig into supplemental material for a product that is decades old to find any rules here.

You appear to arguing against points I am not making.

[metcalph]

Just now, GAZZA said:

I'm wondering where "donated money" or even "money" was something I mentioned?

It was in the example I mentioned.  You said the assymetric table in Cults of Terror was problematic and failed to say why.  

Just now, GAZZA said:

My point is that if one cult is hostile to the other, but the other is not hostile to the first, then as far as the current rules are concerned it is unclear whether you can join them both if you do it in the right order.

But I wasn't talking about the current rules, I was talking about how Cults of Terror handled the issue and said so explicitly (namely get permission from your own side BEFORE approaching the other side).  You then responded by saying the assymetry made this "problematic".  But Cults of Terror uses this assymetry in an elegant way which made your dismissal of it as a bit strange.

Just now, GAZZA said:

You appear to arguing against points I am not making.

I'm not surprised since I am having great difficulty in determining your actual point.

[GAZZA]

3 minutes ago, metcalph said:

It was in the example I mentioned.  You said the assymetric table in Cults of Terror was problematic and failed to say why.  

Err... I never mentioned Cults of Terror, you brought that up. The assymmetric table I was referring to is in the current RQG core rulebook, page 311. It may or may not be identical to that in Cults of Terror - I haven't checked, since I don't really regard that as particularly relevant.

The rest of your post basically admits you weren't even talking about the same thing as me, so I'm not sure I have anything to add to that.