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, Wed, 25 May 1994, part 5 Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM Content-Return: Prohibited Precedence: junk --------------------- From: Argrath@aol.com Subject: More on historical revisionism Message-ID: <9405241955.tn446278@aol.com> Date: 24 May 94 23:55:58 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4148 Devin: You mention as an example of how the historical revisionism of Glorantha messes up your game "an ancient ruined temple to Kolat that was supposedly sacked in the First Age." This is not a good example, for reasons I'll get to shortly. I'm not saying there aren't any examples, just that this one isn't. Worst case scenario: the GLs did invent Kolat. Possibility 1: they invented him out of whole cloth, with no preceding cult. In this case, either the temple was to some other air god, possibly one who is now no longer worshiped, or the temple isn't really first age. Possibility 2: they invented him, using an existing air god as a template. The temple is that prior air god's. How can your characters, in the third age, tell whether the temple is Kolat's, some connected air god's, or some unconnected air god's? I submit they have no way of knowing for sure, based on the remnants of the temple. "Hmm, there's part of an idol here--it must be Kolat." For a take on the essential bogosity of archeology, see _Motel of the Mysteries_ (and I say that as a person with an Anthropology degree). Even if your characters heroquest back in time, there are two possibilities: one that the GLs changed the past already, to accord with their ideas. The other that they didn't, and the characters get confused. But I submit that that is a pretty darn unlikely off chance. You further say, "No amount of Heroquesting is going to retroactively create a First Age Temple for a god created in a later age." I beg to differ, and cite as my authority Greg Stafford's comments at the Heroquest seminar at RQ Con I. Much the same reasoning applies to Sandy's "millennia-old gbaji-worshiper who was a shaman of Kolat." Maybe he's mistaken as to who he started out worshiping. When you get that old, doesn't your memory weaken a tad? But Sandy's example seems to be contradicted by the discovered role of Kolat. If he's just a place-holder in the theogony, then he never had a cult. But, Devin, then you can ignore this and say, "Well, the locals *claim* it was a first age temple to Kolat, and who are you to refute them?" Re: local variations Devin sees "gifts, geasa, spells, Priestly requirements, [and] initiate requirements" as things that ought not to vary between cultures, within a cult. Ah, but does Humakt _care_ about such matters? As someone else said, all he cares about is keeping 'em dying. Aden Steinke raises much the same point. To which I reply, but just because cult structure A is pleasing to Humakt, does that mean that cult structure B is not pleasing? I agree about the outer limits of variation--no Humakti assassins, no chaotic Orlanthi (unless all in the temple are illuminated, of course). But check out the Humakt write-up from TotRM for some reasonable variations (like the lottery swords). Re: effect on the game of excessive scholarship I submit that the scholarly dialogue on the Daily is needed precisely because supplements like Dorastor and Strangers in Prax lean very heavily toward scenarios and encounters, as opposed to background. I see no danger of driving people away because of the existence of a small coterie of hard-core fanatics to whom Glorantha is more than a gaming world. If people are bored by or (heaven forfend) intimidated by the Daily, why do they read it? If you want to complain about the discussion on the Daily, though, I can suggest a few topics for consideration. (Let's not and say we did.) :-) Re: What's in It for Me? I was glad to see Boris touch on something I feel needs to be addressed in our ongoing discussion of religions in Glorantha. This is the fact that much of the benefit of any religion is psychological, often depending on the fact that one is helping one's god. "Yeah, I sacrificed half my soul to my god. No, I didn't ask for anything back. He needs the soul force more than I do, in beating back the hordes of darkness/chaos/light." Re: Nick's People's Tribune Hmm, a Gloranthan Paranoia scenario? Ken must be pleased. --Martin --------------------- From: 100102.3001@CompuServe.COM (Peter J. Whitelaw) Subject: Odds and Sods Message-ID: <940524233708_100102.3001_BHJ32-1@CompuServe.COM> Date: 24 May 94 23:37:08 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4149 S. Phillips says: >It is really bringing out the worst in everyone. >Myself included. (see the above and the below) >But if you *want* an argument... >For a start You're quite right of course. I rather suspect that I should bite my keyboard and count to ten before replying to postings but, what the heck, it's more fun this way. It does occur though that by discussing this ruddy subject we are guilty of 'scholarly' digression ourselves. Arrrgghhh. Just so long as we, none of us, take ourselves too seriously... At the end of the day there are no gamers or scholars, I suppose, just different perceptions about the best way to 'explore' Glorantha. So long as we all try to be tolerant of one another's viewpoints then I am sure that this can be a harmonious and productive forum. Has anyone ever noticed how few questions ever get answered here? Sometimes the Daily seems to me rather like a group of acquaintances standing in a circle and all trying to shout their views louder than everyone else rather than a group of friends discussing a subject dear to all their hearts. When I joined the Daily I posted a 'Hi I'm new here, hello' kind of message. any replies? Not one. Someone else asked about the Gagarthi (Chris someone) did he get any answers? Not one. I asked if anyone wanted me to post a load of non-Gloranthan material for your perusal, delectation, comment or even dismissal. But one lonely reply. I ask again: I HAVE SOME NON-GLORANTHAN CAMPAIGN NOTES ON DISK FROM A FRIEND'S CAMPAIGN. CULTURES/SOCIEITES/GODS ETC. DO YOU WANT TO SEE THEM OR NOT? S.Phillips quotes me: (gee, thanks for reading it) >>Well yes Nick, they do but I thought that this was the _RQ_Digest. ;-) > >Hmm! This may be a bit obvious, but.. > >>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. ^^^^^ > >And would you have found it if it was the RQ&G_Digest or just the G_Digest? >"Nya!" to *you* for a start. OK it's a fair cop. You got me banged to rights there 'n no mistake. Although to answer your question, yes because a fellow RQ'er told me about it. Nya.***** Devin asks about campaigns. Well for what it's worth, I do not consider myself a Gloranthan expert by any manner of means (although I know more than my players, which is all that one needs to know IMHO) but my current campaign, set in Prax (yeah, OK cop out, I know), is very much in the non-heroic mould. In fact in 13 or so years of RQ we have only ever had, IIRC, one character qualify for Rune level. Mortality is obviously a factor but we tend to prefer a grittier, harsher, lower-key style. Of course, this is purely a matter of taste. To be honest I would be the first to admit that by playing RQ/Glorantha at this level we are probably not doing justice to the richness of its mythology or its breadth. We tend to busy ourselves with the dynamics of the clan and the inter-personal raltionships of its members (the party are members of a small Zebra clan that lives a traditional Beast rider lifestyle on the plains) rather than global events. Being the products of an ancient tradition the party are only interested in other cultures only inasmuch as to how they might exploit them. They have enough trouble understanding why those crazy Sun Domers ruin perfectly good grazing land by planting weeds on it without wondering what lies beyond the sea (which they have never seen anyway). They get just as much satisfaction from putting one over on the Storm Bulls as they would from solving some great riddle. And, despite some fairly intense play and the level of experience that they are beginning to achieve the are still more interested in getting their hands on a fine beast than a purse full of gold. Their main concern at the moment is that the sister of one of the party, having given herself to the Storm Khan to lessen his well-deserved ire at their nominal (but, nonetheless young and inept) leader has found herself with child as a result of this union and has been cast out of the clan (at the Storm Khan's insistence [he mat be tough but he ain't stupid]) for the shame she has brought on her guardians. How to find this sister? Is she still alive? What of the child? Can they avenge her honour against the Storm Khan? The horns ('scuse the pun) of a dilemma. Like I said, low-key but we find so much potential in the knots that social groups can tie themselves into we have found little need to range far and wide. All the best, Peter :-% --------------------- From: lindsell@rschp1.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) Subject: Rules on the list, Gods, Ralios... Message-ID: <9405250348.AA23039@Sun.COM> Date: 25 May 94 18:24:04 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4150 Graeme Lindsell reluctantly entering the fray: jdegon@vega.iii.com writes: >I dislike the amount of conflict that has been engendered by Devin's >comments about the content of the daily. Total agreement from me here: if people want the Daily to have more rules topics, then post and dicuss them. I must admit to seeing very few followups of rules articles on this Daily, they tend to post and then vanish. The RQ4 list has also been responsible for absorbing most of the rules articles for the last year or so, but since RQ: AiG is in limbo that's died. Arguments about whether the list has an agressive scholarly bent are IMO more pointless than the most abstruse discussions, since I don't get anything useful out of them. Of cousre, this is Henk's list, and he has the final say over what goes on here, if only because he can pull the plug on it if he wants To start a rules related discussion: In River of Cradles I noticed that the requirements to become a Storm Priest have increased significantly: the Storm Priest now needs 90% in 3 skills. In fact, there isn't a single rune level in any of the RoC write-up that deosn't need at least one skill at 90% (I include the shamans of Daka Fal, as only a fool would wan't to try to create a fetch without 90%+ Summon). Is this part of a deliberate move to make rune levels harder to attain, or is it only a change in Orlanth? In Dorastor: Land of Player Character Disposal Services Dorasta and Telmor still have the old 50% in 5 skills for priesthood or acolyte status. Aden Steinke writes >Otherwise you are saying that the Gloranthan Gods are not 'real' self willed >entities with likes and dislikes. If behavior or structure is pleasing to >Humakt in one place it should be pleasing in another. They're not: they may be real, but they certainly have far less free will than any mortal - something usually blamed on the Compromise but which may be far more fundamental to Glorantha IMO. Gloranthan gods appear to have less free will than the Greek gods - you never see Orlanth paying a faithful (or at least brave) initiate a personal visit, or Uleria manifesting to seduce a handsome man. As for whether they're real or not, I found the presence of Shargash in Dara Happan mythology as confirming that these gods do have a real aspect. I wonder how the Dara Happans reconcile the similarity between Shargash and Orlanth? My feeling on the matter is that the inhabitants of Glorantha can worship how they please, but those who worship the more primal (more real?) god tend to be gain more powers and benefits from their worship. I see Spirits of Reprisal more as results of breaking local social prohibitions than a reaction of the god. Of cousre the worshippers may choose to HeroQuest to change the "primal" god to be closer to the one they like. >Gary Newton submits: A Modest Proposal For Safelster While it's interesting, it seems to be more replacing Renaissance Italy with Tsarist Russia, which had similar wide open spaces and oppressed peasants. This isn't to say I don't like the idea: in many ways I prefer the russian idea to the Italian one, which seems a case of "lets design an area that's great to run adventures in!" -- Graeme Lindsell a.k.a lindsell@rschp1.anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University, Canberra. "I was 17 miles from Greybridge before I was caught by the school leopard" Ripping Yarns - Tomkinson's Schooldays. --------------------- From: WALLMAN@VAX2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (Close friend of Little Elvis) Subject: Q: Is there a crafter deity? Message-ID: <01HCQH4MCWMA000FUZ@VAX2.Winona.MSUS.EDU> Date: 24 May 94 18:38:26 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4151 Is there a deity in Glorantha dedicated to crafters and artisans? Argan Argar, Etyries, Issaries, and Lokarnos are for traders and merchants. Lodril is the only god I know of with a general craft as a cult skill. None of these seem to fit. Almost every facet of Gloranthan life seems supported by divine power. Even loosely organized thieves have their gods. Where does a dedicated craftsman turn? --------------------- From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Subject: Re: this silly Scholar-Gamer thing Message-ID: <199405250603.OAA21518@melomys.cs.uwa.oz.au> Date: 25 May 94 06:04:58 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4152 I think that the scholar/gamer dichotomy is primarily an artifact of our medium - on the Daily we have a chatty medium, well suited to the exchange of impromptu essays and leisurely discussion of Glorantha, or tricky rules questions for that matter. The Daily is not well-suited to discussion of actual games, because very few of us game together due to geography, and the sort of questions that are of suficient interest to yourself and others that you will ask them in a public forum some hours after they occur tend to be gloranthan. Also, much of the rules discussion has sort of spun off to the rq4 list. So the Daily is stuck with lots of Gloranthan discussion, which can easily get out of the mainstream supplements and into the realms of the unpublished or hard to find. I think that the real issue seems to be those that want a Glorantha that is simpler and more comprehensible, and those that want a Glorantha that is more complicated and ambiguous. I do not think that this issue is ever capable of resolution. Many of us (revealing my own position) find that one of the best things about Glorantha is that Gloranthan religion and history is ambiguous. All of us appreciate that it is devoid of 'alignments', and that its deities do not have stats written up somewhere, or maps made of the otherworld. All of us basically like the Gloranthan approach to religion, which is that the vast majority of people consider themselves to be the good guys, and those other guys to be kind of weird, and none of them are wrong or right in any objective sense. It is a logical step to say that different people have different views of each others history or mythology, and that the empirical facts of the matter are difficult to discover, hence the way many people have been so quick to embrace seeming contradictions in the rules like the Elmal/Yelmalio thing. Some of us love ambiguity and complexity. The only point where this starts to matter is when you start to think about the effects on the game. And this is where the whole issue evaporates. I can argue Gloranthan scholarship with the best of them (witness my discussion with Joerg on the rq4 list about the precise composition of the Lunar College of Magic), but I suspect that when you come right down to it a lot of this stuff impacts on our actual game very little. And the reason why is precisely because of the multiple points of view that make RQ such a good game. To take the Elmal question, I know the true situation, maybe some of my players know that the religion of Yelmalio worship is only a few hundred years old under that name. But the PCs don't know it, and most Sun Domers don't know it, so the effect on the game is effectively nil. Should they go a heroquesting, then they will find everything as they expect it, unless they deviate from the one true path in certain ways, and then they ask for trouble. Should they visit a first age temple of Yelmalio, they might note that some things were different then - but I have always assumed that the entire culture was going to have changed a lot over time, so the first age people where always going to have very different worship practices. Part of the real problem is the availability of information and the lack of indexing and cross-referencing, and it is never going to be solved (at least until RQ sells a hell of a lot more). Part of it is the lack of supplements and such so that people who want to set heroic adventures in unusual places, and they will likely have not enough information about it. But the choice of wether you prefer your game world clear cut and not liable to change, or wether you like it filled with opposing points of view and ambiguities, is pretty much a matter of style, and unsolvable, and arguing about it is silly. It is not a question of scholarship - after all to be caught by the different versions of Kolat you needed to have taken an obscure deity, mentioned only a few times and never with any game information, and then based a scenario around it, which sounds like some scholarship is involved. For the record, I prefer more high powered campaigns, but generally because I like my players to be big wheels in the mesocosm, so if playing in an Orlanthi town I would rather my players were Wind Lords than farm boys. I like to emphasise the societal side of things, I also like to emphasise myth. Cheers Dave Cake ---------------------