Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is getting vastly off-topic in the RuneQuest thread, so I moved it here.

3 minutes ago, Imryn said:

That might have been the ostensible reason given, but the christian church had a deep seated hatred and fear of women long before that. Women were controlled by so many elements of society that the church didn't need to add any more to persecute them to their hearts content. Women were already property, not people, and women were stoned for adultery (including when they were raped) where men were not punished at all for the same crime. Amongst a whole load of other inequalities.

Yes - clearly a continuation of Jewish practices, and not one challenged in the gospels. "He who is without sin may throw the first stone" doesn't attack the practice, only the practitioners.

 

3 minutes ago, Imryn said:

By binding priests to celibacy the church was attempting to make them immune to "temptation" - the church feared women's supposed ability to control men by giving or withholding sexual favours. If the priest broke the vow the woman would be severely punished as a "demon temptress" - the priest would get a penance (a couple of "our fathers" maybe).

The church did have a point, though, after the pornocracy of the papacy in the 10th century (and something similar again in the Borghia papacy).

The assumption of the victim role for the priest hasn't changed much in the church, only the target of the desires...

 

3 minutes ago, Imryn said:

All in all it was a sordid and disgraceful (and very long) period in our history, and elements of it are still with us today. I don't see any reason why we have to transfer all of that shit stuff into Glorantha. In many ways the authors have obviously attempted to make Glorantha a much more level playing field for sexual equality than the real world ever has been, but this slipped through the net.

As I said earlier, I would substitute the "Feel no Love" geas for the celibacy ones as it achieves the same end result without the inherent unfairness.

There are aspects of Glorantha that aren't politically correct or fun, like e.g. the dreadful practices of broo propagation, and the hardly less politically correct facts of unicorn or satyr propagation, or the origin of the Triolini races.

"Feel no love" is a gross mis-interpretation of how marriage works in a Bronze Age society. It appears as the curse of Gunda the Guilty for breaking the enslavement of the Queen of the Kiss.

"Don't have children" doesn't quite fit it, either.

As I wrote in the geas thread, a geas is a plot device meant to be tested to or even beyond its breaking point. It is meant to cause discomfort - if you take that deep discomfort away, you are making the geas meaningless, leaving only an overpowered gift. (And yes, riding a magical unicorn is way overpowered.)

"Don't accept magical healing" - imagine a barrage of foes offering 1 point Heal spells, or replacing that character's wine bottle with a healing potion.

"Never trust X" is another weird geas. "Never accept hospitality, drink, food, or kindness from X" might be how to play this out, but basically it makes your character a bigot asshole.

 

"I want to have fun playing this killer cult" is a statement which may tell an uncomfortable truth about the player's motivations. Coupled with "I don't want my character to suffer from the downsides of that cult" makes it "I want to play a murder hobo, only one loved by his culture." Yeah. Why not play in Gor, then?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Joerg said:

The church did have a point, though, after the pornocracy of the papacy in the 10th century (and something similar again in the Borghia papacy).

The assumption of the victim role for the priest hasn't changed much in the church, only the target of the desires...

The requirement of celibacy was adopted long before that period. If anything, that period in the catholic church's history serves to illustrate how little the church enforced the vow. The one who takes, and then breaks the vow is not punished. The person who takes no such vow is brutally punished. Sounds fair to me.

37 minutes ago, Joerg said:

There are aspects of Glorantha that aren't politically correct or fun, like e.g. the dreadful practices of broo propagation, and the hardly less politically correct facts of unicorn or satyr propagation, or the origin of the Triolini races.

"Feel no love" is a gross mis-interpretation of how marriage works in a Bronze Age society. It appears as the curse of Gunda the Guilty for breaking the enslavement of the Queen of the Kiss.

"Don't have children" doesn't quite fit it, either.

As I wrote in the geas thread, a geas is a plot device meant to be tested to or even beyond its breaking point. It is meant to cause discomfort - if you take that deep discomfort away, you are making the geas meaningless, leaving only an overpowered gift. (And yes, riding a magical unicorn is way overpowered.)

"Don't accept magical healing" - imagine a barrage of foes offering 1 point Heal spells, or replacing that character's wine bottle with a healing potion.

"Never trust X" is another weird geas. "Never accept hospitality, drink, food, or kindness from X" might be how to play this out, but basically it makes your character a bigot asshole.

"I want to have fun playing this killer cult" is a statement which may tell an uncomfortable truth about the player's motivations. Coupled with "I don't want my character to suffer from the downsides of that cult" makes it "I want to play a murder hobo, only one loved by his culture." Yeah. Why not play in Gor, then?

Sure, I know that, and to be honest playing around with some of those concepts can be fun.

For me, further victimising a rape victim, even in an imaginary fantasy game setting isn't fun.

If a vow of celibacy exclusively prevented marriage then I would agree. The purpose of the vow is to prevent the priest from being subject to earthly temptations and earthly control. That includes marriage, and it includes sexual relations, but its purpose is to sever connections. I feel that the "Feel no Love" geas serves the same general purpose. You can still get married, and still have sex, but your partner is denied the level of control over your actions that a loved one would have.

A great many of the geases listed are easy to force a character to break if you want to. And none of the gifts are worth the price that can be extracted for that breakage. Everything listed for gifts can be obtained through DI without geases, and RL DI is pretty much available right out of character creation if you make the right choices.

Only two cults in RQG have gifts and geases, and both are warrior cults which stress disciple and self control. There are other warrior cults like storm bull would seem to fit the "murder hobo" theme better and without any pesky restrictions.

Gor huh? That would be the fantasy world where every woman secretly wants to be raped right?

Share this post


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

This is getting vastly off-topic in the RuneQuest thread, so I moved it here.

8 hours ago, Imryn said:

 

Thank you Joerg,  I hate censorship (I truly abhor it) but a proper place and time... so good thinking, put it in a bar and give it an honest and obvious title that says controversy here (could you do an Forum edit and maybe tag it as well, for safety's sake).

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Imryn said:

The requirement of celibacy was adopted long before that period.

Ho hum. Presbyters were common in the early centuries, but were at best layman congregational leaders. Only episcopoi (bishops) could perform the sacraments. The delegation of sacerdotal duties to presbyters may have started when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Yes, episcopoi were expected to live in celibacy. So were the hermit monks and nuns that sprang into existence before the presbyters had any sacerdotal function or authority.

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

If anything, that period in the catholic church's history serves to illustrate how little the church enforced the vow. The one who takes, and then breaks the vow is not punished.

Married bishops were common on the fringes of the Roman church well into the second millennium. Basic ordination did not prohibit you from marriage, otherwise Alfred of Wessex would have had a problem, and so would Sverre of Norway.

Yes, there had been fourth century synods that proclaimed that marriage (i.e. entering a marriage) is prohibited for bishops, priests and deacons, and clerics in the ministry, and that they maintain perfect abstinence serving the altar.

However, already the Jewish precursor religion required officiating sacerdotal people to perform purification rites in preparation for their service, and to maintain abstinence as part of that preparation. Methinks that this practice continued quite a while, as accordance with those synods.

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

The person who takes no such vow is brutally punished. Sounds fair to me.

Actually, the trial in the Gospel of John is found invalid because the male partner was not accused, too, and the judges were guilty of this.

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

Sure, I know that, and to be honest playing around with some of those concepts can be fun.

For me, further victimising a rape victim, even in an imaginary fantasy game setting isn't fun.

Rape is a bad topic, agreed, and putting it into your gaming should only come after you cleared all trigger tests. I usually avoid it. I haven't made any use of Yelornan unicorn riders, yet.

The celibacy geas really is about falling prey to seduction. Now, your average player character won't fall to seduction even if he has 95% in Fertility and a low percentage in Truth if the player fears or knows that the consequences will be bad for the character. That same player will have little problem with receiving a special or critical hit as the consequence of being caught in an ambush. Now this weird "I'll play my character against her culture and archetype" is bad roleplaying. The Truth Rune cults that have geases may have an argument for their character to resist seduction, but a highly powered seduction will only be resisted by their Truth Rune (and possibly Man Rune), not completely prevented, and even a geased character will fall prey to seduction, or perhaps perform desperate self-mutilation while resistance still is possible.

I would allow the Old Testament definition of adultery to apply for the maintenance of celibacy.

I wouldn't allow a unicorn to overlook a defloration through intercourse, whether voluntary or not - but with the cult of Yelorna ostensibly possessing rites to reset virginity, total avoidance of that unicorn until the rites were successful might save the connection. The unicorn may be suspicious - those horned and horny bigoted donkeys are intelligent, after all.

 

So, for me as GM, the problem would be to make the character a rape victim.

A failed resistance to a magically enforced seduction is within fair play. Glorantha has such magic - Eurmal for instance, but also Yinkin, Orlanth, Ernalda, and Uleria. And that seduction may be same sex seduction, too - while going against one's professed gender would augment the character's resistance to such seduction, it wouldn't prevent it, either.

Heroforming a deity may separate the geased character from the person performing intercourse.

 

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

If a vow of celibacy exclusively prevented marriage then I would agree.

IMO in the rules context, "celibacy" translates as "sexual abstinence", including abstinence from e.g. male warrior bonding or taking on a "disciple" or padawan with the typical "benefits". (Which is perfectly good for cultists without that geas when the disciple has been initiated to adulthood (even when still in puberty.)

(Looking at the description of Sir Meriatan, such relationships are entirely normal and regarded as healthy in Loskalm.)

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

The purpose of the vow is to prevent the priest from being subject to earthly temptations and earthly control.

Not really - the magical purpose of abstinence is ritual purity when performing the sacraments. You have to interpret this as a magical practice, and indeed religion - even Christian rites - is a form of magical interaction as defined by RuneQuest. While Christian doctrine ("shalt not suffer a black magician to live" - the term "witch" in the King James translation is one of many abysmally bad translations) condemns magical practices that are harmful to other people, rites like the blessings are pure and simple forms of magic, as are friendly greetings or well-wishing. This kind of white magic behavior is actually encouraged.

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

That includes marriage, and it includes sexual relations, but its purpose is to sever connections.

On the contrary, christian priestly ordination is no excuse for a divorce by orthodox doctrine. A person joining a monastery does not annihilate any previous marriage.

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

I feel that the "Feel no Love" geas serves the same general purpose.

I strongly disagree. Unlike the "Married with children" title song, in the Bronze Age society you can have Love without Marriage, and vice versa. The geas of celibacy really means sexual abstinence, regardless of the nature of your sexual partner or even going solo.

"Feel no Love" is a curse put onto Gunda. Apparently it also ruined her sexual life for good. She does feel some form of camaraderie, but no affection.

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

You can still get married, and still have sex, but your partner is denied the level of control over your actions that a loved one would have.

The Celibacy geas doesn't prevent you from marrying. It only prevents you from consuming the marriage in any way (which may make  completing the rite difficult, unless you are allowed to nominate a champion - not unheard of, really, look e.g. at the fathers of Arjuna and his brothers in the Mahabarata.

 

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

A great many of the geases listed are easy to force a character to break if you want to. And none of the gifts are worth the price that can be extracted for that breakage. Everything listed for gifts can be obtained through DI without geases, and RL DI is pretty much available right out of character creation if you make the right choices.

Not quite true. First off, in order to have Rune Lord DI (which is just possible for a well-constructed character after character creation) means that the character is saddled with two gifts for which he has taken geases - in case of Yelmalio, randomly rolled ones, which leaves a 1 in 10,000 chance or less that the character was favored by Humakt/Yelmalio and avoided any geas.

(BTW, the return to randomly rolled geases rather than the gift commensurate geases that Humakt had in RQ3 is a bad design decision IMO, and too many entries of those lists are plain stupid and not based on the deity's known myths. Which goes for a number of gifts, too.)

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

Only two cults in RQG have gifts and geases, and both are warrior cults which stress disciple and self control. There are other warrior cults like storm bull would seem to fit the "murder hobo" theme better and without any pesky restrictions.

Playing a character with PTSD as his main cultic characteristic makes Storm Bull another type of murder hobo. Unlike the Orlanthi initiation which takes some reinforcement from the initiatory exposure to Chaos, the Storm Bull initiation is a traumatizing exposure to Chaos that starts the "Sense Chaos" ability. The cultic obligation to go berserk or at least stand steadfast in the face of Chaos is another form of geas. A quite lethal one, too.

 

6 hours ago, Imryn said:

Gor huh? That would be the fantasy world where every woman secretly wants to be raped right?

Yes. Taking on high and mighty gifts and never suffering any consequences from the geases is another such juvenile wet dream, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Imryn said:

If you are interpreting the celibacy geas as giving up the pleasures of fornication how on earth do you interpret getting raped as a breach of that geas?

I suggest you take a look at e.g. p.309, the list of Yelmalios geases, and see "Celibacy on firedays/in Fire Season" etc. which clearly indicates that "celibacy" has nothing to do with the Catholic Church requirement for priests, but means "abstinence from sexual intercourse". There is nothing about pleasures or trauma of sexual intercourse, it is about the practice of sexual activities of any kind. Presumably including masturbation.

Humakt has no celibacy, instead he has "cannot love" which deprives the character of any "love" passion (and makes him or her uneligible for Ernalda's "Bless Champion" magic). Unlike the Yelmalian celibacy requirements, this geas apparently cannot be broken.

 

Quote

Please explain which part of the process the victim is supposed to have taken pleasure from.

What gives you the idea that the "Celibacy" geas or the virginity requirement that unicorns have for their riders has anything at all to do with pleasure, trauma or love?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Joerg said:

Rape is a bad topic, agreed, and putting it into your gaming should only come after you cleared all trigger tests. I usually avoid it. I haven't made any use of Yelornan unicorn riders, yet.

The celibacy geas really is about falling prey to seduction. Now, your average player character won't fall to seduction even if he has 95% in Fertility and a low percentage in Truth if the player fears or knows that the consequences will be bad for the character. That same player will have little problem with receiving a special or critical hit as the consequence of being caught in an ambush. Now this weird "I'll play my character against her culture and archetype" is bad roleplaying. The Truth Rune cults that have geases may have an argument for their character to resist seduction, but a highly powered seduction will only be resisted by their Truth Rune (and possibly Man Rune), not completely prevented, and even a geased character will fall prey to seduction, or perhaps perform desperate self-mutilation while resistance still is possible.

...

So, for me as GM, the problem would be to make the character a rape victim.

A failed resistance to a magically enforced seduction is within fair play. Glorantha has such magic - Eurmal for instance, but also Yinkin, Orlanth, Ernalda, and Uleria. And that seduction may be same sex seduction, too - while going against one's professed gender would augment the character's resistance to such seduction, it wouldn't prevent it, either.

Heroforming a deity may separate the geased character from the person performing intercourse.

...

Not quite true. First off, in order to have Rune Lord DI (which is just possible for a well-constructed character after character creation) means that the character is saddled with two gifts for which he has taken geases - in case of Yelmalio, randomly rolled ones, which leaves a 1 in 10,000 chance or less that the character was favored by Humakt/Yelmalio and avoided any geas.

(BTW, the return to randomly rolled geases rather than the gift commensurate geases that Humakt had in RQ3 is a bad design decision IMO, and too many entries of those lists are plain stupid and not based on the deity's known myths. Which goes for a number of gifts, too.)

In the real world context we are each making our arguments based on different starting conditions. You are taking the christian churches stated position and intentions and proceeding from there. I am ignoring their stated position and intentions and basing my argument on what I think there actual intentions were. Thus, we are never going to come to any resolution.

I agree with your comments about rape in runequest above. I can imagine even including the scenario you sketched out if my players were comfortable with it. The key factor being that it is a scenario where the player has a chance to resist.

That was NOT the scenario presented in the other thread - That scenario was of an unconscious character raped by her captors. Entirely outside the players control the GM just announces "Oh btw your character just got raped by 50 bandits; so you lost your gifts and your god is pissed at you so good luck casting rune magic and your unicorn ran off".

Rune Lord DI isn't just limited to Humakt and Yelmalio - every RL gets it so every RL can get the same gifts as Humakti / Yelmalio and as you pointed out the Humakti / Yelmalio characters are at a disadvantage because the had to take gifts and geases along the way.

The gifts were very powerful in RQ2 when starting characters were years away from RL status, but in RQG they are a curse, giving access to abilities a couple of seasons of game time early but at a ridiculously high cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Imryn said:

In the real world context we are each making our arguments based on different starting conditions. You are taking the christian churches stated position and intentions and proceeding from there. I am ignoring their stated position and intentions and basing my argument on what I think there actual intentions were. Thus, we are never going to come to any resolution.

True - if you are arguing from your opinion (which seems to be colored by your perspective as a modern Western person, and by rather recent church history, too) we are worlds apart.

The intentions that you stated are not unique to the Christian church, they were inherited from the Torah, and from Roman laws. Neither were easy on the position of women, and the ancient Christians had to compete with the mystical movements of female deities (Ishtar, Isis, Hekate) which resulted in an antagonistic position to these practices.

 

Quote

I agree with your comments about rape in runequest above. I can imagine even including the scenario you sketched out if my players were comfortable with it. The key factor being that it is a scenario where the player has a chance to resist.

Yes, Demon Ex Machina is some of the worst railroading you can inflict on the characters. While an "in medias res" approach to get a scenario running is fine, I prefer the players to grit their teeth as one after another fails their resistance rolls over "shit happened, say good bye to your character concept/all of your equipment/your supporters" out of nothing.

But if a player went for a high stakes gamble and lost, high stakes it may be.

Quote

That was NOT the scenario presented in the other thread - That scenario was of an unconscious character raped by her captors.

Depending on the characters actions that led to that situation, it may have been the character ignoring or challenging previous warnings which brought her (or him in case of "celibate" geased Yelmalians) into that situation. A character surviving capture by broos cannot expect to remain un-impregnated except with the castrati serving Ralzakark. The character wil have had the opportunity to avoid capture prior to her or his decision to go ahead anyway, in which case I feel I did my duty to warn off the player enough. The padded gloves don't stay on forever, big risks may have big consequences.

Quote

Entirely outside the players control the GM just announces "Oh btw your character just got raped by 50 bandits; so you lost your gifts and your god is pissed at you so good luck casting rune magic and your unicorn ran off".

Rape in Glorantha is not as common as it is in other (adult, including ficion rather than gaming) settings. Rapists risk to get adopted by Thed, which may have some visible side effects. When Beat Pot Aelwrin raped the high priestess who had enslaved him, this shocked even his allies among the rebeling slaves.

On the other hand, enslaved characters may receive the lawful command to make themselves available for fornication in certain societies (e.g. Fonrit, but possibly others, too - the Outrigger folk originating from Thinobutu have quite a few customs that are considered offensive by Christian-acculturated modern people, and the Vadeli are notorious for offending).

50 ordinary bandits aren't that likely to commit a serial rape qua violent no-questions asked rape. There is a non-zero possibility that they might coerce her while wearing slave collar and bracelets, but I agree that this is not what roleplaying in Glorantha should normally be about.

 

Quote

Rune Lord DI isn't just limited to Humakt and Yelmalio - every RL gets it so every RL can get the same gifts as Humakti / Yelmalio and as you pointed out the Humakti / Yelmalio characters are at a disadvantage because the had to take gifts and geases along the way.

Not quite the same gifts - all that "double damage to X" stuff is fairly specific to Humakt. Raise a characteristic by one point, yes, up to species max. Effectively, a rune lord pays one permanent rune point and up to 9 regainable ones for this.

Non-Rune Lords don't usually use DI that frivolously, as the rune point is permanently lost regardless of success, the chance for success is bad, and the cost can kill them or render them more or less unplayable. (One player had a fighter in my game ending up with 4 POW. He never recovered.)

Quote

The gifts were very powerful in RQ2 when starting characters were years away from RL status, but in RQG they are a curse, giving access to abilities a couple of seasons of game time early but at a ridiculously high cost.

The purpose of these gifts is not to benefit the character growth by player design, but to make the character more like the deity he serves. In the case of Yelmalio this includes a LaMarckian inheritance of losing the armor at the Hill of Gold.

Rune level is not required by each and every character.The old skill cap for everybody but rune lords has been done away with.

Edited by Joerg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phwoah, a lot to read through, and not my personal forte, so please forgive me if this has been brought up already, but I was of the impression that clerical celibacy (iirc, a quirk unique to Christanity among the Abrahamic religions, unless you count some of the more obscure and largely disappeared sects) had less to do with ritual purity in resisting temptation (although I am sure the Church Fathers said it was in some of their epistles) and more to do with preventing individual priests and congregational leaders prioritizing the continued wealth of their own family lineage over that of the Church. A married man of god effectively has two masters: his family and his god. In order to properly ensure viability and stability of church assets, it was necessary to cut one of those masters out of the picture. 

Whether something like this works in Glorantha I can't say. There are certainly other reasons to remain celibate, less institutional and more ritual or spiritual reasons.

Edited by Sir_Godspeed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all Christian clerics are celibate. Orthodox Priests can be married, most Protestant clerics can be married. They shouldn't have sex outside marriage, but that's standard Christian belief anyway. Even before the Great Schism, there were Priests who had concubines. King John rounded up all the Priests' concubines and demanded they pay for them to be released, so the Priests paid up. There was a big debate at the time over whether Priests should be celibate or not, it wasn't cut and dried. A number of nobles who were made bishops remained married to their wives, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soltakss said:

Orthodox Priests can be married

in fact, it is only Western (Latin) priests who cannot be married; all other Churches require marriage of their priests: Oriental Orthodoxy (Coptic, Ethiopic and Eritrean), Eastern Orthodoxy, Church of the East...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion grew out of an IMO weird conception about celibacy, and a disagreement about its courses. Plus a rather cynical series of postings from me about accepting a geas being  the equivalent of "calling the god of lightnings a loser in the middle of the rainstorm".

I am still proposing that the main reason to impose celibacy on priests was to avoid priestly dynasties. Ever since becoming the state religion for the Roman Empire, the church had become heavily politicized, and looking at such decisions without looking at worldly issues will only create weird assumptions on dogma, in my opinion.

13 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

in fact, it is only Western (Latin) priests who cannot be married; all other Churches require marriage of their priests: Oriental Orthodoxy (Coptic, Ethiopic and Eritrean), Eastern Orthodoxy, Church of the East...

What about monks taking on the role of a priest? Are those vows of celibacy overriding the requirement of marriage, or are they the equivalent thereof?

There is some disagreement about when the church began to look into marriage as their business rather than the business of the two people involved. It is clear that by the time of Henry VIII the church thought it had to have complete authority and control over this business. British history has more of that stuff, like the slightly heretical tradition of eloping to Gretna Green. (Heretical against the Anglican Church, mind you.)

The abominable stance of churches against abortion stems from an earlier as abominable rule that the un-baptized soul of the infant had to be rescued for baptism even at the cost of the life of the mother. Perverse dogmatism enforced by people subject to (probably as perverse) dogmatism that barred them from participating in either marriage or parenting.

Martin Luther (who was every bit as dogmatic and bigoted than the church he seceded from - speaking as a person raised as a Lutheran here) made a point of breaking his celibacy vow and that of his wife (a former nun) as an ideological statement. (He apparently also enjoyed married life a lot.)

 

As  a GM, I always need to ask myself what kind of stories I want to enable and what kind of stories my players want to experience and to influence.

Tragedy should be the occasional part of this, although not necessarily in the old Greek "they all die/are cursed in the end" sense. Still, a hero caught up by fate is a necessary element of the real world myths that we use as the basis for our roleplaying. But maybe that's another topic to be discussed.

In this context, people were obsessing about involuntary breaking a geas or prerequisite to a considerable in-game power either by GM fiat (never good) or after braving impossible odds and receiving the statistically expected outcome (in other words, they asked for it), or suffering a string of bad random numbers.

No risk no fun, right? The thread made it sound like I was singling out these cults. I am not. Players have their characters make dumb decisions, those characters aren't going to see me as a narrator go out of my way to salvage them.

On the other hand, if I create such a situation as a plot obstacle, I don't make it insurpassable. That's not the purpose of an obstacle. If players overreact to a perceived threat, that may either be bad communication between them and the GM, or it may be them taking their in-character play to a self-destructive course, possibly badly communicated, too. A good way to warn them off is to tell them the odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joerg said:

On the other hand, if I create such a situation as a plot obstacle, I don't make it insurpassable. That's not the purpose of an obstacle.

I really enjoy the FATE system because of the structure it creates around your abilities relating to this exact issue. I hope this is okay to discuss here, I know this is RQ/HQ/13AG territory, but this is about taboos and "failing forward" issues.

You might have an ability that can be tapped by the player - or the game master. You might have "pure body burning bright like the Sun", as an off-the-cuff example, if you were a Sun Domer - that's a sample aspect based on a geas I read in one of the older books. You'd Invoke that to boost, say, your fighting ability in appropriate circumstances: it wouldn't get you far against another Sun Domer, but you could strike down Chaos, Darkness, Storm...

... but the game master might also Compel it. He'd offer you a chance to get a fate point, a powerful game-changing token for a player. You'd have to pay a Fate point to avoid this circumstance! These situations would involve potential problems with your aspect, "pure body burning bright like the Sun". Perhaps you are starving and must eat a taboo food; perhaps you are stationed alone in a tower with the wife you were forced to divorce and still love (this is a Yelmalion practice). Whatever.

Between that and failing forward, it's a good engine for storytelling, especially if you don't have a lot of prep time or your buds don't have the energy to learn RQ. HeroQuest was definitely a major influence on it, but it's got some built-in mechanics HQ doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Joerg said:

The abominable stance of churches against abortion stems from an earlier as abominable rule that the un-baptized soul of the infant had to be rescued for baptism even at the cost of the life of the mother. Perverse dogmatism enforced by people subject to (probably as perverse) dogmatism that barred them from participating in either marriage or parenting.

Even worse when you consider than a child who died without being baptised could not be buried in the churchyard, as happened to my uncle.

So, the child would have to be brought to full term and then christened/baptised. A truly horrendous idea.

Share this post


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

Even worse when you consider than a child who died without being baptised could not be buried in the churchyard, as happened to my uncle.

So, the child would have to be brought to full term and then christened/baptised. A truly horrendous idea.

in premodern times they were more commonly buried in liminal places in many places in Western Europe: doorframes, crossroads, and the like. being unchristened, they were not people yet so despite Church doctrine, they were considered to be upcycled into a new baby.

In Ireland and Wales, at least, it was colonialism that lead to a reification of strict beliefs about children and baptism and abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 10:25 AM, Qizilbashwoman said:

I really enjoy the FATE system because of the structure it creates around your abilities relating to this exact issue. I hope this is okay to discuss here, I know this is RQ/HQ/13AG territory, but this is about taboos and "failing forward" issues...

Well, this is the Inn, no longer the RQ forum, so it's pretty wide open AFAIK!  Everyone is staying reasonable and polite, so... fair ball!

Even if it were still the RQ forum, don't think Fate/FatePoints (or any other RPG getting a mechanic mentioned for compare/contrast) is a verboten topic or anything, but I DO note that HQG offers a Gloranthan-centric narrative-mechanic engine.  As noted above:

On 8/24/2019 at 12:39 AM, Joerg said:

... or after braving impossible odds and receiving the statistically expected outcome (in other words, they asked for it), or suffering a string of bad random numbers...

RQG is a crunchy-simulationist game, so PCs mostly live and die by the dice, by design.  What does the world-machine (RAW mechanics, diced) say happens?

Fate &c have a different design, where an equally-important criteria is the story, the narrative, the drama of the scene -- what makes for a better STORY?

One can build a mechanic to be crunch-centric, or narrative-centric, or try to find some middle path or zone; none of those are any more "right" or "wrong" than any others, but simple expressions of personal taste, preference, or even mood.

It's worth noting, if the Fate game-engine scratches your itches nicely, that it's a suite of narrative bits (Aspects, etc) sitting stop the Fudge game-engine, which is another story simulationist engine.  In fact, the wholly-divorced "Aspect-Only Fate" is a Google'able thing.

This means that, with a bit of tinkering, the "Fate" suite can be lifted off of Fudge and placed atop another simulation engine... such as RQG.

===

None of which is really on-topic for the issue of how Christianity has dealt with sexuality & celibacy and women across the centuries... Y'all just managed to tantalize one of my own geeky/OCDish preoccupations.🤡

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, g33k said:

None of which is really on-topic for the issue of how Christianity has dealt with sexuality & celibacy and women across the centuries... Y'all just managed to tantalize one of my own geeky/OCDish preoccupations.🤡

ew!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, g33k said:

RQG is a crunchy-simulationist game, so PCs mostly live and die by the dice, by design.  What does the world-machine (RAW mechanics, diced) say happens?

No idea about the world-machine, but I for HeroQuest would frame the contest in a way that the players  are up against a high two digit mastery better than their own augmented ability (or even a two mastery low single digit better opposition), which means they would need a critical success not to fail - which means in turn that their chance to succeed requires them to roll higher than the opposition and have a success they can spend a hero point on to equalize the mastery difference. There is a statistical chance to make that roll, yes, but basically it is betting on the opposition to blow their roll.

 

11 hours ago, g33k said:

Fate &c have a different design, where an equally-important criteria is the story, the narrative, the drama of the scene -- what makes for a better STORY?

Yeah. Heroquest offers "failing forward", what is your character willing to sacrifice to trade off their mechanical loss in a hopeless contest to still achieve the narrative goal?

Which brings us back to "are you going to break this geas/taboo in order to achieve the narrative goal?"

 

Fate comes with the metagaming of calling your weaknesses, which can in my experience interfere with the narrative thread.

11 hours ago, g33k said:

This means that, with a bit of tinkering, the "Fate" suite can be lifted off of Fudge and placed atop another simulation engine... such as RQG.

If you can do this without the metagaming, then I would like to hear your practical proposal.

 

 

Share this post


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

If you can do this without the metagaming, then I would like to hear your practical proposal.

I think you misunderstand the different frames of reference in non-simulationist games. Games like Dungeon World are literally D&D with Apocalypse World's mechanics incorporated, and they are pretty popular. You still have stats and race and class, but you also have threads and the like. In these games, you are narrating the story, which can absolutely lead to abject failure, although failing forward mechanics are good. As I specifically mentioned, HQ has some of these features and was a really early innovator!

I was merely suggesting that the system being criticised above for being insufficiently attractive for players, or even penalising to have - the various geasa in this edition-, is because it is not a central engine to the system but rather a subsystem that is stapled on. It's backfiring, is what people are saying in this thread.

In contrast, less simulationist games tend to deal with things like "Compels" better.

RQ is trying with things like Passions, but it still feels stapled on to me tbh.

I don't understand how it's "metagaming". Not in a snarky way: I mean I don't understand to what you are referencing. The Invokes and Compels? Those just let you use your character-special abilities dramatically. They give you a bonus on a roll and are a natural part of how you navigate a scene: you invoke the environment (Pitch-Black Rainy Night when sneaking, or the GM Compels because you're trying to shoot someone and you can't see the bastard clearly) and so forth. Your personal The Baba Yaga Murdered Three Man with a Pencil shtick just lets you improvise a nasty weapon when grappling someone if you Invoke, giving you an extra +2 against a foe.

It's storytelling and the bennies - the Fate points - are supposed to constantly flow back and forth between players and the GM. It's how we cooperate.

It's not metagaming anymore than the DM telling you to include an inclement weather modifier in your attempt to shoot a bow at a scorpionman is, or you pulling out your special Humakti sword. It's just explicit give-and-take.

18 hours ago, g33k said:

It's worth noting, if the Fate game-engine scratches your itches nicely, that it's a suite of narrative bits (Aspects, etc) sitting stop the Fudge game-engine, which is another story simulationist engine.  In fact, the wholly-divorced "Aspect-Only Fate" is a Google'able thing.

I really like the Powered by the Apocalypse now fiction a lot because the Aspects are "strings", unique ways each character connects to each other. Refreshing those strings requires unique things - one character might need to have sex with someone to create or refresh a string they've used, as in the original Apocalype World. In Dungeon World, some characters need to carouse, spend gold with, or whatever. It reinforces the Ring idea.

Edited by Qizilbashwoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

I don't understand how it's "metagaming". Not in a snarky way: I mean I don't understand to what you are referencing.

I am referencing the way I am to earn the Fate Points I can then spend on useful parts of the story. Spending Fate Points doesn't create much of a problem, really, but creating needless minor distractions from THE story just for personal gain is what I feel is metagaming, gaming the mechanic but not the story immersion.

Share this post


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

I am referencing the way I am to earn the Fate Points I can then spend on useful parts of the story. Spending Fate Points doesn't create much of a problem, really, but creating needless minor distractions from THE story just for personal gain is what I feel is metagaming, gaming the mechanic but not the story immersion.

You gain points when the DM uses your ability against you. In the case of your taboo, it gives you power. But it also is a taboo... so the DM challenges it. That's part of the story, too. You're not the one doing it. I SMASH CHAOS is well and good for an Uroxi except when your party runs into a Lunar patrol outside Prax. They know what a Storm Bull is and they're not happy about it. Your dog keeps you sane, but the bad guy threatens it. And so forth.

Edited by Qizilbashwoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 8:41 PM, Qizilbashwoman said:

in premodern times they were more commonly buried in liminal places in many places in Western Europe: doorframes, crossroads, and the like. being unchristened, they were not people yet so despite Church doctrine, they were considered to be upcycled into a new baby.

In Ireland and Wales, at least, it was colonialism that lead to a reification of strict beliefs about children and baptism and abortion.

In Scandinavia you have the folklore of the utburd, literally "that which is taken out(side)", and refers to a child who is not baptized and buried in the wild (or sometimes babies who were put out there to die if they were born outside wedlock).

As the stories go, they would haunt passersby, wailing softly, and when someone came closer to check it out, they would leap up at them, cling impossibly tight, and grower larger and heavier until the person either died, or managed to give them what they wanted: a name.

"Eg døyper deg på von,
Anten Kari eller Jon"

(I christen you by chance, 
Either Kari or Jon).

A bit random, but it's one of the more interesting folklore consequences of Christianity views on baptisment and the afterlife, I think. And a damn good plot for a horror movie (as the Witcher 3 apparently also thought, since there's a mission with a very similar being in there).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 7:44 PM, Qizilbashwoman said:

in fact, it is only Western (Latin) priests who cannot be married; all other Churches require marriage of their priests: Oriental Orthodoxy (Coptic, Ethiopic and Eritrean), Eastern Orthodoxy, Church of the East...

You're right, of course, and my mixed Lutheran and Pentecostal upbringing should've helped me avoid such a Latin Catholic-centric comment.

Still, overall I more or less stand by what I said, with the added caveat that this logic was obviously only accepted by some Christian clerics, far from all.

Edited by Sir_Godspeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Joerg said:

I am referencing the way I am to earn the Fate Points I can then spend on useful parts of the story. Spending Fate Points doesn't create much of a problem, really, but creating needless minor distractions from THE story just for personal gain is what I feel is metagaming, gaming the mechanic but not the story immersion.

Fate Points should be earned in ways that are very particular to individual characters, not a generic "Earn FP" mechanism.

Usually, the GM will create situations that generate FP's for characters, without the players taking any particular steps.

For example, in game of Fate in Glorantha a PC with "Arachnophobia" will get FP's every time they meet a Scorpionman (and maybe Uz bug-herders, too).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, g33k said:

For example, in game of Fate in Glorantha a PC with "Arachnophobia" will get FP's every time they meet a Scorpionman (and maybe Uz bug-herders, too).

Well, if they take the loss and cower the whole fight, taking negatives to their rolls, they get the Fate point. If they PAY a Fate point, they can overcome it temporarily and fight as normal. That's the economy. You can also decide to take the loss but then have a buddy in the group Invoke I DEFEND MY RING AT ALL COSTS! to negate your negative effects.

You might not have to pay a Fate point for bug-herders per se; depends if there's a Compel or not.

Also, a better FATE ability wouldn't be "arachnophobia" but something like A GIANT SPIDER ATE MY FAMILY! or I FUCKING HATE BUGS! 🐛You wanna inspire action. (Those aren't great, but they are a start.)

The point is to keep the GM and the players in a constant dialogue and exchange. You should never stop throwing chips at each other.

Edited by Qizilbashwoman
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

The point is to keep the GM and the players in a constant dialogue and exchange. You should never stop throwing chips at each other.

My own point -- specific to @Joerg's issue with FP-generation being off-track --  is that the creation of FP's is largely per-character (arguably, the character is mostly MADE OF those FP-creators).

That it may be -- in some ways -- somehow "off-track" from the "story at hand..."  nevertheless, generating FP's is utterly ON-TRACK for the characters (pretty much by definition).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...