Shaman-Priests in RuneQuest

[radmonger]

https://www.plantuml.com/

[Shiningbrow]

18 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

why are there rules about priesthood for us irl, if the first thing we (irl) have to do is to not follow the rules for our pc once they reach the priest or shaman or rune lord status ?

This very accurately hits the nail on the head!

One of the defining features of RQ (in particular the current edition) is the sense of community that's supposed to be strongly emphasised when building PCs, and creating 'adventures' for them to go and handle. So, good for "low level" characters.

Yet, once said PCs get to a certain level, those rules (and the whole sense of community) tend to get thrown to the side. It's really not very well thought out.

There's a strong need to justify the likely actions (constant adventuring) of the characters.

And, what's the risk if they don't?

Surely, the ransom (and probably also incomes) of those Rune levels shouldn't be getting paid. The Rune Lord doesn't get easy access to the highly magical items (and, if they've been showing a strong tendency to not be a part of the community, won't be getting their iron gear just handed over to them)

I can't see a 'community' tribal member paying 100L to this wandering shaman who is supposed to be supporting the community, being happy when said shaman then walks off with all the cast/trade goods.

And, when they start to really power up, just who is going to support said wannabe hero when they want to go on a Heroquest??

One thing I've always like about RQ is the need for 'sacrifice', epitomised by having to sacrifice your POWer for the bigger magics. So, if your character is going to be a wandering Rune level, outside of a stable community, I think there needs to be some sacrifices made there, too. Maybe, e.g., for the shaman, the spirits are less interested in bargaining with someone who only brings themselves to the party, and not a community of worshippers (represented by lowered access to magics or more expensive bargains). Perhaps lowered RP replenishments for those Rune Priest and Lords who don't actually help sustain the community? (after all, holding a worship ceremony with just 1 person isn't really much of a thing, is it?? It's pretty much what ever initiate has to do for themselves when they're out alone in the world)

[Shiningbrow]

DP

Edited March 7 by Shiningbrow
Double

[mfbrandi]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

And, when they start to really power up, just who is going to support said wannabe hero when they want to go on a Heroquest?

Off the top of my head — I may be very wrong, and I am not recommending this as a way to run a community — my guess is that as PCs get better at killing monsters and taking their stuff, their community comes to see them as the people clearly best suited to leading the community (from the front). So we square the circle by having the murder hobos decide what the community needs — 90% of time dedicated to the community by the PC lord/shaman/priest, but 90% of what the community wants is what the PC lord/shaman/priest tells it it wants. So the PCs keep a lot of agency, but this is tempered by a sense of their responsibilities — because even in a fantasy world, no sociopath would become a leader of their community.

[PhilHibbs]

5 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

There's a strong need to justify the likely actions (constant adventuring) of the characters.

Your whole post is written with the assumption that they haven't done this, or that this is really hard to do. I would de-emphasise the need to justify their actions, unless they really are a bunch of murder-hobos with no sense of responsibility.

Hopefully the GM Book or Sartar Campaign (if they aren't the same thing) will cover this, but it's a long time coming. With the power boost to starting characters, a lot of games will have run up against this problem already.

[Joerg]

3 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

 because even in a fantasy world, no sociopath would become a leader of their community.

A devious sociopath in an elective position will profess to act virtuously much of the time, getting away with murder quite a bit, especially in a society where people bear weapons and monetary fines, bribes or just intimidation can stop criminal persecution. In a fantasy world possibly less so if there is Truth magic to expose their faults even to their most zealous supporters.

[Geoff R Evil]

9 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Yet, once said PCs get to a certain level, those rules (and the whole sense of community) tend to get thrown to the side. It's really not very well thought out.

Sorry don’t agree. First it’s easy enough to scale adventures, second you have hero quests which as others have shown there is enough information around to write those, and they are world changing. Then there is the fact much of the mythology is based upon war games, so eventually chars need to evolve to be able to lead large numbers of chars and there are already skirmish models for RQ.  More than enough to run campaigns for years, and I know several that have run that long.

[Malin]

I think for me, the interesting game mechanic with rune levels (no matter the type) is the inherent tension between community and individual ambition. Exactly how that works depends a lot on the GM and the campaign; there is no way to write rules that can be applied easily in every circumstance. What is "working for the community?" Exactly what you agree to that it is. Nobody but the GM and the player is going to be able to define that. If there weren't any tension there, it would just be like reaching high levels in DnD, more power but without anything connected to it.

In fact, our GM (I also play in campaigns) told us a session or two ago: "Do NOT shoot down your plans beforehand and tell me why they won't work. That's my job. Believe in yourself." I am very prone to dissecting things according to the rules and going 'Oh this will probably not work because...' and it was a relief to hear that, so I could swat down my brain for a while.

In my main Sun County campaign, we are now approaching the stage where people are actively pursuing both herodom and rune levels. It is going to be interesting to see how the players will juggle their varied responsibilities because something will eventually have to give. There has been talk of leaving the community they have been a part of so far, since they are growing too big for their sleepy little countryside village of Sandheart, and they feel that they will soon have left it in a better place when they arrived, and can move on and still feeling like it would be on good terms. However, there are some interesting conflicts set up:

The Yelmalio Light Servant is getting more deeply involved in the White Bull cult, and his praxian heritage. In addition, there's the old Sun Dragon heresy he is digging far too deeply into, and his growing disdain with the current Count. Something will have to give; he's juggled things admiringly so far, but with more power comes people expecting more from you, and choices will need to be made.

The Babeester Gor is dead set on becoming a rune lady. To the point of having made a list of all, she needs to learn, and is researching heroquests to help her master certain skills outside her wheelhouse. Super ambitious. However, at the same time she has fallen in love and is planning to get married and start a household, something which is nothing but an obstacle to what she needs to do to become and stay a runelady. She is illuminated, which helps this divide as her fertility rune is growing independently of her death rune right now, but cults doesn't care about how well you can manage your inner turmoil. Only what you can do in practice. As a GM I can see a point where the demands of Babeester Gor will collide with her love of family. Something will have to give. She is also pondering starting a mercenary band, which would give the group a new community to gather around, which would be more supportive to the kind of life she wants to live.

And then there is our shaman, newly initiated but outside of any community. He was initiated by an outcast shaman, someone who had been thrown out of their tribe, so he has no responsibilities but also no allies and friends other than the group, which makes every trip to the spirit realm or heroplane very risky and without backup. The tradition is none of the main ones in the book, so I had to make up some things on the spot. He's originally an Orlanthi, but this shaman path has nothing to do with the wind. He's completed his goal of initiation now, but what to do next is unclear.

Would I have half as fun GMing if "leveling up" in your chosen cult paths didn't come with bonds and ties? No. For me, the fun is figuring out why and how this could work for the group.

That being said, I can see people reading the description and going, "90% of the time, my character will be out of my control and also have no money, so it is time to retire them," which isn't something that the rules say. The shorthand can just easily be taken that way.

Edited March 8 by Malin

[svensson]

There is a very simple way to show the players the 'community asset' emphasis in RQG.

Apprentices. Acolytes. Foster children. Squires. Hangers-on.

All of which have to be fed, protected, trained, and elevated [given livelihoods, introductions, pensions, something for their future lives]. And while YOUR Player Character miserly arse is willing to sleep in the stable, drink water and the cheapest beer available and eat turnip mush with hard tack on a daily basis, your reputation will suffer mightily if you try and serve your followers that literal beggar's banquet. In addition, all these folks have be to armed out of your pocket, trained out of your time, taught the magical arts so absolutely necessary to survive in Glorantha out of your time... And the quality of all that directly effects how your character is seen by the world. If you show up in a silk tunic with rare dyes and dripping jewels but your trainee is in stinking untanned buckskins and burlap tunic, YOU are the one that's gonna suffer.

I suggest to the board that caring for and protecting a train of followers will easily eat up that 90% of income and time we're discussing and will CERTAINLY reinforce the values of community involvement we're also discussing because a 'community' of the group's train is following them.

Even Hahlgrim Ironbreaker got saddled with a Lunar stripling, something he needed like another hole in the head. Yet it was his duty via kinship ties to shelter Paulis Longvale 'for a summer's seasoning' [and oh what a summer it was!]. When King Boltor summoned Hahlgrim to fight Chaos, Hahlgrim was obliged to bring this kid [aka 'beginning adventurer'] along for a very tough but educational ride. And just imagine the damage to Hahlgrim's reputation if Paulis had gotten his fool arse killed in the process... But to Hahlgrim's everlasting credit, if not his fame, Paulis left the care of Hahlgrim and the Bilini with a deep respect for the Orlanthi, vastly more knowledge about the world, materially far better off, and an altogether better man than when he arrived last spring. Fame may be crowned by great deeds, but it is built by little ones.

 

Edited March 21 by svensson

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, svensson said:

There is a very simple way to show the players the 'community asset' emphasis in RQG.

Apprentices. Acolytes.  Foster children. Squires. Hangers-on.

All of which have to be fed, protected, trained, and elevated [given livelihoods, introductions, pensions, something for their future lives]. And while YOUR Player Character miserly arse is willing to sleep in the stable, drink water and the cheapest beer available and eat turnip mush with hard tack on a daily basis, your reputation will suffer mightily if you try and serve your followers that literal beggar's banquet.

Why would anyone want to play in this game?

I mean, if that's what your group wants, then fine. But it seems a pretty confrontational way to go about it.

And it's very different to the main example that we have out there to the public - The White Bull Campaign - in which there is a full shaman with no societal responsibilities at all and no explanation as to why. Unless I missed it.

Edited March 8 by PhilHibbs

[svensson]

9 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Why would anyone want to play in this game?

I mean, if that's what your group wants, then fine. But it seems a pretty confrontational way to go about it.

Phill, you're a fellow grog so I'll assume you're familiar with either edition of Cults of Terror. Isn't the tale of Hahlgrim Ironbreaker epic enough?

Each Rune level has a trail of hangers-on... In the chapter on Bagog, Paulis cites 17 members in the band. And each one of those members contributed to the victory versus 'demons' and scorpionmen that night.

A Rune level is expected to attract followers, it's part and parcel to the job. One of their principal roles is to lead worship, teach cultists skills and spells, officiate rituals, and otherwise contribute to the community as a whole. Now that doesn't mean that Vasana is going to allow her Vingan woman-at-arms to go ducking into Snakepipe Hollow with her any more than Hahlgrim let Paulis on the raid of the Vivamort den in CoT. Some things are above their pay grade, as Nathem found out on Vasana's first attempt into the Caves [described in the RQG Core Rules]. But at her level, given her fame, Vasana WILL attract followers.

The whole point of RQG is making the heroes part of a community, with oaths and ties and relationships and responsibilities. Lone wolf murder hobos are for DnD, and RQG has consistently emphasized the differences between the two play styles. So if the players want to be traveling heroes instead of tied to a city, tula, regiment, or other community, having a small tribe of hangers-on allows them to do that.

Edited March 8 by svensson

[Malin]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

And it's very different to the main example that we have out there to the public - The White Bull Campaign - in which there is a full shaman with no societal responsibilities at all and no explanation as to why. Unless I missed it.

I went back and read the rule book, and this is what it says:

Quote

Vishi Dunn swore loyalty to the White Bull. When one of his kinsmen opposed allying with Argrath, Vishi killed him. Now he is called Kinslayer, a nickname he does not deny. Vishi followed Argrath and Jaldon to liberate Pavis, and befriended Vasana. He accompanied her back to Dragon Pass. He is intensely loyal to Argrath, almost a zealot.

So from the look, Vishi Dunn's community is the White Bull, and like all the other pregen characters that seems to be his society. Not Waha. Not his tribe. But the White Bull. He wasn't even initiated by a Waha shaman. So, where he goes, he goes because Argrath wills it, as part of another group of characters working for the goals of the White Bull. Being a zealot, certainly sounds like spending 90% of his time working for his community.

[svensson]

Let me also say that I fully acknowledge that RQG is VERY different from its earlier editions with its focus on community involvement.

ALL our PCs in RQ2 and 3 would think of having steading full of groupies as something that would put a frikkin' halt to an adventuring life. In most milieux that would be true. It would be true in the Fantasy Europe of Cormac the Pict, it would be true in the Forgotten Realms, or the cities of Greyhawk, Lankhmar and Sanctuary. But this is no longer applicable for RQG as written. The difference is that the community is now very much a character in the game, something more than a collection of bars, libraries and gear shops. RQG seeks to make the community part of the character's identity, something more than just a few lines of 'Background and History' on a character sheet.

And, of course, absolutely none of this discussion should get in the way of Maximum Game Fun and YGMV. The mechanics work even if you just handwave all the community stuff and stay with the 'good stuff' of stabbing the darkness with a stick to see what bites back.

Edited March 22 by svensson

[Malin]

5 minutes ago, svensson said:

ALL our PCs in RQ2 and 3 would think of having steading full of groupies as something that would put a frikkin' halt to an adventuring life.

Oh, I would have loved climbing to the level of being able to have even a single groupie! But yeah, adventuring back then truly felt like digging treasure to be able to afford some beer and bread at the end of the day after paying your taxes. Very salt of the earth, the lowest rung on the ladder type. Or perhaps our GM was just mean... (just kidding, we loved it).

[radmonger]

I do suspect there is a gap in the rules if you look at the shaman and profession rules. Vishi is no longer an apprentice shaman, serving a master. But unlike an actual shaman priest, he also does not have profession priest. He does not make his living by selling spells, either at full rate, or at the customary discount implied by being a member of a community.

Economically, Vishi has profession warrior; he is part of Argrath's personal retinue. It's been canon since White Bear and Red Moon that raising units of professional magicians (warriors as opposed to nobles or priests) was one of Argrath's big innovations.

Now professions mostly matter for character generation, but they are used in downtime. So a new profession like 'war mage' or some such might more accurately reflect his status.

And of course downtime matter for cult obligations, in that if you have an occupation that reflects the cult/community goals, you are unlikely to fail to meet them. An Issaries merchant spends his time buying and selling stuff, with a certain cult-obliged level of generosity and fairness. Issaries is pleased, and does not send any spirit of retribution.

 

 

 

 

[Squaredeal Sten]

22 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

....... because even in a fantasy world, no sociopath would become a leader of their community.

Ii am sure that I can cite Real World examples of sociopaths rising to the top.  I don't even have to get into present day political figures.  I can cute as examples some who are dead.  

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, svensson said:

ALL our PCs in RQ2 and 3 would think of having steading full of groupies as something that would put a frikkin' halt to an adventuring life. In most milieux that would be true. It would be true in the Fantasy Europe of Cormac the Pict, it would be true in the Forgotten Realms, or the cities of Greyhawk, Lankhmar and Sanctuary. But this is no longer applicable for RQG as written. The difference is that the community is now very much a character in the game, something more that a collection of bars, libraries and gear shops. RQG seeks to make the community part of the character's identity, something more than just a few lines of 'Background and History' on a character sheet.

Weirdly enough, me GMing my first RuneQuest campaign (RQ3) was based on Greg Stafford's Viking box for Avalon Hill, with characters in their mid- to end twenties, (more or less) happily married and out of their steads to ensure the community's survival on the edge of hostile neighbors (some vaguely reminiscent of Picts, the others a nation of RuneQuest Ogre sorcerers leaning on the Fomorian myth). Having a set of dependents was natural for the Vikings in the Icelandic sagas, and did not really impede the flow of the campaign with part-time long distance sea travel for trading and raiding, part time domestic troubleshooting or actually pursuing their "civilian" occupations (like e.g. boat builder). I don't remember playing any Ronin-style wanderers, at least not outside of a YT 1300 crew in D6 Star Wars sentenced to pro-bono missions for the Rebellion.

[mfbrandi]

2 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

I am sure that I can cite Real World examples of sociopaths rising to the top.

It was sarcasm. I have anarchist instincts.

[Squaredeal Sten]

9 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Why would anyone want to play in this game?

I mean, if that's what your group wants, then fine. ....

Because the campaign started with a community.  They had several adventures with and for the community in the beginning.  If they left the community it was by necessity, and so they wanted to get back to it.  The adventure seeds are mostly things for the community.  

This does not mean the adventures all  have to be located in one little village.  An example is the Smoking Ruin adventure.  The adventurers are going to do it for the Clearwine Earth temple, and for the Colymsr tribe.  So they go on a fairly long journey....

Edited March 8 by Squaredeal Sten
Spelling / typing

[svensson]

5 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

It was sarcasm. I have anarchist instincts.

[airquote] 'instincts' [/airquote] 😁😆

[svensson]

6 hours ago, Joerg said:

Weirdly enough, me GMing my first RuneQuest campaign (RQ3) was based on Greg Stafford's Viking box for Avalon Hill, with characters in their mid- to end twenties, (more or less) happily married and out of their steads to ensure the community's survival on the edge of hostile neighbors (some vaguely reminiscent of Picts, the others a nation of RuneQuest Ogre sorcerers leaning on the Fomorian myth). Having a set of dependents was natural for the Vikings in the Icelandic sagas, and did not really impede the flow of the campaign with part-time long distance sea travel for trading and raiding, part time domestic troubleshooting or actually pursuing their "civilian" occupations (like e.g. boat builder). I don't remember playing any Ronin-style wanderers, at least not outside of a YT 1300 crew in D6 Star Wars sentenced to pro-bono missions for the Rebellion.

LOVE that Viking scenario.

[Shiningbrow]

11 hours ago, Geoff R Evil said:

Sorry don’t agree. First it’s easy enough to scale adventures, second you have hero quests which as others have shown there is enough information around to write those, and they are world changing. Then there is the fact much of the mythology is based upon war games, so eventually chars need to evolve to be able to lead large numbers of chars and there are already skirmish models for RQ.  More than enough to run campaigns for years, and I know several that have run that long.

sorry, but I disagree with you on this.

Sure, from an individual murder-hobo dungeoncrawl perspective, there's enough there.

But, RQ is about community - and there's nothing really in the official texts about what 'adventurers' do when they reach the high levels of actually leading said community. You get to be the Thane of Apple Lane, or of Orgovale Summer's new cult... but what does that entail?

What is Leika et al. doing for the 90% of her time when she's not off adventuring? (And, shouldn't the PCs be doing something similar? Or, as the point is being mad, they somehow get to ignore those rules?)

What's Kallyr been doing? (part of which has been mentioned somewhere - trying desperately to stop the clans and tribes from starting up all the clan warfare again.).

Neither are gallivanting off to Prax just for the fun of it. (Which is the issue - PCs generally heading off to wherever they want, for whatever reason they want).

Remember - the point we're discussing is the 90% time (and, to some extent, money) commitment required, as clearly stated in the various official texts.

Now, if there's justifications for it (which, I suspect, is what people will suggest) - then all well and good. But,

 

14 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Hopefully the GM Book or Sartar Campaign (if they aren't the same thing) will cover this, but it's a long time coming. With the power boost to starting characters, a lot of games will have run up against this problem already.

So, you acknowledge that it's a problem, and then also expect the GMs to sort this thing out for themselves.... until this gets addressed somewhere officially by Chaosium (but that might take a while).

I would also say, that given your second sentence there, especially "With the power boost to starting characters", this should have been sorted out years ago - officially - very much because of the latter part of this sentence.

 

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

And it's very different to the main example that we have out there to the public - The White Bull Campaign - in which there is a full shaman with no societal responsibilities at all and no explanation as to why.

Right... which would be "ignoring the rules".

 

1 hour ago, svensson said:

The whole point of RQG is making the heroes part of a community, with oaths and ties and relationship and responsibilities. Lone wolf murder hobos are for DnD, and RQG has consistently emphasized the differences between the two play styles.

This!!!

[Malin]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Neither are gallivanting off to Prax just for the fun of it. (Which is the issue - PCs generally heading off to wherever they want, for whatever reason they want).

I'm not picking on you personally (I really am not), but this comment made me wonder about how people play. I never really imagined this might be a problem for a group at all. I am just so used to there being a dialogue between the group and gamemaster about what they want to do in a campaign, both from the first session of building a group of characters that will work together and where they might head off after that.

In the groups I play, the players might want to experience Prax and would tell the GM, "Hey, it would be cool to go to Prax sometimes!" The GM would then be able to think and plan a hook to let that particular group go there that would fit the campaign. I got that wish a while ago: "Hey, we wanna go to the Plateau of Statues and do some treasure hunting!" This is a bit outside their normal militia duties, so I needed to come up with some good reasons, and a couple of sessions later, we were heading there. It's not like they were saying at the start of a session, "We're going to the Wastes today, so I will start packing."

It feels like some people read the rules as a document forbidding them to do things rather than as one enabling them to do cool shit they might never have considered before.

Maybe that's what we need a GM's guide for: to give people tips and examples on how to build something together and see limitations and bonds as adventure hooks and ideas rather than boundaries you can never color outside. And so many problems could be avoided by just building a group that will gel from the start (it doesn't have to be homogenous at all) and talk about what style you want to play. I never start a campaign without sending out a campaign premise to the players, especially if I've never played with them before, and they don't know Glorantha. I got some if people want to see what I am talking about, or perhaps that is a different thread.

I guess it just struck me as strange that situations like this are seen as a problem.

 

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, Malin said:

I'm not picking on you personally (I really am not)

Don't worry, I did not in any way think it was personal 🙂

 

1 hour ago, Malin said:

In the groups I play, the players might want to experience Prax and would tell the GM, "Hey, it would be cool to go to Prax sometimes!" The GM would then be able to think and plan a hook to let that particular group go there that would fit the campaign...

It feels like some people read the rules as a document forbidding them to do things rather than as one enabling them to do cool shit they might never have considered before.

It wasn't about necessarily 'forbidding' them to do things... it's that the rules are fairly direct in stating that when you get to certain level of your advancement (ie, Rune level or full Shaman, or similar), then you are obligated to spend a large portion of your time (and money) in service to the cult (read: community - especially for a Shaman). It's stamped and repeated soooo many times in the main book.

So, while you may have advanced into Priest status of your local (or, in some cases, as it turns out, not so local) temple, and you are required to give 90% of your time - there's nothing official to guide GMs into explaining how those characters keep adventuring in far away lands. So, how is gallivanting throughout Prax going to be (I would add, 'legitimately') for, say, a newly ordained Priestess of the Nochet Ernalda Temple??? (Some may cite Argrath, but that's currently only relevant for a handful of years - and one would wonder if that's a sufficient reason). And, if they are heading to Prax to investigate this Argrath person, then part of that responsibility would include reporting back in a reasonable fashion.

How does the brand new Thane of Apple Lane (or high priest of Orgovale) justify being away from their new responsibilities for so long (assuming they are, and not doubling back home every couple of weeks)?

 

As has been said - It's not D&D, where PCs are generally beholden to nothing and no-one (not even their gods).

Personally, I don't think this sort of stuff should be handwaved away (or completely ignored)... nor should it fall all onto the shoulders of the GM. And, so, yeah, it would be good to have not only official guidance on this from Chaosium in the form of a chapter (or 3) in a book, but also that the "official playthrough" that is posted on YT should also adhere to this - not the "yeah, those are the rules I wrote, but we're just going to ignore them now - because it's more fun!" (It's pretty poor advertising for a game system to drop an important aspect of it and houserule because it's inconvenient to players).

[Geoff R Evil]

The devil is in the detail of what 90% of your time in service to your cult means. To me it’s obvious. You are the embodiment of your deity or spirits in Glorantha. So what it’s saying is that OK there is some time needed on the ritualistic and community care components of the role, and these link to community, but basically acting as your god did 90% of the time is to me ‘in service’. The other side of this is that the shamen priest gets to decide what that means, they are not out ranked. As others have highlighted, certain customs maybe prevelant in your community and they may bind you, but equally you can change them as your deity’s representative. Embodying your deity is in service. 10% of the time you can indulge in personal whimsy. Waha did many things in godtime, all to the greater good of survival in the darkness. You are assumed as a priest to have the same goals….what you do to achieve those goals is up to you and your gm and getting tied up with spell teaching time is just a GM being pedantic. It’s up to the GM to set campaign needs that force that balance between nurturing new blood in the community and meeting campaign goals your deity wants to be addressed. It’s the GM that ultimately sets the campaign needs that out rank short term community direct service.

There are no rules for this, because it’s a campaign contextual decision. Personally I would hate to see rules for this. Maybe some guidelines on how certain cultures have traditionally interpreted what service means, but they will all vary even within the same deity and definitely should vary in your campaign.