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, Fri, 20 May 1994, part 2 Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM Content-Return: Prohibited Precedence: junk --------------------- From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott) Subject: Spirit Sorcery? Message-ID: <9405191320.AA01151@vinga.hum.gu.se> Date: 19 May 94 22:31:38 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4077 A few days back, "TRexHavoc@aol.com" posted some stuff from "The Prospectus for Heroes of the King" (whatever that is): >"Battle Magic or Spirit Magic > "The average adult Sartarite clansman or woman has three or four spells >which are probably used everday. >These spells are learned as a normal part of the culture, and are nearly always >successful when used. >"Most people have a set of secondary spells as well, which they are not >likely to need everyday. These are less likely to be successful, > These spells are not always successful, nor ar they simply based on some >>statistic. > >They work more quickly and efficiently when they are used often, and so a >Humakti's Bladesharp is probably more likely to work than an Elmali's. This sounds a lot like having separate skills for each spirit spell, or perhaps one skill for commonly used spells and another one for esoterica. Is this the direction RQ is taking? Who wrote this stuff anyway? Jonas --------------------- From: sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com (Sandy Petersen) Subject: now see here Message-ID: <9405191522.AA10268@idcube.idsoftware.com> Date: 19 May 94 03:22:01 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4078 MOB sez: >I side with Nick is because having the Malkioni as a bunch of >squabbling heretic haters is ***LOTS MORE FUN*** than the wimpy >eucumenicalism promoted by the other view. A) having the Malkioni capable of accepting the sainthood of an individual outside their religion is NOT full-blown wimpy ecumenicalism. B) and in fact, having them be a bunch of squabbling heretic haters is NOT more fun, at least in my own campaigns. Consider. If your players are Malkioni portrayed in this way, then they find it hard to cooperate with characters from other backgrounds and, more importantly, will tend to have trouble getting along whenever they leave their territory. In addition, when your non-Malkioni characters visit Malkioni lands, presto! they're instant anathema and can barely travel at all. Admittedly, my campaigns are not specialized things set in one little corner of the world, as it appears many other (very fine) campaigns are. Rather, I like going on long trips, visiting the Nidan mountains, sailing along the coasts of Jrustela, etc. Hostile locals are often integral to my stories. But having hostile locals covering as huge a swath of the world as all the West is too much for me. I'll admit that I also ignore the comment in GENERTELA that Kralorela is forbidden to outsiders. I think Greg made a serious error in doing that. What fun is a land you're not allowed to visit? It may as well not be there. My entire career in writing about Glorantha has been an attempt to make it accessible and available to players to visit. Anyway, that's why I don't like witch-hunting prejudiced Malkioni. But clearly, if my campaign were set solely in, say, Heortland, and my Malkioni were all NPCs, I might feel quite differently. --------------------- From: DevinC@aol.com Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 19 May 1994, part 1 Message-ID: <9405191536.tn285040@aol.com> Date: 19 May 94 19:36:20 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4079 Devin Cutler here: MOB writes: "After 15 years of RQ I thought I had finally come up with a legitimate use for this pretty much useless and costly spell," Costly yes. Useless no. I will admit the usefulness is not worth the cost, but still the spell has uses. It is especially useful for sneaking up to an enemy encampment downwind and listening to the battle plans going on inside of the leader's tent the night before battle. In a sense, the spell functions like the AD&D spell Clairaudience. Re: Pavis Personality List: Also on the Pavis personality list, what about Riveps, the RIverside Thug from the Krang's table adventure. Also, what about Delfron the Butcher from that same scenario? Finally, what about the diseased man in Badside from the Devil's playground adventure (I forget his name)? Andy writes: "To which I must say: I respectfully disagree. There are numerous sects of Jews (many of whose members believe they are getting weekly or daily updates from God) and whose views differ diametrically. " I am also a Reform Jew, BTW. What you say is true, but I defy anyone to prove and I would be amazed if anyone on this net would even suggest that Yaweh/God/Allah is as directly active on Earth as the Gloranthan deities are in Glorantha. Ancient times aside, in modern times, I have never seen someone able to call on God to save them from, say a robbery or death in a war and have it happen in a direct and provable manner. In Glorantha, gods answer close to 10% of all calls for Direct Intervention! Somehow, I don't think that same rate applied to, say, Allah's intervention on behalf of his worshippers in Desert Storm. The point is, for example, every Humakt worshipper has probably witnessed, several times in even a short 5 year career, a Divine Intervention of direct and physically manifestible nature. He has also probably seen someone's sword shatter in his hands. He has witnessed the casting of Humakt's Divine Magic and has probably cast such magic himself. Also, despite what you claim about certain sects of Judaism claiming to commune with Yaweh on a daily or weekly basis, I find it hard to believe that they are communing in as direct a manner as Divination. And, while Divination can sometimes be murky, in every published Gloranthan scenario where it has been mentioned, it seems to be fairly informative, even in an allegorical way (e.g. Gaumata's Vision). Regards, Devin Cutler --------------------- From: DevinC@aol.com Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 19 May 1994, part 1 Message-ID: <9405191537.tn285074@aol.com> Date: 19 May 94 19:37:15 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4080 Devin Cutler here with part two of a long post: Joerg writes: "If it fails to have an internal set of rules, it will be found lacking if continued over a longer time, since the inconsistencies will amount to glaring errors." I never stated that Literary worlds did not need to be consistent. I stated that they may be consistent in a more complex manner, since it is the RESULTS that need to display consistency, not the inner workings (i.e. the rules). For example, a literary creation might be consistent by showing that it takes great effort to cast a spell at more than one person, but a rules creation must define exactly the mechanics, exactly how much effort is expended, must decide how to quantify that effort, decide how fast the expended effort is regained, decide what exactly constitutes another "person", etc. "Even a rules/world combination as obsessed with details and realism as Harnmaster/Harn does little more than describe how the world works." And by all reports the Harn system is unplayable, both by overly complex rules in certain spots where it does try to mimic its rich literary tradition, and by gaping holes in the rules where it does not. "I thinnk you fail to see that this diversification has also the aim to leave the GM space for his own imagination and creativity. If I couldn't twist at least local phenomenons to my gaming purposes, _then_ the world would become unsuitable to _my_ gaming. I stopped playing other systems, on other worlds, for just these reasons before." I personally favour minor subcult variations and local variations in "colour" or "flavour". What I don't approve of is the need for an entirely different cult with different spells and different initiation and ordination qualifications, etc. What I don't need, for example, is Elmal, Antarius, Yelmalio, Ku-what's his name, and any number of other Yelmalio avatars. I think Sandy said it well in the May 19 daily (which I deleted, so I cannot quote) Joerg continues: "Interesting. Would you classify me as a scholar, or as a gamer?" First, no one, hopefully, is an absolute. I don't archive my dailies, so I can't say for certain. Being well-learned does not qualify one as Scholar, IMO, but saying things like "forget the initiaion rules in RQ...I'm talking Glorantha!" or starting to claim anyone who brings up a rules issue is a God Learner/RQ2 bunkhead is a definite sign of Scholarhood. Such things have been said by various persons on the net. "Untrue. The game mechanics are a vehicle for gaming, little more. Unless certain mechanics come up sour, to discuss them is to me like comparing sport cars - a pastime I wouldn't take part in." Well, then maybe you are a Scholar after all -) A game mechanic can be unbroken, but could still be improvable, no? "It wasn't, but that's not the point. The scholarly pursuit of themes Gloranthan to me is another level of gaming." Undeniably true, but when the Scholarly level is promoted at the expense of the Gaming level, then I think priorities need to be rethought. As you can see by some other postings to this daily, and as I have seen by private emailings, there is a large body of Gamers lurking on the net (they might even be a silent majority) who feel very unwelcome and intimidated by the daily, not just because the level of discussion is high, but because rules concerns and gaming aspects of Glorantha are treated hostiley. The daily used to have a nice mixture of scholarly debates and "useful" information such as cult writeups, magic items, etc. Except for David Dunham's posting on various dictionaries, and my recent posting of two magic items, there hasn't been much exchange of "gaming" type info on this net for quite some time. "So you would object if another part of game world history was revealed? Sorry, but this happens to all game worlds alife. You do want new game material, don't you? Then do you object if this contains historical details previously unmentioned? Buy generic scenarios, then." You have misinterpreted what I said. I love new material. I crave new material, I lambasted Greg personally for not producing enough new material. What I am railing against is not new material. I am railing against taking what little material is out there and changing THAT. "Who said Kolat was a GL construct? Burn that man! The GLs _claim_ to have constructed Orlanth, Humakt and Yelm as well (the False Gods)." It was mentioned somewhere in a daily posting (or maybe an RQ4 playtest posting). It was mentioned as being a published fact, and since I don't own GRoY or any of the recent Convention generated material, I presumed it authentic. In anycase, there has been a tendency to act as if most gods are GL constructs, but this gets into Mythic Relativism, which is another topic. " Do you blame the scholars for trying to minimize the damage done to campaigns?" No, I have openly condemned Greg for actions like the Yelmalio/Elmal switch. What I do condemn is the recent tendency to start applying this type of switch to other gods (i.e. Humakt is Orlanth Honourable, Urox is Orlanth Berseker, etc.). "I hate monolithic game worlds, which strangle my imagination. Any game world with a fixed number of cults to divine entities to me generally sucks." NOTE: This may not have been Joerg's quote, my copy function got messed up I hate monolithic worlds too, almost as much as I hate completely entropic worlds that change at whim -) Seriously, I would rather see more deities as opposed to more cults. Rather than having various areas worship different aspects of Humakt, simply have them worship a different death god. This I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is stating that an area DOES worship Humakt, but then later telling me: 1) The Humakt they worship is completely different from the writeup 2) They really don't worship Humakt, that's just God Learnerism. They really worship X Let's decide on the major deities of the pantheons, and leave local variations to minor spirit cults and demi gods. "Then you don't allow for local cult heroes? Or is there a high holy day broadcast of cult heroes, transmitted via satellite to every cult centre, describing the hero's deeds, and rewards?" I do not mind subcults which ADD ON to the "generic" worship of a god. I do mind regional variances which look nothing like the cult writeup in GoG or CoP or Cot, etc. and which change the very basic worship of the god. As stated before, I like local colour and flavour. I do not like multiplicity. "And don't you see that this cult diversity even allows you to retain your RQ2 Sword Sages of Lhankor Mhy and Sword Priests of Humakt? Bugger the rules changes, if I want my Issaries Rune Lord, I play it, and claim that his community still has this rank. This is a gamers' tool, not a scholars' construct." Tis far better, IMO, to develop consistent rules and let the GM add diveristy than to develop inconsistent rules and expect the GM to create consistency. "Did it ever strike you that all these discussions we have here are based on the same divinations (sources) we all received, and that our opinions and interpretations differ greatly? And we _do_ have a means of immediate communication between different centres of power." But Greg is not a god (at least not yet -)) and he does not command the same weight of words as Humakt. If Greg (who originates most of the "divinations (sources)" you are talking about) were Humakt and was telling me that something is true, then I would hardly be engaging in a debate over his pronouncements. Our interpretations over RQ stuff differ becuase Greg is not trying to make godlike pronouncements, and because even if he were, we could safely question or ignore them. " If something was constructed at any time during history or myth, _now_ it is reality. If the report about its having been constructed is accurate at all. Face it: Glorantha has always been a world subject to change by interference with the myths." Not so, although this gets into an argument between absolutism and relativism. As a GM, I use a world like Glorantha to game in because I want to be presented with a world in which to run a campaign. If Glorantha is to become a mish mosh of conflicting concepts where nothing is true and nothing is false, and at every step of the way I have to decide what is true and what is false, then why not just create my own world? What's the point of using Glorantha as a game world? The fact that something is real now doesn't mitigate the fact that many of us like a world with a history...you know, events that happened in the past that provide insight into the current situation. A world with a rich history is one of my requirements as a choice in which to game. Glorantha had the richest history out there. Now, it seems not to have a history at all, at least not before the God Learners. Devin Cutler --------------------- From: 100116.2616@CompuServe.COM (David Hall) Subject: What the Wizard said was wrong Message-ID: <940519203412_100116.2616_BHG64-1@CompuServe.COM> Date: 19 May 94 20:34:12 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4081 I stand by Nick in his views that "the idea that all Malkioni saints are recognised and worshipped by all of the sects (is) ludicrous, and will not countenance it." Sandy's responds: >I don't agree. Here's why. Unlike Earthly saints, Malkioni >saints give actual magic powers to their devotees. Clearly, there are >no "false" saints, especially since any saint must gain his powers >from the Invisible God. This would seem to me to make the beliefs of the worshippers of the various sects of Malkionism irrelevant (and merely game contructs). Whether you believe in tapping or caste mobility the one true Invisible God does not care. As long as you worship from the Standard List of Saints you are fine and dandy. However, Sandy clarifies this with: >>Even if you belong to a sect committed to the primal sin of Tapping? >Okay, I'll back down a little bit. I now believe that there >ARE certain "Saints" accepted by fringe heresies that are rejected by >the mainstream sects. These obscure saints may have tapped, or some >other crime. So the Galvosti and the Borists are now fringe heresies. Presumably their saints are "false" and fail to get magic from the Invisible God? I wonder if a Galvosti who has Gerlant as his patron saint gets magic, or is he denied this because he is of a "false" and fringe sect? What's the view on Castes? Are the realist Rokari or the idealist Hrestoli "fringe" sects? Does the Invisible God deny one or other his magic? Gosh! What about the Castle Coasters - they think there is a fifth caste! Heresy! Ughh! I don't believe any of this. In Glorantha belief and faith lend substance to religion. The Galvosti believe that tapping non-malkioni is correct, and is Malkion's and the Invisible God's commandment. And so it is, for they believe it. Saints are commonly heroes, martyrs, or role-models for those who follow Malkionism to look up to and emulate - those who are holy to the Invisible God. Therefore, it is ludicrous that each sect cannot create their own saints - saints which epitomise the theological and social differences of their particular form of worship. Those who are holy to their understanding of the Invisible God. Because of the differences between the sects it is only natural that a Saint of one sect is another sect's anathema. Saint Rokar, who who instituted the caste immobilty of the Rokari, is not recognised by the Hrestoli. There are some who may try and claim that there is only one true Invisible God from whom all powers come. This is false and it is true. It is false since the powers are different for each sect, as different as their theological doctrines, and thus the source is surely different. However, it MUST also be true! For surely there can only be one Invisible God? Indeed, once we all worshipped Him following the precepts of Malkion and Hrestol. Surely we can do this again? If only we can all get together, thrash out our minor disagreements, and in the Holy Spirit of the Compromise, found a United Church of Malkion! Join us at the 7th Ecclesiastical Council of Malkion at Sog City University in Storm Season 1625 and together we will forge a new creed. One for all and all have Won! --------------------- From: carlsonp@wdni.com (Carlson, Pam) Subject: Religious titles, Storm Bull Follies Message-ID: <2DDBDDE2@itlab.wtc.weyer.com> Date: 19 May 94 20:43:00 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4082 Howdy, all! Having finally gotten in touch with my sadistic side, I've started to run Risklands/Dorastor for some of my more unfortunate pals. I like to add small role-playing details, to make the NPC's seem more real. Lately I've been wondering if there are any standard forms of respectful address commonly used, particularly within the major cults. How does one address an Ernalda acolyte? ("Mother"? "Sister"?) A Storm Bull kahn? ("Warrior"? "Big Brother"?) How about a Humakti, a (Y)Elmalian, Orlanthi, or a Lunar official? Also, one of my PC's is a Storm Bull worshipper exiled from Prax. The Lunars let him take his wife and a few bison, so he has a herd to guard and care for. He wants to join the Templars outside of Hazard Fort instead of farming the stead with the other PC's. (The Praxian swears he'll starve before he digs like a slave.) While I can't fault the role-playing logic, I'm not sure how the Templars would feel about a part-time member. Once the Templars found out that this new guy had actually been to the Block, they decided he was at least an acceptable candidate. Peacock told him that he would have to undergo an initiation into the Templars.... I'm planning something like an fraternity hazing, Urox style. Any ideas? Off to plan for that delicate Dorastor balance between Challenge and Certain Death - Pam <^==@ /\ /\ (This, John, is keyboard-crypto for a nordic-type dog - my other hobby). BTW- if anyone in the Western USA is interested in rescued Akitas, drop me a line. --------------------- From: Argrath@aol.com Subject: True/False Dichotomies Message-ID: <9405192110.tn297173@aol.com> Date: 20 May 94 01:10:39 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4083 Re: Scholars and Gamers I have to disagree with Devin Cutler, Nils Weinander, et al. on the scholar/gamer dichotomy (while thanking Devin for bringing up a new and interesting topic). I believe this is a false dichotomy, because scholars are a subset of gamers. Scholarship (if you want to call it that) has deepened my appreciation of the game and enhanced my roleplaying. Instead of having information presented as objective facts, I can appreciate and develop my characters' personal and cultural beliefs. The Elmal/Yelmalio business, for example, only gives GMs the opportunity to develop complexity in their world. Any GM worth his salt can explain to his players, "Yes, I told you all these things about Yelmalio which you, as players, now know to be false. But your characters still believe it, so you better act that way!" You can even hint (if you want to be tricky) that other things that you've given them as gospel truth are in doubt. As third age Gloranthans, my characters don't know half of what I know. On the other hand, they have the kind of day-to-day knowledge which I lack. The scholarship, the nitty gritty what- the-cult-of-Orlanth-in-the-Lismelder-tribe-is-like stuff, adds to my appreciation of the game. It also keeps me going between games, since I have a hell of a time finding decent players within reasonable geographic proximity. And I'd much rather discuss how the "real" Glorantha works than talk about whether the damage bonus table needs changing. I liked Joerg's response too, and generally agree with it (to the point of not picking any nits, at least). Re: high and low sorcery This is part of the attempt to make sorcery work in a social sense, by restricting some spells to specialists. I forget which spells got designated "low" and which "high." --Martin ---------------------