Stephen, whether Greg is more right than Sandy or not is quite irrelevant. I just wanted to make clear that i won't accept a statement about Glorantha without some accompanying arguments explaining why that statement should be true.
Anyway, i got what i wanted: some arguments. OK, here's the next installment of the Dragon Pass orlanthing dog-goat taboo argument:
Re: goats
>Goats are evil, chaotic, the children of Ragnaglar. Broo
>are goat-kin, goatmen.
I am aware of this particular piece of gloranthan folklore. It isn't very true though. Goats aren't even slightly chaotic, and are definitely not Ragnaglar's children.
Broos aren't mythically goat-kin at all, they just tend to look like goats. Or rather, the broos *that the DP orlanthings usually encounter* tend to look like goats, since they live fairly close to the margins of orlanthing society, which is where the orlanthings keep their goats. Thus, the broos that the orlanthings would encounter are those that reproduce primarily by impregnating goats.
Are the broos in Prax predominantly goat-like? I think not.
Anyway, that is the (fairly indirect) connection between broos (and thus Ragnaglar) and goats. Since the chaotic broos look like goats to the DP orlanthings, goats carry the stigma of uncleanness, but they are in no way chaotic.
Since goats are unclean, only the lowest classes of people in DP orlanthing society keep goats. And where do they keep their goats if not at the margins of society? This of course perpetuates the belief that goats are unclean.
If an orlanthing culture is to have the belief that there is a connection between goats and broos, they must keep goats. Otherwise the belief wouldn't have a chance to form, unless one assumes that broos actually herd goats themselves.
Stephen goes on:
>Most of the important Orlanthi gods [...] have a distinct and unique
>animal >association.
Hardly. Definitely not as a universal truism. Some cultures may associate their gods with specific animals, but i don't think that is the case with the DP orlanthings.
More Stephen:
>To an Orlanthi, eating a goat is like eating a broo [...]
>I think that most Orlanthi, especially Uroxi,
>would kill any goats that they saw -- even if they don't trigger Sense
>Chaos, you never know, they might be illuminated.
So now you want to propose that Uroxi go about slaughtering animals that aren't the slightest bit chaotic? Do the uroxi kill all Lunars that they find, since the Red Goddess is sort of chaotic? And since anyone could be an illuminated ogre, why not kill everyone and let Daka Fal sort them out? What next, should the uroxi declare all out war against the likewise un-chaotic wolves, since the Telmori are tainted?
(A sidenote: it would be better if people differentiated between initiates of Orlanth, and people from a culture dominated by the worship of Orlanth. Hence my neologism 'orlanthing'.)
I don't think orlanthings in general equate eating goat with eating broo. Some, primarily orlanthi sensitive to the possible folkloristic association with Ragnaglar, would. David Dunham said (commenting on Stephen's statement):
>> I have heard Greg state this on a number of occasions -- the Orlanthi do
>> not have, or eat, goats, because they are anathema to them.
>
>Except in Apple Lane, where what's-her-name's goat-meat patties make the
>eaters laugh with joy. And (sorry for the unpublished reference) in
>Harmast's Saga, where only a few of the Orlanthi refugees worry about not
>eating goat, and everyone else is happy to have meat.
So, the orlanthi that do worry about eating goat are those that take their religion seriously, i.e. the (wannabe) lords and priests. Even if the connection between goats and broos is merely folklore, it would still be a formative belief in that culture. But most people tend *not* to follow every stricture and taboo of a religion. Thus, quite a few orlanthi (and most orlanthings) would eat goat, but they wouldn't serve goatmeat to the Storm Voice.
Also (assuming that the DP orlanthings believe that goats and broos are related), a Storm Voice probably wouldn't let goats near his stead, but cottars and stickpickers probably would, since they'd worry more about filling their stomachs than being epitomes and paragons of Orlanth.
RE: dogs and alynxes
Stephen says, mysteriously:
>Dogs is a cultural thing, IMO, not a Darkness thing.
?
Stephen again:
>[...] the Alynx is so firmly entrenched in Orlanthi
>society, and the animosity between alynx and dog is so pronounced, that
>you can only have one or the other. Thus, if I, a good Orlanthi cottar,
>want to keep dogs on my farms, I will never even see an alynx prowling
>around. And do you think Orlanth will favor anyone who rejects his
>favorite brother? Not just doesn't worship him, but actually rejects him?
>Does the Catholic Church consider you a faithful worshiper if you reject
>Mary or Saint Peter?
The alynx is indeed highly valued and praised among the DP orlanthings; i've never said they aren't. But i have to say that i find the notion of ubiquitous domesticated alynxes trained and kept as if they were RW dogs quite distasteful. Alynxes are solitary predators, not the ideal animal to domesticate anyhow.
Yinkin is, as Stephen says, Orlanth's brother. So how come the orlanthings honour Yinkin by enslaving him?
Also, why the animosity between alynxes and dogs? Where does it come from? It seems to me like this animosity is construed merely to legitimate the claim that orlanthings have no dogs.
Since i see the 'domesticated' alynx as a hunting companion, and the dog as a herding companion, i see no reason why one has to exclude the other from a stead. No god-fearing orlanthing would insult Orlanth and Yinkin by hunting with dogs, and likewise would he not insult Orlanth and Yinkin by herding sheep with an alynx.
Assuming that alynxes aren't ubiquitous, what steads are graced by the presence of a sacred shadowcat? Surely it's the steads of the likes of Storm Voices and Wind Swords, who are worthy enough. Most cottars would simply be too unworthy to be graced by an alynx and they know it; alynxes are for people with status. So cottars keep dogs in stead. Cottars who keep dogs don't reject Yinkin; it's Yinkin who rejects them.
Taking it a bit further, i'd say that an alynx chooses a specific person to be its companion. I doubt that an alynx would choose to bond with a lowly shepherd. If dogs are kept on that person's stead is largely unimportant, as they aren't his dogs.
I want the noble alynx to be mysterious, a sacred hunter and bringer of omens, Orlanth's messenger and companion to worthy warriors and hunters. I want the lowly dog to be the obedient servant of stickpickers and cottars.
The way i see it, my proposals generate some campaign-useful social friction and stratification and can generate MGF (as when the stranger is served goat-steak and the dinner turns into a fracas when the stranger, who is in fact a Wind Lord hiding from the Lunars, puts the fear of god into the very surprised cottars).
Stephen's proposal simply means no dogs, no goats, and that the alynxes are dogs in all respects except name, which is relatively boring and has no sound mythological justification.
Enough already,
Michael Raaterova
<.sig omitted on legal advice>
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #239
Powered by hypermail