From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Tue, 08 Mar 1994, part 1
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
X-RQ-ID: Intro
This is the RuneQuest Daily Bulletin, a mailing list on
the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's
world of Glorantha. It is sent out once per day in digest
format.
More details on the RuneQuest Daily and Digest can be found
after the last message in this digest.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Subject: Initiation rules, and how to (fix|break) them.
Message-ID: <9403072321.AA02896@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 7 Mar 94 23:21:42 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3260
> > what's wrong with the existing rules?
> Because that's not the way Glorantha runs, if I understand this right.
Huh? What do you mean, exactly? I'm defending `Gloranthan Orthodoxy'
(for once! ), as far as I can see.
> Replace "Low Initiate" by "Associate", with no change in magical ability
> (or even accompanied by an increase from the Associates).
Ah... Just noticed this after writing most of this reply. I agree that
if we can achieve something like what Boris wants via something close to
the existing associate cult rules, this would be neater. See below...
> > This would
> > be better compared, I believe, to joining a temple of Orlanth Lightbringer,
> > say, than to "Initiation into the Orlanth Pantheon".
> Good point. This initiation might well be of local significance only.
Why would this be necessary? To my mind, an Initiate of Orlanth is an
Initiate of Orlanth, regardless of the particular aspect and set of
locally worshipped associates. (I forget if Lightbringer is an Official
Aspect, wrt to the cult writeup, these days, but I'm sure he's worshipped
that way in places.)
> > How are you suggesting that this should work in relation to the existing
> > 7M/individual Mother cults? Free Mother cult membership on payment of your
> > 7M POW point? Or that the point be `transferable' to the separate cult,
> > ending one's membership of 7M in the process?
> There would have to be an initiation rite
I agree there should be rules for the actual performing of the initiation,
but that's not what I meant. What I wanted to know was how 7M membership,
and subsequent transfer to YT, say, would be treated under the proposed rules.
> > Well, whichever: my point is that regarding "Full Initiates" to the locally
> > important deities as flakes is a curious attitude, to say the least.
> Not any more than regarding the local lawspeaker as odd guy only because he
> is initiated to Lhankor Mhy.
I think they are `odder': the Theyalan norm is that nearly all adult males
are Orlanth initiates, according to KoS. LM cultists are `odd', perhaps
in a similar way as priests might be regarded: figures of respect, but `not
quite one of us'.
> IMO, if any worshippers of the Orlanth pantheon call for DI for
> resurrection, Chalana Arroy will be called upon, maybe indirectly through
> one's own patron deity, but I'm sure the name is included in the prayer.
> If Teleportation is asked for, Mastakos will step in. If help against chaos
> is needed, Urox is the source of the help.
This sounds good so far, since resurrection and teleportation are deemed
legitimate uses for DI for (almost) everyone. But by this rationale, a
worshiipper should be able to appeal for a DI which any member of the
pantheon could do. E.g., an Orlanthi cultist calling for "a hole to be
made in the earth", as Greg's original counterexample went.
And where does this leave cultists in other pantheons, who don't have
associates with Teleport, and may not have ones with Resurrection?
Boris:
> Ah, there's the rub. According to King of Sartar, initiation into the
> culture (i.e. passage into adulthood) is a religious initiation.
Partly. What passage of KoS are you referring to?
> However, the culture's religion is not necessarily any one cult of that
> religion. The analog someone (sorry, forgot who) made to the various
> saints' cults in the Catholic church is apt
> Most folks are just Orlanthi, and
> worship the whole pantheon; they'll drop some clacks in Storm Bull's bowl
> if they hear of broo raids, take turnips to the White Lady if the kid is
> sick, etc.
This isn't a good analogy, I don't think: monotheistic religions are
necessarily more `centralised' than polytheistic ones. In any Gloranthan
pantheon, people will tend to pay lip-service to gods which aren't directly
relevant to them, even though they will be `allowed' to worship them, either
as associates or as lay members, and certainly acknowledge them.
> Now the common folk are not *lay members*, again according to KoS, because
> they have initiated into the culture's religion; they have ties to the
> gods and they worship as initiates.
The `culture's religion' is Orlanth/Ernalda: they worship other gods
principally as associates. I think this is pretty clear from KoS, and
elsewhere, myself, and see no deep problems with it.
> This is the reason I proposed the
> "low initiate" level; according to the literature there seems to be a step
> beyond lay membership that isn't quite the full "cult" initiate level.
There is? Where is this referred to?
KoS does indeed speak of initiation of teenagers, but it also speaks fairly
emphatically about initiation to a specific deity. If people think
'initiation into a pantheon' is a great, or necessary, idea, fair enough,
but I think you'll find it hard to justify on the basis of published
material.
I'm not by any means suggesting that we chuck out the idea of religious
initiation at 15 (or twelve, or whatever), I just mention the possibility
of people refusing cult initiation, if, as Boris brings up as a supporting
argument, they are dithering about which cult to join. Since, according
to KoS, almost everyone joins Orlanth or Ernalda, this isn't likely to be
a common dilemma.
> To be part of the "seven times seven times two" worshippers
> needed to regain those spells. [...] If they were just lay members, many
> more people would be needed, more than most clans would be able to supply.
Lay members don't count at all towards establishing a place of worship, I
believe.
I'm dubious about this idea (i.e., `Low Initiates' counting as a full warm
body for temple size rules, for every cult in a given pantheon). For one
thing, it would appear to mean that if a clan can field enough people for
a minor temple to Orlanth, they can get one for every other deity in the
pantheon 'for free' (and that's a lot of gods...).
However, I do favour a perhaps related idea: that _associated_ cultists
should (at least to some extent) count towards the temple size requirements.
I have no claim to their being a basis in the published rules supporting this,
but it at least builds on existing statuses.
To some extent this also falls prey to my quibble, above, about a possible
rash of temples to miscellaneous deities resulting. (Though less so, since
not every god in a pantheon is associated with every other.) I suggest the
following in possible mitigation.
The associate cultist obviously has to take an active part in the cult in
question: at the very least, they have to turn up for the High Holy Day
celebration (this being the requirement for an initiate to `count'). Maybe
associates would have to turn up at the seasonal
The association between the two has to be 'close' enough: this fits in with
the first requirement, in that there has to be a _role_ for the associate
deity in the HHD ritual of the other. How close a given association is
is likely to be a matter of local importance, as much as anything else.
Maybe an associate cultist doesn't count as a 'whole' initiate for these
purposes, but as some fraction: perhaps the fudge factor could be related
to `degree' of association.
This would be become particularly important where a group of deities are
worshipped together, for example, Orlanth's Hearth, the Lightbringers, the
Brother's Ring, etc, etc. If one of these is considered locally important,
I believe they will be worshipped _together_, both physically and magically,
laying more stress on those particular associations than the GoG rules might
suggest is generally the case.
Frex, a clan might have a group of four or five shrines, under one roof and
commonly referred to as 'the temple'. Each worshipper would still be an
initiate of a particular member of the group, and would take that role in
each ritual, but the majority of the community would participate in each
ritual of each cult. This would tend to reduce the perceived distinction
between the cults, due to the join worship, and each cultist being able to
obtain at most a single spell from each cult, whether his own or not.
(I also think the issue of which spell is taught by a 'normal' shrine to
a given god, and that given as a spell to an associate, should be creatively
fudged to make this connection more useful, in such cases.)
I would contend that this gives an effect not dissimilar to the Seven Mothers
cult, and somewhat like what the advocates for Low Initiation wish, but
doesn't unduly break the existing rules, or more to the point, existing
Glorantha.
This explanation doesn't account fully for larger sites of worship, nor
where the 7M gets its common rune spells from. (The Special spells can be
rationalised as being granted by the associated Mothers.) I personally
tend to think of the 7M cult as being effectively indirect worship of the
Red Goddess, but I think it'd be stretching the point to claim she was the
source of said Rune magic.
> most orlanthi *do not*
> go to cities to worship. Most *do not* go to tribal gatherings to worship,
> or do so only rarely. Most orlanthi stay at home and worship at their clan
> altars and shrines
I agree, but don't see that I rule change is needed for this.
> does this mean that they can't even learn spirit magic?
Learning magic isn't an everyday event: most would be prepared to make a
short journey to do so, or wait until the High Holy day, when gathering
at the tribal temple would be expected anyway.
> No, it merely means that most orlanthi are not dedicated to a single deity,
Why on earth should it mean that? I see no necessary implication here
whatsoever.
> Thus communally they all help establish the divine link, which
> they couldn't do if they were each a member of only one of a half dozen
> cults.
This sounds as if it would make temples more common, and larger, than
published information suggests. Is this what you intend, or just a side
effect?
> I'm not sure whether becoming a full initiate of a cult would sever ties
> to the rest of the pantheon or not
If a `Low Initiate' has access to more cults, or deeper access to its
worship or magic, than an Initiate gets through associated cults, this would
be a little curious. If we must have Low Initiation, it should surely
be limited to those gods worshipped locally in conjuction.
> I tend to think that, in general, it does; any choice has it's bad
> points. And if so, someone who becomes a full initiate of even gentle
> Barntar is a fanatic, because they have limited themselves because of their
> religious convictions. This doesn't mean that they are despised; the godi
> are needed and respected. But ask any catholic, while the priest is
> respected, he's still not really *normal*. Becoming a full initiate would
> be the first step towards priesthood or lordship; not everyone goes all the
> way, but it's on that path. And most folks don't see the need to start
> down it, and see any who do so as at least somewhat strange. Necessary,
> but still strange.
This is directly contrary to KoS's whole attitude about initiation: I really
can't see how you think this is closer to what it describes than the
published rules. It would be one thing to make a Low Initiate status
_possible_, but to make it so prevalent, in the way Boris suggests seems to
be a rather large Retcon.
Alex.
---------------------
From: pyspas@ac.uk.bath.ac.uk (Paul Snow)
Subject: Where and What is Hell?
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Mar 94 13:36:46 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3255
Hi,
I have a question. Could you explain Hell in Glorantha please? A
reference to a sourcebook (preferably in print) would be fine. As far as
I can see the normal Earthly use of Hell is defined by its opposition to
Heaven or as a place of punishment established because of the good/evil
structure of the world. When Orlanth went down to Hell to rescue Yelm
where was he going? Clearly (?) no Hell defined in this manner existed
at that point. If Hell here really means the Underworld as in the
Greek style home for the dead then this seems odd as the universe
doesn't seem to have come to terms with death at the time that Yelm
died. So was Hell created by Yelm's death or did it just happen? When
was it first there and is it by nature a bad/evil/chaotic thing?
Thanks.
---------------------
From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann)
Subject: Grabbing Credit shamelessly
Message-ID: <9403071551.AA03020@cabell.vcu.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 94 15:51:27 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3256
OBIn Friday's Digest, Nick responded to someone pointing out that a
character named "Mohenjo Daro" appeared in Meliasande's Hand in
Tales:
"That character was called "Jarst Daro" in Sun
County. "Mohenjo Daro" was only for his original appearance in Tales
#4.I imagine this is the discerning editorial hand of Ken at work..."
Actually, I was the person who stood on his head and held his breath
until it got changed. My suggestion was to call him "Mojo" Daro. Ken
chose Jarst.
I didn't manage to achieve the same effect on "Laertes" in Sun
County. I did change "Julian" to "Julan" in the (hopefully soon)
upcoming Strangers in Prax.
It always bothers my ear to hear earth names used in Glorantha. So I
guess I would pronounce Laertes "LA-ert-is" (rhymes with Curtis).
I won't even try to spell out how to pronounce Makstan Phillppe....
Mike
>|<
--
-------
Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for
information about Codex Magazine.
"Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" .
------------------------------------------------------/_\
---------------------
From: s.manning@ic.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Runic Universality
Message-ID: <9403071800.AA26970@mega>
Date: 7 Mar 94 18:00:41 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3257
I cannot resist replying to James Polk in X-RQ-ID: 3249.
James wrote:
>I believe that both Magic and what we 20th century westerners
>consider Science work in Glorantha. Given that (and I'm aware a
>number of people don't), it might be reasonable to think that
>sorcery uses a scientific approach while runic magic uses a
>mystical (theological) one. Some sorcerers might even believe that
>using runes for magic leads to rune-ation. :-) (Sorry.) But this
>ay both could be tapping a fundamental force in the universe
>without seeing it the same way.
>
>I would then go further and say that true shamans (spiritualists)
>probably view deities as mere spirits, albeit extremely-powerful
>ones. I suggest such an attitude would therefore mean they
>interact with gods differently. "Give me enough POW and I can
>control a "god-spirit" just as I do a passion spirit."
Well, for what it's worth, I must admit that I agree with most of this,
especially the last paragraph, but I cannot help using the "mental crutch" of
thinking that runes play the an analogous role in sorcery as the fields do in
physics. Concerning the last paragraph I'd therefore go further and say that
sorcerors (OK, maybe GodLearners then) would ask the question "how does a spirit
perform magic?" They'd probably view them as sorcery users, although they'd
admit a certain degree of innate ability, but in the broader sense all of
existence is "magical" in Glorantha, only differing in degrees, so the
boundaries are a little blurred in any case.
Couldn't resist being boring and raising this point again.
Simon.
---------------------
From: eosgg@raesp-farn.mod.uk (Geoff Gunner)
Subject: unsub list eosgg@raesp-farn.mod.uk
Message-ID: <9403072018.AA03537@raesp-farn.mod.uk>
Date: 7 Mar 94 20:18:56 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3258
---------------------
From: pmichaels@aol.com
Subject: Buddhism
Message-ID: <9403071526.tn311589@aol.com>
Date: 7 Mar 94 20:26:45 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3259
A while back (Feb. 23) Hans says:
>Then to Peter: [arhat] as in Therevadist "enlightened". Let me first say
>that Arkat does not come across as someone who has freed himself
>from desire; in fact, he desired time after time to free the world from
>some perceived danger, frex Trolls and Gbaji.
I don
't want to argue about whether Arkat is or is not "enlightened" in the Earth
sense o
f the word. As I wrote, I'm not sure the degree to which I see Enlightenment
and Illumination as analogs anymore. I'm not even sure if what I wrote is
helpful or not. But, I _would_ like to (very quickly) clarify a point about
Buddhism, since I was the one who brought up the Buddhist beliefs. My
understanding is that tanha is not just any desire, it is the specific desire
to seek fulfilment through the self. I imagine that the fact that a person
desires or strives for something does not in itself mean that an individual
is unenlightened. I would think it depends greatly on why the person is
striving, and what they are striving for. The Buddah sought to help others
to reach enlightenment; one might say he desired time after time to free the
world from some perceived danger, frex their own misperceptions of reality,
which caused them pain in their lives.
I apologize for the interruption in your Gloranthan reading. We now return
to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress. ;-)
Peace, Peter
---------------------
From: mcarthur@fit.qut.edu.au (Mr Robert McArthur)
Subject: GRoY
Message-ID: <199403072333.JAA16160@fitmail.fit.qut.edu.au>
Date: 8 Mar 94 14:33:48 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3261
Can anyone provide an address and price for Aussies for the Glorious Reascent
of Yelm?
Thanks
Robert
---------------------
From: Bob.Luckin@tiuk.ti.com
Subject: Unicorn tribe of Prax
Message-ID: <9403072002.AA02474@ibrox.tiuk.ti.com>
Date: 7 Mar 94 20:02:11 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3262
Hello from Bob Luckin...
In X-RQ-ID: 3211, Sandy said
>Durupt Jean asks re: the Unicorn riders
>>Are they the cult of Yelorna and their unicorns are intelligent?
>
>This is what I've assumed. They can't be a "standard" tribe, because
>to ride a unicorn you gotta be a virgin. Since they can't reproduce
>themselves, all tribal members must be adoptees, probably mostly
>refugees from other tribes. I imagine they also purchase or steal
>promising female children from other tribes.
Sandy's "Unicorns" article in the RQ Companion goes a little further. It
points out there are more women in the tribe than available unicorns, and
the the non-riders mate with slave males and produce children. It goes
on to say that many retired Unicorn Riders join this caste, along with all
non-virgin converts.
The write-up of Yelorna in the Big Rubble Common Knowledge book also makes
it clear that not all of the Unicorn Women tribe of Prax are Yelornans.
And Star Ladies (Yelornan Rune Ladies) may marry (Earth or Sky priests only),
provided they are not also Unicorn Riders or Shield Maidens.
> Note that the cult of Yelorna possesses a useful spell which
>restores one to virgin status, if necessary.
This is not described as such in the Big Rubble write-up, but is indicated
by the statement that Star Ladies who are married may divorce and be
ritually purified, regaining the status of virgin, in order to obtain a
unicorn.
Non-virgin Star Maidens (Rune Priestesses) may only be purified once they
become Star Ladies, so it appears the ritual may only be used successfully
on Star Ladies.
Nevertheless, the existence of the ritual gives rise to an interesting
possibility. Perhaps a unicorn rider could take temporary retirement
(sabbatical ?), get pregnant, and then (on becoming a Star Lady, if she isn't
already) be purified and regain her unicorn. Given the ability of most
people to rationalise ways of putting personal preferences ahead of cultic
ones when it suits them (as long as it doesn't happen too often), I can
see this being considered as a "duty to the tribe" when times are hard and
a suitable, attractive mate is available. :-) I'd suggest this might be a
very rare occurrence, but not impossible.
I suspect the ritual of purification might be fatal to any foetus a Star
Lady could be carrying. (If it can be carried out at all during pregnancy.)
But if it wasn't, then this could lead to the phenomenon of the virgin
birth being slightly more common on Glorantha than Earth...
Cheers, Bob
--
Bob Luckin voly@tiuk.ti.com "Able was I ere I saw Corflu"
---------------------
From: marks@slough.mit.edu (Mark S. c/o Tom Yates)
Subject: And then there were seven... ?
Message-ID: <9403080148.AA23721@Sun.COM>
Date: 8 Mar 94 01:48:47 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3263
Mark here, tossing his oar into the ring of Gloranthan
speculation...
In King of Sartar we learn of an Orlanthi myth which
tells of Orlanth destroying one of the mothers of the Red
Goddess at the Battle of Castle Blue. What are we to make of
this? I can think of several possiblities:
One: The Orlanthi are lying. The defeat at Castle
Blue is an embarrassment, so they try to save some face by
claiming to have killed a nonexistent mother.
Two: There were in fact EIGHT conspirators involved
in the creation of the Red Goddess. One was killed at the
Battle of Castle Blue. If this is the case, then there are
several interesting questions we can ask about the eight mother.
What was his or her (or it's) function during the rituals that
brought the Red Goddess into the world? What would (was?) the
eight mother's cult have been like? Was the Lunar cycle
originally intended to be an eight week cycle instead of a
seven day cycle? What weakness does the Lunar Empire have
because of the missing mother?
Three: A mother was destroyed at Castle Blue, and the
Lunars should expect "She Who Waits" to show up slightly after
Godot. Alternately, the innocent Teelo Norri was the only
mother the mighty Orlanthi were capable of killing, and so she
has a little developed cult with no priests or initiates.
Four: Orlanth did destroy an unknown seventh mother
at Castle Blue. The Lunars, wishing to maintain the mystical
significance of the number seven, hypocritically started the
worship of Teelo Norri, the victim sacrificed in the rite
which summomed the spirit that became the Red Moon.
catch you all later,
Mark Sabalauskas