Topic: Three's A Crowd Redux
Started by: Eric J-D
Started on: 4/21/2006
Board: Adept Press
On 4/21/2006 at 5:56pm, Eric J-D wrote:
Three's A Crowd Redux
Over in this thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18447.0 Wolfen asked some good questions about how to handle a host who was inhabited by both a parasite and a possessor demon.
This got me to thinking. Can a single host be inhabited by multiple possessor demons?
I'm sure there is probably a simple answer to this--and I suspect the answer is "no"--but I thought I would ask since I am gearing up for a game of Sorcerer set just after the time of Jesus's crucifixion and had it in mind to use some of the characters who appear in the gospels as part of the back-story. Since one of the few things the gospels say about Mary of Magdala is that--in addition to being the first witness at the empty tomb--she had seven demons cast out of her (Lk. 8:2), I was wondering how (or whether) Sorcerer could handle such a thing.
Cheers,
Eric
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 18447
On 4/21/2006 at 9:34pm, Paka wrote:
Re: Three's A Crowd Redux
A sorcerer as a living battleground for the desires and needs of several demons sounds like fun to me.
I dont' recall anything in the rules against it.
On 4/21/2006 at 9:40pm, Alan wrote:
RE: Re: Three's A Crowd Redux
I think the answer could be either yes or no, depending on details of the onesheet such as what demons are and how they possess or parisitize, and finally what the players prefer for that particular game. The idea suggests some mind-bending rolls: parasite rolls against a possessor, parasite wins roll over to bonus for the host's roll. Or maybe it's a three way roll to establish hierarchy.
On 4/21/2006 at 10:21pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Three's A Crowd Redux
By the rules as default, yes, of course. Why ever not?
If a given group's agreed-upon details for demons didn't allow it, then not, but otherwise, sure.
Best, Ron
On 4/21/2006 at 11:22pm, Eric J-D wrote:
RE: Re: Three's A Crowd Redux
Jeezus,
What can I say other than a humble "thanks" and, by way of explaining my stupidity, that I was clearly creating a prohibition where there is none in the text.
A classic example of how years of mainstream "gamethink" can impair an otherwise reasonably intelligent individual.
Thanks all.
Eric