Jump to content
David Scott

What happens when you're dead

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Iskallor said:

No leaping taking place, Jeff just said that there were no rules for Heroquesting in those editions. You come across as busting for a fight sometimes Darius. It's tedious and makes for unpleasant reading. For me at any rate.

You just don't agree with me about HQ.  This has already been established elsewhere.  RQ's system has spawned BRP and Call of C'thulhu.  HQ by comparison is just a bad rehash of the Pendragon rules.  Now don't get me wrong, I love Pendragon, and the system is very well worked out for that setting, but the transition to HQ and Glorantha was sloppy and decontextualized.  HQ added nothing to Glorantha that wouldn't have been better done with RQ. HQ ripped the spine out of Glorantha imo.  Now I know you like HQ Iskallor, and you are not alone in that, but sincerely, I would far sooner play Jon Hunter's White Wolf based Balazaar or Pendragon Pass.  

My particular contention?

The "make up a myth about your deity that lets you get away with doing something" roll.

The pitifully primitive weapon and armor rules.

The "ummm...guys... Pendragon never really had a viable missile weapon combat system...so neither does HQ...sooo...GM's...just wing it okay... say it's narrative..." rule.   For which there is no excuse.  Given the combined intellectual grunt of the people who wrote HQ, how did this pass unfixed?

Now I am not saying I think RQ is perfect.  I have never liked the Strike Rank system for example, or how a pike is considered an acceptable weapon for use in melee outside of formation fighting, when it isn't.  On the other hand RQ has brilliant rules like transposing a mount's damage bonus to couched lance hits.

Do I think HQ players are stupid?  Of course not.  Don't get me wrong on that point, I respect your intellect and your choices.  Would I ever play HQ again?  Of course not.  I don't like downgrades disguised as upgrades.

Edited by Darius West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

Sometimes the creature under the bridge doesn't deserve to be enobled as an Uz, but only merits the 'T' word....

Just because you are in a majority, doesn't make you correct.  Just because I am in a minority, doesn't mean I am wrong.

How come you aren't more ashamed of the wishy washy excuses your side are putting up to not deal with their misinterpretation of the system?  Has it never occurred to you that I am sticking to my guns because I care about this point because it makes Glorantha better and more consistent? Has it seriously never occurred to you that I might just be correct?  I have not seen any argument put that I think seriously damages the logic of my position, and if ALL of you can't come up with anything better than "Despite Humakt not allowing you to come back from the dead, you can because heroes are special people and they don't have to abide by cult rules that they have sworn oaths to abide by to an implacable death god."  

The point is, if I read a genuine death blow argument that explains and properly reconciles the contradictions I have identified, I will withdraw my objections.  The fact  of the matter is that I have seen nothing of the sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/01/2017 at 6:26 AM, Darius West said:

I also like Simon's suggestion that Shamanic soul separation and Death need to be differentiated too.

This not without its own difficulties as shamanic initiation and shamanic journeying are referred to as the "little death" by many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2017 at 3:59 AM, David Scott said:

Not at all. The spirit of a dead person remains around the body for seven days, after which the spell doesn't work. The caster uses Chalana Arroy's power to reach into the spirit world and reunite their body and spirit (if on at least three positive hit points). At no point do they go to the underworld.

No.  The spirit does not "hang around the body" it begins a trip through the gates of dusk  that takes seven days and ends when the spirit is judged.  Or, it varies by culture, because some definitely don't do it that way, but evidence suggests Orlanthi do.  Some spirits have unfinished business that forces them to remain in the world as ghosts admittedly, but that is what funerary rites are for, to stop such shenanigans.  If spirits never go into the underworld then Daka Fal has nothing to judge.  The POW vs POW roll involved int he Resurrection ritual is the single contest that the minor HQ the spell represents has been reduced to by Chalana Arroy because she is an amazing deity.  

As to the fact that HQ has continuously muddied the waters, I am not going to defend something I hold in contempt.  If there are inconsistencies in HQ's interpretation of Glorantha, blame the people who edited it... or more importantly... didn't edit it well enough.

 

Edited by Darius West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darius West said:

If there are inconsistencies in HQ's interpretation of Glorantha, blame the people who edited it.

As one of the writers and editors of HeroQuest Glorantha, I accept the compliment. As a mythic world, it shouldn't be completely consistent and logical. Contradictions and mythical inconsistencies are at its core. The great mysteries should be just that - mysteries, mortals should struggle to understand their logic and flounder when trying to make sense of some of them. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, David Scott said:

This not without its own difficulties as shamanic initiation and shamanic journeying are referred to as the "little death" by many.

Quite true.  But Shamans aren't Humakti.  I am sure the Pentan shamans of North War Wind do it differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Just because you are in a majority, doesn't make you correct.  Just because I am in a minority, doesn't mean I am wrong.

How come you aren't more ashamed of the wishy washy excuses your side are putting up to not deal with their misinterpretation of the system?  Has it never occurred to you that I am sticking to my guns because I care about this point because it makes Glorantha better and more consistent? Has it seriously never occurred to you that I might just be correct?  I have not seen any argument put that I think seriously damages the logic of my position, and if ALL of you can't come up with anything better than "Despite Humakt not allowing you to come back from the dead, you can because heroes are special people and they don't have to abide by cult rules that they have sworn oaths to abide by to an implacable death god."  

The point is, if I read a genuine death blow argument that explains and properly reconciles the contradictions I have identified, I will withdraw my objections.  The fact  of the matter is that I have seen nothing of the sort.

As I said, defending the right is a brave and noble thing to do.  One can defend the wrong just as determinedly and be neither right nor noble.

That you cannot understand or appreciate the points being made in no way recommends your powers of reasoning to me.  Arrogance is not a thing of beauty, nor of virtue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, David Scott said:

As one of the writers and editors of HeroQuest Glorantha, I accept the compliment. As a mythic world, it shouldn't be completely consistent and logical. Contradictions and mythical inconsistencies are at its core. The great mysteries should be just that - mysteries, mortals should struggle to understand their logic and flounder when trying to make sense of some of them. 

This reminds me of a lame "point" one of the Jesuits I used to argue with in high school used to pretend he had made whenever faced with contradictions in doctrine. To which I used to say... Just because something is inconsistent doesn't mean that it is somehow a holy mystery. It is far more likely that it represents the mediocre efforts of a bad theologian, or a good theologian on a bad day.  One of the things I like about Glorantha is that for the most part it hangs together so well, much like a large elaborate jigsaw puzzle that can be deduced from the connections.  You say it shouldn't be consistent and logical, well too bad, for the most part it is amazingly internally reconciled, far more so that say, Catholic Doctrine.  You aren't a troll so stop worshiping ignorance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ali the Helering said:

As I said, defending the right is a brave and noble thing to do.  One can defend the wrong just as determinedly and be neither right nor noble.

That you cannot understand or appreciate the points being made in no way recommends your powers of reasoning to me.  Arrogance is not a thing of beauty, nor of virtue.

So, you hold me arrogant.  Yet that is solely because you have failed to make any point that disproves my position.  So you resort to:

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
 
  1. 1.
    (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
    "an ad hominem response" 
     
Edited by Darius West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Darius, at this point I've stopped reading the substance of your posts. You may well be making entirely amazing insightful points that should easily persuade me to rewrite material or issue clarifications, but I am incapable of paying any attention to them as my eyes have long since glazed over. 

As far as I am concerned, this thread is dead. You are certainly welcome to keep flogging a dead horse, but I'm not going to watch.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Darius West said:

So, you hold me arrogant.  Yet that is solely because you have failed to make any point that disproves my position.  So you resort to:

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
 
  1. 1.
    (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
    "an ad hominem response" 
     

Ah well, that is at the heart of this then.  A man who believes all he writes is a thread of gold amidst the foolish dross.  We stand enlightened by your great genius.

Oh, sorry.  No we don't.  It is your argument that is weak and specious, and my opinion of your approach is simply a result of that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ali the Helering said:

Ah well, that is at the heart of this then.  A man who believes all he writes is a thread of gold amidst the foolish dross.  We stand enlightened by your great genius.

Oh, sorry.  No we don't.  It is your argument that is weak and specious, and my opinion of your approach is simply a result of that. 

And yet I hear a deafening NOTHING coming from you to refute my position, simply more abuse.  Well done.  Aren't you glad that I am too big a person to report you?  Seriously, put up a coherent and logical argument against my position.  I dare you.  Everything else just rolls off like water on a duck.

Edited by Darius West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darius West said:

Seriously, put up a coherent and logical argument against my position.  I dare you.  Everything else just rolls off like water on a duck.

I thought we had.

It all comes down to opinions and interpretation really. 

When Dante went to Hell, was he dead? Perhaps, but he didn't suffer in Hell or Purgatory and wasn't rewarded in Heaven, so perhaps not. But, did he physically go to Hell or was it just a vision?

In Glorantha there are barriers to going to Hell. One of those barriers is that you must be dead. Powerful HeroQuestors just punch through those barriers and carry on as if nothing had happened. However, if the barrier is "Nothing may pass unless it is dead" and you pass the barrier, then you must be dead. Another barrier is "Nothing may leave Hell if it is dead", so if a powerful HeroQuestor punches through that barrier, it proves he is not dead. So, dead one minute and not dead the next. That is a contradiction and I have no problem with that at all.

The Only Old One proved himself to be both a troll and not a troll, how can both be true? A contradiction, due to his power and nature.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darius West said:

And yet I hear a deafening NOTHING coming from you to refute my position, simply more abuse.  Well done.  Aren't you glad that I am too big a person to report you?  Seriously, put up a coherent and logical argument against my position.  I dare you.  Everything else just rolls off like water on a duck.

I am with Jeff and Iskallor.  There is nothing to be gained from conversing with someone who will not listen or credit an opposing argument with reason.

You may have been in the presence of Jesuits.  A shame you learnt nothing from them.

Bye to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2017 at 9:33 PM, Tindalos said:

Interestingly, going back to Cults of Prax, it says "Humakt worshippers are never Ressurected." With resurrected capitalized, unlike other uses of the word.

It's quite possible that this reference is specifically talking about the Resurrection spell, and not all forms of coming back from the dead (although being neither Stafford or Perrin, I can't be sure.)

Having recently been involved in the copyediting new RQ Classic version of CULTS OF PRAX (or at least helping my wife Sue in the task), I can assure you that capitalization in the original RQ2 books is a wild and inconsistent thing. 

But in this case, I do think it is specifically referring to the Resurrection spell, which is in the book.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, soltakss said:

It all comes down to opinions and interpretation really.

After seeing this thread continue long after I thought it would end, (and should have), I am certain that Soltakss has the best and only answer and any further discussion is just going to meet everyone's dug in viewpoint and become wasted space. Whatever point you could,  and have made, Darius West is long lost due to the constant argumentative diatribe that followed.

Is one view more right or wrong, that you are dead or alive when Heroquesting? This not a real life religious, philosophical or sophistical view and doesn't matter as what is going to be official is set and is a MINOR impact. Is it relevant any longer?

What should not be set is how will this impact your game play. Every scenario up to this point didn't matter if you were alive or dead (when Heroquesting) as there was no official release specifically on Heroquesting. Yet each were usually still playable and enjoyable. Why would future scenarios be any different? My advice is to see it from both sides first and see how it plays out and can be used in game. If it doesn't work for you, try the other view, adjust it accordingly and carry on. The new version isn't even out yet. 

41 minutes ago, MOB said:

But in this case, I do think it is specifically referring to the Resurrection spell, which is in the book.

. And agreed.

Oy, the humanity...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

You may have been in the presence of Jesuits.  A shame you learnt nothing from them.

Actually I de-converted one of the 3 Jesuits I used to argue with, and I was still arguing with the other two 7 years later, until one went to Canada, and the other one sadly passed away in 1993.  We were often joined by a Rabbi who is now also sadly deceased.

The point with any contradiction is that the most likely reason for them is because one of the concepts is poorly formed.  When too many contradictions exist in a system and are used to mis-explain other contradictions, further contradictions are introduced and the whole thing crashes like a piece of poorly written and buggy software.  For a religion to retain adherents it must be realistically possible, and contradictions represent impossibilities that often cannot be reconciled. Dogmatics will simply dismiss contradictions as their faith is stronger than the appeal to reason.  It is pointless to argue with dogmatics because their minds are closed, and that is a sign that they lack the humility required to question and learn new things, so their position will ultimately be consigned to the dustbin of history, because it is sterile and cannot grow. On the other hand, an open mind should never simply accept a premise without rigorously testing it, regardless of how appealing it seems; that is laziness.

Once again Ali, you have not put forwards an argument, but merely engaged in more abuse.  Given your earlier insinuation of the "T" word, perhaps you should be more self critical given your subsequent behavior.

Edited by Darius West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sayerson said:

philosophical or sophistical view and doesn't matter as what is going to be official is set and is a MINOR impact. Is it relevant any longer?

I disagree.  Death is a very important concept within a game where characters put their lives on the line and the threat of death is a constant problem.  This becomes more pronounced in the increasingly common situation of Hero Questing.  In a game where death represents "the stick" (as opposed to "the carrot") that motivates a character, i.e. the end of their tale, introducing contradictions, even apparently minor ones, will undermine the whole narrative.  Given there is no need for the contradiction to exist, why insist on it, when it will only make things worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darius...

I feel really sorry for you, you either can't or choose not to embrace Mythopoeic Thought...either way means you are missing out on fully embracing and enjoying Glorantha or for  that matter RPGs in general....seems you would rather spend time arguing in a thread than creating something which enriches Glorantha and the enjoyment of it by yourself and others.

It Makes me wonder if as a narrator you patrol the play of your players ot those you play with in games ensuring they are all adhering to some notional consistent attitude. I really pity you if this is how you live your life in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MOB (Moderator hat)

This thread has pretty much run its course. Remember everyone YGMV!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...