[Rq-rules] Re: Humakti Death Drive

[Steve Lieb]

On 1/24/06, Nikk Effingham <phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I like the 'Just Say No' scheme, but then I'd have to make judgement calls
> about
> when Humakt just says no, is it when you add 50 points to a stat? Or ten?
> Or
> five? I'd feel like there was a bank manager decision to be made (what's
> your
> max POW? Do you have other POW commitments? Do you agree to cut down on
> your
> spending on Rune magic?). There'd be a whole Humakt the Mangerial Sword
> subcult
> (a part of me actually thinks that's a serious idea and I'm going to think
> about that as a more MGF option).
>
>
IMG I'd simply say no.  We're not talking about a loan (despite the MGF
value of the Managerial Sword subcult), we're talking about a boon from a
GOD.  This isn't asking to borrow the car keys, this is communing with a
diety that can (presumeably) see at least some ways into your motivations
and thoughts.

As a DM, my gut would say no, so Humakt would say no.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so extraordinary requests
require extraordinary justification.
A PC comes up and asks for an atypical number of gifts/geases (IMO anything
>1).  Wouldn't the priest look a little askance and say "aren't you asking a
little too much of yourself my son/daughter?".  Then depending on the
credibility of the character, how much they've done for that temple or area,
their personal reputation, etc, maybe the priest would go ahead with 2, 3 or
even 4 at once.

For request of more than maybe 4 at a time, I think even the most wise
priest would balk, and say that he wanted to commune with Humakt over a
night or two about laying such a heavy burden on anyone.  If the PC has
provably sacrificed 10 POW over the last year (or better still, for a couple
years in a row), it's not impossible that he'd grant it.  But simply saying
"buff me so I can be the l33t ki11ar d00d" just wouldn't be enough.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060124/82404fda/attachment-0002.html