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, Thu, 10 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: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) Subject: Re: Initiation Message-ID:Date: 9 Mar 94 08:35:38 GMT X-RQ-ID: 3272 Alex Ferguon in X-RQ-ID: 3260 [Alex, after stating that adulthood initiation needn't be religious initiation] >>> what's wrong with the existing rules? [me on non-religious initiation] >> 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. I'm defending Glorantha against RuneQuest, so to say. 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.) An initiate of Humakt the noble warrior as worshipped in the Holy Country would have serious identity problems in a Carmanian Humakt temple. I proposed the local significance as a drawback to low initiate state, none the local initiiates notice as long as they stay at home. When travelling farther than the next two cities, why not let them experience scenes like: "What do you mean, lay member? Can't you see I'm an initiate?" "My son, what your priest led can hardly be called an initiation, you didn't even recover Heler's chalice from the jaws of the dragon. How can you dare call yourself an initiate?" "Noone ever told me of Heler's chalice. I had to catch the bull with a stick and a rope!" (etc.) > What I wanted to know was how 7M membership, > and subsequent transfer to YT, say, would be treated under the proposed rules. The existing fuzzy link to all mothers would be redirected to YT. The other deities would remain associates, and a few more associates would enter the picture. If the initiate decided to join Jakaleel as well, she'd have to sacrifice a point of POW. I don't know whether it would be possible to fade out of one cult (e.g. Danfive Xaron), become a "general" 7Mother initiate, and then move on to YT without resacrificing at one point, and at least talking to DX's spirit of reprisal. > 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'. 'Course not, they can read and write, know anything you ask them, and so on. However they too take their half-team of oxen, join with another and plow their fields like any of us (KoS: p.212, 1618 entry). >> 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. It would be unusual to ask Ernalda (or other earth deities) for other things than protection (shielding) or healing. > And where does this leave cultists in other pantheons, who don't have > associates with Teleport, and may not have ones with Resurrection? They get the long end, obviously. Sky worshippers might ride on a ray of light instead of teleporting, but only providing some star or the sun shines on their venture. Loonies are associates of almost everyone in a one-way fashion, and where they aren't, they'll have stolen the power. Trolls might get their resurrection from Yelm (via Xiola Umbar), or might have to undergo a ritual of rebirth. Often one obscure Hero-cult would have the means to accomplish such feats. > 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? pp.239 and 242. >> 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 Among others, I think Greg himself once stated that catholic saints cults resemble a polytheistic religion more than a monotheistic religion. > 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. The way RuneQuest presents cults, each is a monotheistic religion which happens to acknowledge other deities besides it. That feels wrong to me. > 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. The only hints how associate worship works I remember are from Biturian's travels, the Paps and the Aldrya scene, where Norayeep is allowed to participate in the inner rites while Biturian isn't. A set of fully fledged examples certainly would help. >> 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? Expressis verbis in GoG for the cults of Aldrya and Yelm. > 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. Again I point to Norayeeps welcome as quasi-full initiate to earth ceremonies. > 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. KoS doesn't give account at all to all the Yelmalio/Elmal worshippers in Sartar. From the information I have seen it appears that almost a full third of the popuation follows the Sun god of the hills, whoever that is, and more so among the Volsaxi (see the Nightjumpers). There are whole clans and tribes which aren't accounted for in the account on Orlanthi. >> 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. Not in RQ3. Now (RQ:AiG) it seems a number of lay members can make up for an initiate, and that intensity of worship can make up for numbers. A place of worship is held up by constant sacrifice of magic to/in it. Initiates with full links can donate their magic directly, lay members need more mediating, thus are less effective. > 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. If you manage to get all of them to play an active role in the services, then you'll have your temple. Which makes seasonal increase in "temple size" a reasonable thing - if these clanspeople want to sacrifice for special magic, they can do so only once or twice per year. > 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. For which a set of examples would help a lot. I'm not speaking of a list, more of a set of stories. > 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. Which is quite what I had in mind with low initiates. [example deleted] > 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. The 7M cult is the (civilized, degenerate - choose after your preferance) institutionalisation of all associate praxis. Like a lot of Lunar praxis, it is bending/adapting the rules. Large sites of worship get less of all their associates into their services to minor deities, although total numbers and devotion might be similar. >> 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. Then your local smith will be cut off his divine magic. (Smiths were rarely allowed to travel, once they had settled somewhere, for fear they might not return.) >> 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. This wouldn't work. There is a limited number of priests with Spellteaching, and their capacity would remain unused throughout the time in between. >> 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? It is the same direction RQ4 goes. -- -- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de --------------------- From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried) Subject: Sorcery (again!) Message-ID: Date: 9 Mar 94 08:53:01 GMT X-RQ-ID: 3273 Greg Fried here. I thought I'd post a private mailing I sent to Nils Weinander a little while ago in the hopes it might provoke some helpful discussion. Nils, I agree with your thoughts on the differing schools of magic. Your ideas on Eastern sorcery are very close to my intuitions, and for many years I have been thinking about how to 'formalize' a more 'intuitive', rather than 'rationalist' (ie, Western/Malkioni) magic system. This is a VERY difficult project, and I haven't come too far. But I will sketch out some of my ideas. First of all, I also conceived of this magic system as Rune-based. Each Rune has a primary, 'obvious' meaning (in some cases, it may have several such primary meanings, eg, the Air Rune is both air and storm). The magician gains power over the Rune through intuitive insight. But the Rune may also have secondary, or even tertiary (or even further) meanings. For example, the primary meaning of the Death Rune is death, but a secondary meaning might easily be pain; a tertiary meaning might be hate; a very distant meaning might be transcendence and separation (as in moving from one plane of existence to another). A novice magician will generally only make use of the most obvious meanings of each Rune in casting spells. I think of the runes as encapsulated poems. When we first learn to study poetry (I hope this analogy works for you!), we usually only 'get' the most obvious level of meaning in the poem. So too with beginning magicians. As we get more sophisticated, we discover deeper layers of meaning in the poem. If we get really proficient with language and criticism, we might make really wild and inspired interpretations of a poem. SO too with the Runes. The whole thing is about interpretation. Think of how different gods embody different interpretations of the same Rune. The 'meaning' of, say, the Harmony Rune as possessed by Chalana Arroy is different from that of Aldrya, and different again from Pavis. Or think of Death as possessed by Humakt and by Zorak Zoran! Or Truth as possessed by Humakt and Lankhor Mhy. The Eatern magician works with the same openness to interpretation of the Runes, but without the intermediation of the gods. The Runes are ways of both making sense of Glorantha's reality, and of manipulating that reality for magical effect. But they are still interpretations and have no absolutely fixed meaning. A god is linked to a certain range of interpretations of a Rune. Humakt will accept those who understand Truth as Honor, but also those who interpret it as mere obligation to sworn contract. The Eastern magician chooses not to bind himself to a narrow range of interpretations of a Rune; this is why he takes the path of sorcery, rather than cult (although we must assume the existence of cutls that encourage sorcery, too). For the Eastern magician, the highest accomplishment is to master the Runes like a great poet masters language. The great poet can give a meaning to a word we never knew it had -- but as soon as we hear the poem, we realize that this meaning was there all along! The great Eastern magician gives a Rune a meaning we might never have thought it had, but succeeds in manipulating the world with this interpretation nonetheless. OK. That's the general idea. The problem is: how to formalize this with a set of rules, especially since the whole thing is based on the idea that this form of magic is all about interpretation and the defiance of rules! One thought I had was that each Rune should have its obvious, ordinary meanings which just about anybody, even layfolk, would accept. Then each Rune has its uncommon meanings, then its rare meanings, and finally, its extraordinary meanings. Technically, such categorizations are not fixed. An unusual interpreation of a Rune might become commonplace. Most people will never be aware of the rare or extraordinary interpretations of a Rune. Even novice magicians must set out on a path of interpretative discovery. And just learning that a Rune has a particular, extraordinary meaning (say, transcendence for Death) does not mean that the magician UNDERSTANDS this meaning and can use it proficiently. He must gain that inutitive insight. Just like you or I might learn a new dictionary meaning of a word -- just because we've read the definition doesn't mean we are now comfortable USING the word in this way. ANother way of thinking about it is that you can spend years in a foreign language class, but (unless you are genius with languages), even though your FORMAL understanding may be perfect, you still can't USE the language well when you visit the land where it is spoken. I have thought that the Eastern magician should have a base spell casting ability. Each spell is then made up of a combination of Runes. The more obvious the interpretation of the Runes used in concocting the spell, the easier it is to cast. So, a sorcery equivalent of Disruption might be Death + Disorder, where Death indicates Pain or Harm, and Disorder indicates the manner of the delivery of this Harm. This would be relatively easy. But another magician might cast it as Disorder + Earth, where Earth is interpreted as flesh and blood, and Disorder is interpreted as the damaging of the body understood as Earth. This would be harder. How to QUANTIFY such things still escapes me. Surely, employing common, uncommon, rare, and extraordinary meanings of a Rune should make the spell more or less difficult. But should the sorcerer have a single base chance,or should it be possible to 'specialize' in particular Runes? I would hope the latter. One sorcerer might be very good with the Death Rune, while another is a specialist with the Truth Rune, or the Fire Rune. Whatever rules are developed should require the GM to do a lot of interpreting himself, within certain guidelines, to adjudicate whether the sorcerer is using a common or a rare interpretation of a Rune. To continue with the poetry analogy, I think most of these sorcerers will have a collection of very simple spell 'poems' which they know they can rely on. THese would resemble spirit/battle magic. They would be as familiar (and moronic) as childrens' nursery rhymes, relying on very basic understandings of the Runes. But like a good poet can invent poetry on the spot, the Eastern magician should be able to 'compose' spells on the spot. THis should be mush riskier -- and more fun and interesting! These are just the very beginning ideas for a system. If it is at all to your liking, let me know. I can dig out my old notes and we can work on it to -- GF out. --------------------- From: heiskanen@eemeli.enet.dec.com (DC/PTG) Subject: Whitewall Message-ID: <9403091819.AA00948@vbormc.vbo.dec.com> Date: 9 Mar 94 18:20:28 GMT X-RQ-ID: 3274 Hello Everybody, Antti Heiskanen here Can you tell what has/is/will happen in the siege of Whitewall? Only info I can find is Genertela Book, which only says that Lunars will conquer it soon. Thanks -antti --------------------- From: ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham) Subject: Issaries; Bronze/Iron Age Message-ID: <199403091921.AA14071@radiomail.net> Date: 9 Mar 94 19:21:17 GMT X-RQ-ID: 3275 When RQ3 came out and took away Issaries Rune Lords, I was sorely disappointed. Partly this is because my first RQ character was getting really close to becoming a Rune Lady of Issaries. But now that I'm reading about Vikings, stuff like "the sea-going merchants were armed and knew how to use their weapons" makes me sigh. The Trader Prince priest doesn't come close. Is this simply because the Orlanthi aren't into trade to any serious degree? (I don't think so, because after all, Sartar gifted the Grazers with their first Issaries temple.) Certainly an Issaries Trader Prince could be a warrior (though they still have DEX limits in Gods of Glorantha), but their cult skills and spells don't encourage this. So who is the brave explorer, searching out new trade routes? I suppose it still has to be Issaries, but he just doesn't seem that adventerous. On the RQ4 Daily Digest, Joerg Baumgartner said >Apart from using a strangely red form of not-so-called iron which is >produced somewhat strangely, I can find _not a single case_ where >Glorantha is not perfectly iron-age. Iron age began around 1100 BC when >the Hittites started mass-producing iron, which had spread to central >Europe by 500 BC (which is from when the Wayland saga from the Rhineland >stems, which details the making of refined steel, not only iron). The >late Hallstatt and the full La Tene culture, commonly known by the name >Celts, had the widely spread usee of iron for weaponry and tools. When the >Celts first contacted (and conquered) Rome, they were armed with iron to a >man. > >If you look at the classical world, the use of bronze for weapons seems to >end around 800 BC. Homer still used bronze as synonym for most weapons >in the Iliad, but he may have collected oral tradition. The Doric invaders >into Greece had the one-time advantage of iron technology over Achaean >bronze weaponry, but the Achaean refugees to Asia minor adapted quickly. and Brandon Brylawski said >I would like to second Joerg and affirm that Glorantha is an early iron-age >culture whose iron is called bronze. Gloranthan bronze has the strength of >iron, after all( you can make a longsword or two-handed sword out of it). Which makes me wonder about my non-Gloranthan campaign. I'd been using bronze and iron because I liked the two levels of metal. Would steel be as much better than iron as iron is to bronze? What weapons couldn't be made of terrestrial bronze (I disagree with Brandon since Peter Connolly's _The_Greek_Armies_ says, "Many bronze swords have been recovered. THey are rapier-like weapons with a strong mid-rib.") David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams