Playable Cults / Races

[ffilz]

8 hours ago, JRE said:

Never had a CA player, but I have played with similar characters in other games, In our campaign of Warhammer's The Enemy Within, our halfling doctor/apothecary/alchemist was very proud that the only person he had killed was a patient killed by a fumble, and never increased his weapon skill. He tried at the beginning to use a sling, but almost the whole epic campaign his only weapon was a scalpel. He was the party leader and Face, so he had plenty to do in non combat encounters, and in combat he had the time to give orders while cowering behind any available cover, except when someone was wounded. The GM considered that an unarmed, almost unarmoured halfling was ignored while you had a guy in plate armor with a two handed sword swinging around.

With some GM support and the right player it is a good character concept.

That's certainly an interesting concept and viable. And maybe with the right degree of pragmatism, a CA could get there, but I still see such a character as implicitly supporting violence. Now if the character has come to their code of ethics themselves, it's hard to question, but when the code is handed down from the gods, and enforced by spirits of reprisal, the room for interpretation is much smaller.

Mind that I don't have an issue with CA joining a hero quest, but unless that is the bread and butter of a campaign, I just don't see a CA being willing to support a simple "adventure."

[g33k]

30 minutes ago, ffilz said:

Hmm, that would be interesting as it gives a motivation for the CA to join an adventuring party, not just to heal the adventurers, but to accept the practicality that fighting is going to happen, but if the CA can save some souls, then their presence in an adventuring party improves the net balance.

As you say, "fighting is going to happen."

Also, the CA is likely going to admit that -- very often, albeit not always -- it actually matters who wins.  Someone who makes their living by violently preying upon those weaker than them is a much-less-preferable victor than forces who make their living by violently-opposing such predators.  It may be a comparable amount of suffering and death, but the overall trend is toward less suffering and death when violent defenders step up (as they so often do).  CA can support that trend (*).

And, of course, having such practiced violent-defenders can be critical when the attackers are not merely "bad guys" but actual forces of Chaos...


(*) The CA is going to generally oppose violent solutions, but still admit that, absent the ability to prevent fighting, at least assist the right side to victory (q.v. the LBQ, which did involve fighting, but ultimately was about healing the world).  IMHO it helps a LOT for them to be able to pull some of the worst elements back to fight on the right side; or even -- who knows! -- settle down to a peaceful life!
 

[French Desperate WindChild]

9 hours ago, JRE said:

The GM considered that an unarmed, almost unarmoured halfling was ignored while you had a guy in plate armor with a two handed sword swinging around.

With some GM support and the right player it is a good character concept.

That could be fine

or not (I mean the gm plays opponents applying dumb strategy to « save » the pc)

i always adapt stat to pcs but if I play opponents who see that this guy even not fighting is able to « reboot » an incapacited warrior, some of them, the smartest, will try to attack him or to capture him. In the other hand if weak dumb people see the opportunity to kill someone before fleeing and the only weak target is the healer, of course focus him !

there is the ca taboo of course but for those who don’t care, the healer may be a good target.

Hoping the pc will adapt their tactics to protect the weird guy who refuse to parry any wound. Next time you will hire an ernaldan healer, who may have  too some lovely other benefits (if you are lucky)

[ffilz]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

As you say, "fighting is going to happen."

Also, the CA is likely going to admit that -- very often, albeit not always -- it actually matters who wins.  Someone who makes their living by violently preying upon those weaker than them is a much-less-preferable victor than forces who make their living by violently-opposing such predators.  It may be a comparable amount of suffering and death, but the overall trend is toward less suffering and death when violent defenders step up (as they so often do).  CA can support that trend (*).

And, of course, having such practiced violent-defenders can be critical when the attackers are not merely "bad guys" but actual forces of Chaos...


(*) The CA is going to generally oppose violent solutions, but still admit that, absent the ability to prevent fighting, at least assist the right side to victory (q.v. the LBQ, which did involve fighting, but ultimately was about healing the world).  IMHO it helps a LOT for them to be able to pull some of the worst elements back to fight on the right side; or even -- who knows! -- settle down to a peaceful life!
 

OK, I think that works for some adventuring, but not necessarily all. Certainly a CA PC needs to be constantly evaluating the goals of the party and advocating for less violent solutions and refusing to accompany the others or provide aid when the party is seeking out violence for its own sake rather than seeking to counter threats to society.

Many of the adventures in my campaign could be viewed as acceptable to support, but others maybe not so much.

[Jeff]

There's a lot of "old school murder hobo" assumptions going on here (which is funny, because that is precisely why my gaming group left 1e AD&D for RQ back around 1980. As a general rule, I don't have a combat every session and am happy to let several sessions go by without a fight. During those sessions, a Chalana Arroy cultist is able to explore, investigate, and communicate as well as most anyone else - certainly not comparatively disadvantaged!

In a combat, the Chalana Arroy cultist is usually able to cast Befuddle or Sleep - those she overcomes are under her protection, but again no big trouble. Her Healing magic is usually welcome to the rest of the party. She doesn't fight, but so what? I've even had Chalana Arroy cultists break up "stupid fights" by walking in between groups and daring people to hit them!

In magical interactions, Chalana Arroy is in a good situation. Other gods and spirits tend to be positively inclined towards her -  who needs to beat up a magical foe when you can offer to heal them or those they care about?

In social interactions, Chalana Arroy tends to be in an advantageous position - people respect their holiness, tend to trust them (even though Chalana Arroy is not a Truth cult), and people tend to suck up to her cultists - who knows when you will need Healing magic?

Finally, it is the Chalana Arroy cultist who has made the vows of non-violence. Chalana Arroy does not force others to do as she does, indeed her myths acknowledge this, as Chalana Arroy accompanied and aided Orlanth (and even Eurmal the Murderer) on the Lightbringers Quest. She just didn't harm anyone!

[ffilz]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

There's a lot of "old school murder hobo" assumptions going on here (which is funny, because that is precisely why my gaming group left 1e AD&D for RQ back around 1980. As a general rule, I don't have a combat every session and am happy to let several sessions go by without a fight. During those sessions, a Chalana Arroy cultist is able to explore, investigate, and communicate as well as most anyone else - certainly not comparatively disadvantaged!

In a combat, the Chalana Arroy cultist is usually able to cast Befuddle or Sleep - those she overcomes are under her protection, but again no big trouble. Her Healing magic is usually welcome to the rest of the party. She doesn't fight, but so what? I've even had Chalana Arroy cultists break up "stupid fights" by walking in between groups and daring people to hit them!

In magical interactions, Chalana Arroy is in a good situation. Other gods and spirits tend to be positively inclined towards her -  who needs to beat up a magical foe when you can offer to heal them or those they care about?

In social interactions, Chalana Arroy tends to be in an advantageous position - people respect their holiness, tend to trust them (even though Chalana Arroy is not a Truth cult), and people tend to suck up to her cultists - who knows when you will need Healing magic?

Finally, it is the Chalana Arroy cultist who has made the vows of non-violence. Chalana Arroy does not force others to do as she does, indeed her myths acknowledge this, as Chalana Arroy accompanied and aided Orlanth (and even Eurmal the Murderer) on the Lightbringers Quest. She just didn't harm anyone!

Thanks for your thoughts, that helps.

I did acknowledge a more old school style of play...

I also see that you see Chalana Arroy's vows as vows for self not an expectation on others, thus very similar to what JRE shared where Chalana Arroy is an exemplar. That is a difference I had not considered, but does actually make more sense with really considering the Light Bringer's Quest.

I still would expect a Chalana Arroy follower to reject some adventures and expect modifications of others, but that doesn't have to be bad, so long as all the players buy into the idea.

Do shields offer a passive defense against missiles still in RQG? If so, a Chalana Arroy follower who genuinely was concerned about missile fire could bring along a shield that would ONLY be effective as a passive block against missile fire. I think that would not be a weapon, and if passive, doesn't depend on training. It's no more a weapon than hiding behind a tree. I think I would also give strong consideration to allowing a Chalana Arroy character to gain experience in Staff Parry. I see no reason to disallow a follower from carrying a staff, especially if that's where they choose to have their allied spirit, and once carrying it, it would be natural to try and block blows with it. They also should be able to gain experience in Dodge (or as I run RQ1, Defense). But that's me, and not all followers would necessarily be comfortable with any of that. and some priests and high priests may look down on followers who bend the rules even that tiny bit. Though on the other hand, if Chalana Arroy did none of this on the Light Bringer's Quest, well, that's something to consider before bending the rules.

[g33k]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

 ... Finally, it is the Chalana Arroy cultist who has made the vows of non-violence. Chalana Arroy does not force others to do as she does ...

So it's up to individual Cult leaders to enforce the restriction (RAW it's clear there IS a restriction, so...) ?
CA doesn't do anything... restrict Her magic, refuse to renew Rune-Pool, etc?

This gives ample space for My Glorantha's position of "that's the mainstream view, but a few Temples may have a slightly-moderated policy..."

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, g33k said:

So it's up to individual Cult leaders to enforce the restriction (RAW it's clear there IS a restriction, so...) ?
CA doesn't do anything... restrict Her magic, refuse to renew Rune-Pool, etc?

No, it is "enforced" on members. He's referring to enforcing it on others outside the cult. When you cast Chalana Arroy magic, you ARE Chalana Arroy.

[French Desperate WindChild]

thought of the morning :

one "new" rune spell

Spoiler

LIFEPOWER

3 points

Self, instant, Stackable

The chalana arroy initiate draws upon the strength of the life to save them in a time of mortal or existential peril.

If the caster dies from sudden HP loss  Lifepower enables them to draw both 1 HP per location (or the actual location HP if it is better) and 1D4 HP to their total (or the actual total HP if it is better) directly from the power of Life, preventing death.

They must have followed all the Chalana Arroy vows during their life (even before their initiation) for this effect to happen. This spell is unique (about) in that it can be cast out of normal strike rank occurrence, as an instantaneous reaction the moment the caster’s death, even if the caster had already acted in that combat round, but eliminates any actions remaining for the remainder of that round.

 

Each stacked Rune point returns an additional 1 HP per location and 1D4 HP to the total. HP beyond the caster’s normal HP limit are lost.

 

or one "new" heroic power

Spoiler

Self-Resurrection

If the initiate dies, they can cast healing magic on their own body and restore it to at least one positive hit point, returning from the dead. The healing magic must restore the initiate up to 1 or more hit points, but self-healing in this fashion costs permanent points of POW rather than temporary magic points. The return from the Spirit World takes time, depending on the inititate’s level of Self-Resurrection.

Self-Resurrection Limits

1 One season (eight weeks)

2 One week

3 One day

4 One hour

5 One minute

6 One melee round

7 The inititate’s DEX strike rank

8 One strike rank

with that, no more need of a shield, a staff, etc... you're safe from coconuts * !

and for those who can't use the spell, well... you have to pay for the life(s) you took, after all.

 

seems to me consistent with the myths.

 

* about the coconuts, I just discovered that their is no irl stats about the danger of coconuts (the 150 we may have in mind is based on nothing) .

But when I saw, decades ago, our mauritian guide ridiculously (in fact not at all) used his two arms to protect his head when he heard the coconut release's noise in the forest we were visiting, I understood that a shield may be usefull even when there is no ennemy

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by French Desperate WindChild

[David Scott]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

So it's up to individual Cult leaders to enforce the restriction (RAW it's clear there IS a restriction, so...) ?
CA doesn't do anything... restrict Her magic, refuse to renew Rune-Pool, etc?

While the short-form write up of the cult in the Core Rules is good enough to start play with, the long-form in the upcoming Cults of Glorantha add's detail. The most significant in this case for lay members and initiates is:

Quote

Anyone with a sincere wish to heal may join, and this sincerity is checked with Divination.

There's no enforcement of the vows, the individual will just not do it. Realising that accidents can happen, an initiate may accidentally consume meat or squash a bug. If this happens, paraphrasing what jewish people may do if they inadvertently consume non-kosher food - repent for doing so, ask Chalana Arroy for forgiveness, and be more careful in the future so that it doesn't happen again. Note that you can't accidentally pick up a weapon and use it, etc... 

[Jeff]

Also remember, almost nobody will harm a Chalana Arroy cultist. A warrior - Orlanth, Yelmalio, Yelm, etc. - in the heat of the moment who strikes a Chalana Arroy cultist is looking at:

1. No healing from the cult

2. Spirits of retribution from their own cult.

That includes accidentally harming a healer - intent is not required to piss off the gods. If you are so negligent as to fire arrows where healers are, that's your damn problem. If a healer decides to accompany a group of Lightbringers into some place like Snakepipe Hollow filled with things that would harm a Chalana Arroy healer, they better protect the healer! 

[Eff]

4 hours ago, David Scott said:

 

There's no enforcement of the vows, the individual will just not do it.

Doesn't this make Chalana Arroy cultists somewhat other than human, devoid of the capacity to be tempted? How would you play such an entity? 

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Eff said:

Doesn't this make Chalana Arroy cultists somewhat other than human, devoid of the capacity to be tempted? How would you play such an entity? 

I agree a lot! I have, for decades now, let folk know that the Humakt or the CA they want are problematic... and will require a bit (well, quite a bit) of finesse amongst common folk. Unfortunately, nothing on this forum has changed my minds. Both cults are a little advanced, shall we say?

[Jeff]

28 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I agree a lot! I have, for decades now, let folk know that the Humakt or the CA they want are problematic... and will require a bit (well, quite a bit) of finesse amongst common folk. Unfortunately, nothing on this forum has changed my minds. Both cults are a little advanced, shall we say?

I find it is very easy to get newbies to play CA cultists. Emphasise that you have sworn a sacred oath to your goddess to never harm another intelligent being (which also includes strict vegetarianism) - if you violate that oath you lose your connection with your goddess. Given that is the very purpose of the character - to Heal - I find very few players even skirt the line. Heck, they usually play up their perversely pacifistic ways far more than the goddess even requires!

Same thing with Humakt. Newbies embrace the Death and Honour God with great gusto. They play up those geases, insist on honourable behaviour in battle and proper treatment of the defeated. Again, that's part of why they play the character in the first place.

If you want to play a Healer - but aren't willing to accept Chalana Arroy's price, then there are plenty of cults with less impressive (but less demanding) healing magic. 

[Bill the barbarian]

Well Jeff, I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. As I am the one who will have to piece together a shattered campaign, or provide succour to bruised egos, or try to get friends to talk to one another again... I know, this will never-ever happen, so I am just being silly... right? 

Better to mention that these are harder to play than an Orlanthi Farmer, in my mind. 

[Rodney Dangerduck]

40 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Same thing with Humakt. Newbies embrace the Death and Honour God with great gusto. They play up those geases, insist on honourable behaviour in battle and proper treatment of the defeated. Again, that's part of why they play the character in the first place.

True 

Also, this can be extremely obnoxious to the GM and other players, should they wish to play less honorable types, like Eurmali, thieves, scoundrels, cattle raiders, or people who are trusted on secret missions not to blab.

I'm largely with @Eff and @Bill the barbarian on this one: some of these cults remind me too much of the D&D Paladins we always mock.

[Eff]

4 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Well Jeff, I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. As I am the one who will have to piece together a shattered campaign, or provide succour to bruised egos, or try to get friends to talk to one another again... I know, this will never-ever happen, so I am just being silly... right? 

Better to mention that these are harder to play than an Orlanthi Farmer, in my mind. 

Yes, I think that's very fair. I think CA and Humakt are very possible to make workable, but if you run (or play) CA cultists as ideological pacifists who are serious about it, it can be very hard for them to fit into scenarios or situations that assume violence or armed conflict because the natural way to play a CA cultist in this scenario is to try and negotiate a peaceful resolution that's quite possibly outside the bounds of the scenario, or certainly is outside the expected play of the other characters. 

Both scenarios are difficult to deal with unless you have some kind of agreement that Chalana Arroy's pacifism doesn't mean taking any action to avoid death and maiming, or that the CA cultist will defer to the party leader, and overall it feels like the easiest way to handle this scenario is to forbid or discourage CA cultists, as compared to making sure every scenario can have peaceful negotiation attempts be made without disruption or writing a softened version of the cult that still keeps the essential features. 

[Bill the barbarian]

3 minutes ago, Eff said:

Yes, I think that's very fair. I think CA and Humakt are very possible to make workable, but if you run (or play) CA cultists as ideological pacifists who are serious about it

Well of course, as a person who plays an Orlanth cultist and fisher-woman, all the same person...

Edited September 29, 2022 by Bill the barbarian

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Well Jeff, I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. As I am the one who will have to piece together a shattered campaign, or provide succour to bruised egos, or try to get friends to talk to one another again... I know, this will never-ever happen, so I am just being silly... right? 

Better to mention that these are harder to play than an Orlanthi Farmer, in my mind. 

With anyone new to RuneQuest, it is best to let folk know that in Glorantha, the gods are the path to survival and success, but each god has very different demands and expectations. And this is a setting where the gods and spirits are very real, and not some cynical con job. If you chose to follow a god, it is dangerous to blow off those demands and expectations. 

If their background is playing murder hobos in some OSR-style dungeon crawl, then of course let them know that many of those assumptions can be very counter-productive, even dangerous, for their character. One of my play testing groups for RQG included Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet. Rob kept diving into combat like it was D&D or 13th Age, only to realise that even for his very skilled and dangerous Axe Maiden, that was very dangerous! 

 

 

[Eff]

25 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Well of course, as a person who plays an Orlanth cultist and fisher-woman, all the same person...

Yes, which in a way is why I started posting initially- I tried to make this character with a series of contrasts and tensions- she's a dirt-poor professional fisherwoman inland but a member of a cult of heroism and adventuring, she has strong passions that point her in two different directions- and the idea that Chalana Arroy cultists just... won't engage in violence, as an absolute statement, strikes me poorly simply because I don't really have an idea of how to structure that kind of psychology- all of the pacifists I've known on a personal level are people who are making a choice about pacifism. So I just don't know how I'd play a Chalana Arroy cultist like that, or give players in a game I was running advice on how to play such a cultist. Unless I chose to interpret it as a kind of mind control where CA cultists started acting robotically when the possibility was broached as the cult strictures run their body for them, which is still going a fair bit on a thin reed. 

But maybe I'm just more suited for OSR murderhobo hexcrawls? 😆

Edited September 29, 2022 by Eff

[g33k]

27 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

 ... some of these cults remind me too much of the D&D Paladins we always mock.

For the "never ambush" geas, I have the Humakti follow one of two paths:

#1 - Simply not participate in the "ambush" aspect; don't engage until the other side is fighting back.

#2 - Stand forth and challenge, all alone.  Maybe the rest of the party is lurking behind cover on both sides of the road, waiting to launch their volleys of arrows, slingstones, spells, etc.  But the Humakti is in the middle of the road; demanding surrender, or issuing challenge.

[Jeff]

6 minutes ago, Eff said:

Yes, which in a way is why I started posting initially- I tried to make this character with a series of contrasts and tensions- she's a dirt-poor professional fisherwoman inland but a member of a cult of heroism and adventuring, she has strong passions that point her in two different directions- and the idea that Chalana Arroy cultists just... won't engage in violence, as an absolute statement, strikes me poorly simply because I don't really have an idea of how to structure that kind of psychology- all of the pacifists I've known on a personal level are people who are making a choice about pacifism. So I just don't know how I'd play a Chalana Arroy cultist like that, or give players in a game I was running advice on how to play such a cultist. Unless I chose to interpret it as a kind of mind control where CA cultists started acting robotically when the possibility was broached as the cult strictures run their body for them, which is still going a fair bit on a thin reed. 

But maybe I'm just more suited for OSR murderhobo hexcrawls? 😆

Plenty of humans in our world have practiced religious non-violence. Ahimsa in Jainism is a good example, as were the Cathar Perfecti (followers were not subject to the same vows, but also did not have the same guaranteed afterlife).

I am sure just like in our world, people who have made sacred vows in Glorantha are often tempted to break them. But in RuneQuest, those Spirits of Retribution and possible loss of magic tend to be very strong deterrences. And if I have put 5 or 6 points of my permanent POW into a relationship with that deity, I'm probably likely to stick to those vows. Even if that means things can get complicated.

[g33k]

6 minutes ago, Eff said:

 ... the idea that Chalana Arroy cultists just... won't engage in violence, as an absolute statement, strikes me poorly simply because I don't really have an idea of how to structure that kind of psychology- all of the pacifists I've known on a personal level are people who are making a choice about pacifism ...

I'm unclear, here, on the difference you see:
- CA cultists who just won't engage in violence
- real-world pacifists you've known, who are making a choice about pacifism

I don't think it's that the CA's can't engage (out of some physical/psychological incapacity); it's that they won't.

It's a personal choice for the CA, much like that of people you've known.

Am I missing something?

[Eff]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

Plenty of humans in our world have practiced religious non-violence. Ahimsa in Jainism is a good example, as were the Cathar Perfecti (followers were not subject to the same vows, but also did not have the same guaranteed afterlife).

I am sure just like in our world, people who have made sacred vows in Glorantha are often tempted to break them. But in RuneQuest, those Spirits of Retribution and possible loss of magic tend to be very strong deterrences. And if I have put 5 or 6 points of my permanent POW into a relationship with that deity, I'm probably likely to stick to those vows. Even if that means things can get complicated.

I was responding to the bolded sentence in the following quoted post. Which, to my mind, seems to straightforwardly say that Chalana Arroy cultists are different mentally from human beings, because their vows aren't enforced, they just won't do things which break their vows. But perhaps the person who posted it can clarify if I misunderstood them. 

I also don't really see where diegetic/in-universe explanations are all that relevant to the out-of-universe questions about accommodating Chalana Arroy player characters in a group playing published scenarios, or how to portray a Chalana Arroy player character or give guidance on how to do so. 🙂

7 hours ago, David Scott said:

While the short-form write up of the cult in the Core Rules is good enough to start play with, the long-form in the upcoming Cults of Glorantha add's detail. The most significant in this case for lay members and initiates is:

There's no enforcement of the vows, the individual will just not do it. Realising that accidents can happen, an initiate may accidentally consume meat or squash a bug. If this happens, paraphrasing what jewish people may do if they inadvertently consume non-kosher food - repent for doing so, ask Chalana Arroy for forgiveness, and be more careful in the future so that it doesn't happen again. Note that you can't accidentally pick up a weapon and use it, etc... 

 

Just now, g33k said:

I'm unclear, here, on the difference you see:
- CA cultists who just won't engage in violence
- real-world pacifists you've known, who are making a choice about pacifism

I don't think it's that the CA's can't engage (out of some physical/psychological incapacity); it's that they won't.

It's a personal choice for the CA, much like that of people you've known.

Am I missing something?

Oh, I clarified that in this post, hah. 

[Jeff]

Just now, Eff said:

I was responding to the bolded sentence in the following quoted post. Which, to my mind, seems to straightforwardly say that Chalana Arroy cultists are different mentally from human beings, because their vows aren't enforced, they just won't do things which break their vows. But perhaps the person who posted it can clarify if I misunderstood them. 

I also don't really see where diegetic/in-universe explanations are all that relevant to the out-of-universe questions about accommodating Chalana Arroy player characters in a group playing published scenarios, or how to portray a Chalana Arroy player character or give guidance on how to do so. 🙂

 

Oh, I clarified that in this post, hah. 

I think you are trying to make David's comment far more than it is. Chalana Arroy cultists won't engage in violence because their entire identity and magic powers are tied into their vows rejecting the use of violence. They aren't any more or less human - they are no doubt constantly tempted to break those vows, but as a general rule they don't.  They follow their Goddess' narrow and difficult path, like a sober alcoholic or a recovered heroin addict. If they succumb and break their vows - they lose that tie to their Goddess. For those people who have chosen the way of Chalana Arroy, that's enforcement enough. 

If you are playing a Chalana Arroy character in a published scenario, when it is combat time, you can aid the others by casting Sleep or Befuddle, or by healing the wounded - but you can't fight. That's not CA's way.