Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Years of chasing and being chased through the deserts of Milumanaya tends to blunt one's taste for ritual, doesn't it?

Yep. That campaign sucked, big time.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Very much.

Another aspect that is common but not covered is the details of dress.
This seems to be a signature of many Asian/Middle Eastern stories.
The leaders/heroes in The Outlaws of the Marsh had what they were wearing described in detail.

Was this done in your games? If so how?

There is very little detail on the available in setting materials/fabrics and how they are ranked.
=

Generally, Phil didn't stop play to describe what people were wearing unless it was important to the action. We all had our index cards, and we'd noted what we usually were wearing, depending on the situation. About the only time we discussed what people were wearing was when we needed to figure out who they were, and if they were a threat.

Now, having said that, I need to note that we usually had several very gifted artists at the game table; while they played, they'd draw what they saw, send it down the table to Phil, and he'd make corrections as needed. Of, in some cases, he'd whip off a quick sketch to show us what somebody or something looked like, and usually one of the artists would do a polished version. Please keep in mind that while we were playing with Phil, we were also producing and publishing most of the Tekumel products of the 1980s, like the 'zines and books.

I saved all of the drawings; the rule at the game table was that Phil would get the original for his files, and I would get a copy for my archives. I have well over 1,200 drawings on file, covering just about everything you could imagine. Tekumel, at least as how Phil saw it, is one of the most richly illustrated world-settings ever created.

The reason why this sort of thing is not well covered in the literature is that it is long out of print; I did a book on the subject, using Phil's notes and all of the available artwork. As we were doing the miniatures line at the time, this was based on the work that Phil had done for that; I have all of his concept drawings, as well as those by Dave Sutherland and Craig Smith, and also those by later artists like Chris Huddle, Kathy Marshall, and Ken Fletcher.

And there also feels like a sort of 'prejudice' against costuming by some 'serious gamers'. We did a lot of costumes for Tekumel in our day, as was noted in the thread on "Amusing Tekumel Images", but we did them simply for the fun of it. Miniatures often come in for the same, for that matter, which I think is a reaction to D&D's Fourth Edition.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

We usually said "I will dress appropriately for the occasion." I hired a valet at 6th level when I became a citizen to help with this.

Yeah, that was pretty much how we handled in in-game. The valet / servant / majordomo handled all the complexities of the subject, so we could get on with the adventure.

Of course, more then once the servants sparked a whole new adventure:

"Your pardon, Noble Sir, but there's a Hlyss behind you. Would Your Lordship prefer one's mace or one's sword?"

Or:

WHANG! "My husband, this rude and uncivilized person was creeping up behind you and your friends with the intention of cutting your throats; I have taken what I hope will not be considered a liberty, and rendered him harmless with my favorite skillet."

And so on...

Well, take a bunch of horny 19 year olds of both sexes and give them the option of a sex goddess and guess what happens.

Few of us stayed with Dlamelish, however. By about five years into the campaign your temple was just another facet of life in the Empire.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

This whole Good/Stability -vs- Evil/Change thing.
Was this a transition or was it Stability -vs- Change from the beginning.
It certainly doesn't seem so antagonistic as straight up Good -vs- Evil.

How does this work with clans? I assume that a clan will follow the faith that bolsters it livelihood but what about those that feel a different calling?

Is the clan 90/10, 80/20, 70/30, 60/40 or 50/50 for the "main" deity?

Besides the play group that favored disruptive play, did the players deity selection make any real differences?
=

Oh, let's open this can of worms, shall we?

Prof. M. A.R. Barker was 'Stability/Change' from around 1948 to 2012. He liked the dichotomy, and didn't see that there was an issue with it. We played it that way at his games; in his view of his creation, it wasn't a major issue in the life of the people who lived in his world.

Mr. E. Gary Gygax and Mr. David L. Arneson were 'Good vs. Evil' from about 1972-73 to well into the 2000's.

Mr. Gygax and Mr. Arneson persuaded Prof. Barker to drop the 'shades of grey' approach that 'Stability / Change' embraced, and so the published edition of what became EPT had this removed and the black and white 'Good vs. Evil' inserted in to the blanks. This was largely due to their firm belief that gamers didn't have the cultural sophistication or the native intelligence to deal with anything more complicated then a black-and-white dichotomy.

So, EPT got changed in the summer of 1974, and there you are. As Phil once said: "Well, he was paying for it." and shrugged his shoulders. Just to add to the fun, Phil once remarked that by Dave and Gary's standards, all of Tekumel's religions are EEEEEEEEvil in comparison to the various (and Phil's opinion, rather vague and undefined) religions in D&D; Gary and Dave had to admit the point, to their discomfort.

(Later on, at a Gen Con, I was discussing this subject with some D&D players, who were HORRIFIED to discover that I am, under the D&D rules, a Tenth Level Evil High Priest. They were quite hostile, and then Gary noted that by the standards of my faith, I am a Paladin. That ended that discussion; it may have influenced later publications, though.)

And no, it's not antagonistic. It's a philosophical stance, and people just don't get all that bent out of shape about it.

(And I do apologize if I sound cranky about this; I had a front row seat for the aftermath of this editorial decision back in the late 1970s.)

Moving on to more pleasant climes:

Clans are pretty open-minded about the individual clansperson's faith. As long as the person supports the clan, pays their taxes to the Imperium, and doesn't cause trouble there isn't a lot of agony over it. Yes, clans to tend to favor one or a couple of faiths, but that's mostly a matter of custom and tradition in the clan, going back literally thousands of years. My clan, Eye of Flame, has been a mostly Vimuhla clan going back to the time of the Dragon Lords; White Stone, on the other had, is very eclectic, and has members who are of all twenty Temples.

If I had become a Hnalla worshipper, there would have been a lot of hand-wringing amongst the relatives and some pointed comments about how I had been raised. That would have been the end of it, especially if I brought luster, fame, honor, and goodies back to the clan...

Trying to assign a percentage to this next to impossible; it just isn't the way Phil did it in his campaign. The best advice that I can offer is to look at the clan name, or the descriptions in S&G I (The Sourcebook), and take it from there based on the needs of your campaign.

No, it didn't, and it didn't in the other group either. They just liked to piss on each other - they were all mostly Vimuhla or Chiteng people, actually. We have very, very few Stability people out at Phil's over the years; nobody really seemed all that interested in the Stability temples.

We really didn't worry too much about The Great Philosophical Issues in Phil's games; we just worked together to try and stay alive. Our individual deity choices made a difference in what we could do in the game - especially in S&G - and how we dressed. Political parties made as much of a difference as 'alignment' or 'religion'.

Sorry to be so long-winded!

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Well, take a bunch of horny 19 year olds of both sexes and give them the option of a sex goddess and guess what happens.

Few of us stayed with Dlamelish, however. By about five years into the campaign your temple was just another facet of life in the Empire.

And there weren't that many Dlamelish or Hrihayal players in the first place. Everybody was pretty much Ksarul, Vimuhla, or Hry'y, (and their Cohorts) except for the one Sarku player.

Nope, you're right; after a while, we just made our contributions and got on with life.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Long winded? Almost seemed short as I'm sure there are many examples you can give where it mattered.

Thanks for confirming how it was done at the beginning (and can be done again).
=

You're welcome! In the usual course of things, one's Temple and alignment just wasn't that big a deal. Everybody usually tried to work together to make things work, and that was kinda that. Now, in the Underworlds, it did make a difference as everyone had different goals and objectives; what we did in the party was try and make sure that we all got something out of the action, so we could go back to our clans, temples, legions, etc. with a little something. It took some doing, but we managed.

It's the difference between short-term, immediate goals and long term ones, I think.