Bell Digest v940601p3

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, 01 Jun 1994, part 3
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk


---------------------

From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Subject: Niches, and compatibility.
Message-ID: <9405311950.AA22600@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 31 May 94 19:50:33 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4278


Nick:
> Alex:
> > I think the _bulk_ of Heortlanders would see being a sorcerer/wizard as
> > being incompatible with most cult vows.

> Among the Greydogs, we see being a Lhankor Mhy Grey Sage as incompatible 
> with normal clan life. But that doesn't mean we forbid our clansmen to join 
> the cult, or burn those who come calling. We just think they're a bit odd. 
> I imagine any wizards among the Aeolians operate in a similar social niche.

I can go for this, and for this comparison.  (Although I think this is
a smaller religious gulf.)  This is why, while I can believe Aeolian
wizardry exists, I'm skeptical of it being practiced en masse.

Alex.

---------------------

From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Invisible God
Message-ID: <9405311951.AA22607@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 31 May 94 19:51:58 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4279


Paul Reilly:
> I think that the IG was immanent in First Age
> Malkionism, and is now considered immanent by some sects and transcendent
> by others.  People should let me know if they want a LONG discussion of
> this; the reason are complex.

Here's a short opinion: he's considered transcendent by almost all sects,
apart from some Stygianists.  I'd be surprised if there was a substantially
different opinion in the first age (he ain't called "invisible" for nuthin'),
but I'd be interested in hearing reasons different.

>   I think the Camranians DEFINITELY consider the IG Immanent.

You mean the "Invisible Orlanth" mob, and cronies?  I agree.

> However,
> I don't know which of the Hrestoli and the Rokari espouse this view; whichever
> one believes, the other must believe the opposite.  Currently I lean toward
> the Hrestoli believing in an Immanent God and the Rokari in a Transcendent
> but I am open to your arguments.

Neither.  Or at least, "no" Rokari sect believes in Immanence, and only a
few Hrestoli ones do.

>   Saints:  I don't think "Saint" is a great word because it has connotations
> of goodness, holiness, etc. which do not apply well to certain Saints such
> as Arkat.

I don't see that as a problem as such; people who worship him think of him
as good, people who don't think he and his worshippers are misersable
heretics.

>   Anyway, I have a LOT of stuff on this subject, and I don't think everyone
> would be interested.

Publish and be damned: or at least, publish until you start to get funny
looks.

Alex.

---------------------

From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Subject: The commandments of the Prophet Petersen.
Message-ID: <9405311954.AA22614@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 31 May 94 19:54:27 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4280


Sandy:
> 	I feel that any Malkioni who attempt to include CA as a saint  
> are considered heretics.

Isn't everyone?

> I'm not sure that saint-style worship would  
> even work for her, though I'm sure they could organize some sort of  
> hybrid Invisible God service and get her Rune magic (just as a shaman  
> could contact her and get magic without really becoming an initiate  
> or priest). In any case, I think her magic would come as Rune spells.

This is an odd argument, given that CA is a cult which explicitly allows
sorcery.  I see no reason why any or all of the following cannot exist:
a Stygian-style IG/CA cult, with (some) CA rune magic; a Petersenesque
Saint-style worship of CA, or a subcult thereof; a cult of St. CA, granting
specialist healing magics.  One might then start to wonder if these were
all the "same" CA, or even the "real" one.  And?

> There have been some puzzling references to saints in the Daily.  
> "Saint cults" "Saint Rune Lords", etc. To clarify matters, here is  
> how the RQ rules are currently intended to support Saints. Anyone who  
> insists on a different system for their campaign has my blessing.

[Oodles of rules for sacking POW to Saints in a quasi-RM-like way]

I like this system, and it (or an earlier, but substantially similar) version
is what I was referring to as "magic granted by manifest saints as non-
wizardly magic".  (To paraphrase myself.)  Please, Sandy, jump on my head
if this characterisation strikes you as fishy.  That is, I think this form of
saint worship is used by some Malkioni, but is rejected by others.  I think
the considerable majority of Hrestoli worship saints in this way, but that
many Rokari do not, regarding it as Stygianism by other means.  These sects
mostly recognise these saints, but worship them differently.  As     ;-)
justification, note that Sandy posted it, and is an obvious Hrestol simp.

> ARKAT'S BLESSING (8 POW): When invoked, the skin and clothing of all  
> illuminated beings within 100 meters of the supplicant turn  
> translucent white. This effect lasts until the next sunrise, and  
> includes the supplicant himself, if he is illuminated. 

This is a weird one.  Doesn't it break the pseudo-rule that illumination
is not magically detectable?  Partly fixable by making it castable _only_
by illuminants.

> [Xemela:]  The  
> supplicant takes hundreds of points of damage, dying instantly in a  
> tatter of bloody shreds, but all her "patients" are cured and ready  
> to return to battle. 

Gro-ooooooooss.

> Loren Miller states:
> >Every worship service is a heroquest. (I think I was the first on
> >this forum to state this flat out, but Greg said exactly the same
> >thing at the RQ-Con Heroquesting seminar.)

Oh yeah?  Quote me an RQ-ID, and I'll undercut it. ;-)  (Greg's been saying
this for at least four years, which must be some kind of record for him.)

> 	Every worship service IS a heroquest, but this tends to unify  
> the cult, not divide it. Most heroquesting does not change the nature  
> of reality, but rather confirms it. Only creative heroquesting as was  
> done by Arkat and the God Learners alters Things As They Are. 

I semi-agree.  But HQs, and hence worship, can be _inadvertently_
extropolative.  "Oops.  I'm sure that mistress race troll wasn't there last
time."  Never attribute to ingenuity that which can be satisfactorily
explained by putting one's size eights in the wrong place.

> re: Malkioni Afterlife
> OPTION ONE: humans are always committing sins because we are evil by  
> nature.

I wonder why the Malkioni would beleive this.  I can thing of two broad
classes of reason: a) humans were created by someone other than The Creator,
and are hence flawed (not a standard M. belief, but an amusing-sounding
heresy); and b) humans were created as good, but fell to Original Sin of
some kind (or were otherwise warped by some bad guy).  Obvious candidates
are Sex, caste transgressions, Tapping, or being got at by chaos.

> But for  
> most trivial sins, the service takes care of everything. If we die  
> with too much sin still on our conscience, we don't receive Solace. 

This probably fits in with a belief in some form of purgatory, since
almost everyone will have at least some deposits in the Sin Bank,
particularly if they died without receiving Final Absolution/the Last
Rites/The Prayer of Solace/Extreme Unction/whatever.

I wonder if many Malkioni believe in Hell?  (A hell for bad Malkioni,
specifically, I'm sure they have rather firm views of what happens to
those Theist Dupes.)  The Brithini simply believe in Oblivion, so their
views may colour the thinking of the others.

> Penances  
> include: pilgrimages, crusades (if one's ongoing), public humiliation  
> or confession, fines, mortification of the flesh, etc. 

Saying two dozen "Praise Malkion, Bringer of Truth"s; becoming an exploding
Xemela devotee.  Whatever's wrong with just _starting_ a crusade?

> OPTION TWO: humans are bi-natured. Part of us wants to sin, part of  
> us wants to do good.

Or that we're inherently good, but are corrupted by the world of the
flesh, with its Manifest Evils, and so on.  Otherwise, reasons for
being partly bad as above, I suppose.

> 	Penances can help us because they count as automatic Good  
> deeds. On the other hand, they're unpleasant, and we can get just as  
> many brownie points by simply doing the right thing in our everyday  
> life.

This has the interesting consequence that one can benefit from doing a
"penance", without having actually done anything wrong.  (If a penance
is a good deed, and doesn't merely cancel out a bad one.)  Thus some
excessively guilt-ridden sects (rogue Rokari, or extremist Hrestoli)
may do this at every possible opportunity, just in case they some thing
bad later, or just to get as good as possible in any event.

> I suggest that one of these two ways of getting to heaven be chosen  
> by the Rokari and one by the Hrestoli. Any suggestions on which is  
> which? I rather like Option One for the Rokari, as it seems to be   
> more "practical" and guilt-ridden, while Option Two is  
> internally-driven -- you kind of choose for yourself what is right  
> and wrong in a Zen-like way. So Option Two sounds more Hrestoli to  
> me.

I agree mostly.  But I'm sure many Hrestoli also consider that they'd
be "saved by grace", or a similar concept, stressing some form of belief
more than the above.  I bet lots of variously bizarre and credulity-
stretching combinations and  are thought up by individual sects.

Another reason to approve of a Rokari preoccuppation with Bad Deeds is
because it mirrors the Brithini idea of avoiding doing bad things, since
they precipitate eventual death.  Some Rokari may actually believe this
is literally true for them, too.

Malkioni don't (apparently) appear to believe in Final Judgement of any
(wholesale) kind, so presumably you go to Solace (or not) as soon as you
die (or via purgatory, perhaps).  This raises the question of whether
Saints are the exception to this (if one believes in manifest saints),
or if one can be In Solace and In the World simultaneously.  The Chaos-
obsessed sects are presumably the ones most likely to believe in an
apocalypse of some kind, and (possibly) hence a Final Judgement.

An entertaining Stygianist variant occurs to me: most people go to their
"theistic" afterlife when they die, as a kind of purgatory.  After a
while there, they may be allowed to go to Solace.  This might be true
where there is dualist worship of the "good" IG and a "bad" manifest deity,
or where the theist afterlife isn't so much a Purgatory as a not-quite-so-
nice preamble to Solace, rather than being actively unpleasant.

Alex.

---------------------

From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Subject: Sandy's God Learner side gets in touch with the rest of him.
Message-ID: <9405311955.AA22621@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 31 May 94 19:55:52 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4281


Sandy:
> 	There has been a general assumption on the daily that "God  
> Learner Construction" = "abominable falsehood". This, combined with  
> the many other attacks and jabs at the God Learners, means that many  
> folks writing here on the Daily are as hostile to the poor dead  
> Second-Age bastards as are the superstitious and barbaric  
> Gloranthans!

Why, thank you!

> 	When something is a "God Learner Construct", that doesn't  
> necessarily mean it's wrong! Quite the reverse.

Well, depends on what we mean by "wrong", doesn't it?  One could argue
that the Jrusteli monomyth isn't an "invention", it's a "discovery".  After
all, the events of the Godtime are obviously historical facts, preserved and
embodied outside of normal Time by the compromise as the Godplane, and only
intervening time and muddle-headedness has obscured the details so that
they appear to the untrained observer, to be different, or even conflicting
"myths".

On the other hand, it could be _pure_ invention.  The Myths are just that,
based loosely on some historical figure, perhaps, but mostly fiction.  These
myths give rise to what we now think of as the Godplane, which as it
originally came into being, had entirely separate strands for each local
group of deities.  The fact that many different peoples now agree that the
same entities appear in their myths is merely a reflection of the lies and
propaganda spread by the GLers, and the irrevocable damage done to the
Godplane by their munging together of orginally distinct myths.

> 	The GLs "discovered" Kolat's importance, but it's probably a  
> result of their realization that Umath must have somehow spawned all  
> the sylphs and storms of the world. The GLs then discovered that  
> Umath did so by spawning one giant sylph-thing, which broke up into  
> sylphs and storms. The GLs called this briefly-existing entity Kolat.

They called him Umbrol, by the looks of it, in that capacity.  This seems
the most obvious GLism.  One wonders why they didn't go the whole hog and
only have one name for Kolat/Umbrol: this suggests to me that both names
were pre-existing, though possibly applied to different entities.

> It doesn't mean there's a personality-possessing entity called Kolat  
> alive today, or ever alive (except for that brief moment during  
> Godtime before he fragmented). But the GLs feat in discovering this  
> fact doesn't mean that there was never any Kolat. Just that they  
> found out about him. 

If there were no myths about Kolat before the 2nd age, then this is as
near invention as makes no difference.  I suspect that the GLers may have
done no more with Kolat than "tidying up and tying together" his (existing)
myths, and identifying him with Umbrol.

> 	The GL effort to make sense out of the varied  mythology of  
> Glorantha, and their subsequent creation of the Monomyth should be  
> highly appreciated by all Gloranthan scholars. Though the Monomyth  
> teems with minor flaws, I submit that the various warts and lesions  
> on it are trivial compared to the great advantage in having it to  
> work with. The Monomyth is a _useful_ construction.

There are two sides to this, though: certainly they made it easier to
understand (if only in the sense that an omelet is easier to understand
than three eggs), but they also actually munged the very thing they were
documenting, losing some of its variety, its local colour, its immediacy.

> 	On occasion the GLs have been attacked because of their  
> "unscientific" nature. I submit that they were highly scientific.  
> They created hypotheses, tested them using the scientific method,  
> discarded theories based upon their tests, and so forth.

You must have missed my "favourable" comparison of the GLers to earthly
taxonomers on those grounds.  On the other hand, is science an appropriate
tool for discussing mythology?  This isn't an idea which is in vogue on
earth, at the moment.  (Though some of those ol' Senate books on Mythology
harp on about "the modern science of".)

> 	But the crimes of the Middle Sea Empire I feel were  
> outweighed by their triumphs.

Pro: neat cult writeups.
Con: destroyed a continent or so.

I see your point. ;-)

Alex.

---------------------

From: garydj@ditard.dit.gov.au
Subject: Musings
Message-ID: <9404317704.AA770432882@ditard.dit.gov.au>
Date: 31 May 94 16:08:02 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4282



I have been playing an Illuminated character.  I have been thinking
about this character and what she wants to do and to say.  This has
set me to thinking about the nature of Illumination.

The rules detail what a character gains by becoming Illuminated but
not what they lose.  I imagine what is lost is more important than
what is gained.  Someone recently posted the idea that Illuminates
lack a feeling of guilt about their actions and it is this guilt which
spirits of reprisal home in on.  I think that Illuminates lose part
of themselves in becoming Illuminated.  It is this loss which drives
many of them insane.  I expect that the loss of part of themselves is
the basis for the abilities they have (immunity to spirits of
reprisal, not registering to sense chaos/law).

While I'm not sure what Illuminates lose, I see it as being both
constricting and protective.  Therefore, because until recently she
knew of no other Illuminates in her part of the world, I imagine my
character lies awake at night fearful of the darkness which the world
names Gbaji.  She envies the certainties by which others live, but
knows they are not absolutes, merely different choices.

Maybe when Nysalor lived within the world, he taught how to face and
overcome the fear of Gbaji and how to realize the moral potential
granted by Illumination.  But since he is dead, the Illuminate must
find her own way.

I think the loss of part oneself through Illumination may mean a
character loses more than just their old perspective on the world.
For example, my character is friendly with a character who is a seer
and has nightmarish visions of the future.  This other character is
not Illuminated, but wants to become Illuminated.  I think she
will lose her oracular gifts if she is Illuminated, although I don't
think she realizes this.

Anyone else have any ideas on what a character loses in becoming
Illuminated?

Gary James

---------------------

From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
Subject: Strike Ranks without melee rounds
Message-ID: 
Date: 31 May 94 22:49:27 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4283

Peter Whitelawin  X-RQ-ID: 4258

> WARNING: The following section is GL'ism...

Nope. Its rules. And interesting (to me).

> Has anyone every wrankled at the neat little packages that Strike Ranks are
> grouped into?  By this I mean Melee rounds.

I once tried to use a Gunslinger-like set of options and a time-band to 
place the players' and NPCs' actions on. The options were various modes 
of movement, manual actions or combat actions, as well as penalties for 
wounds, fatigue, surprise or change of intent. It worked quite well for 
a war game resolution, but we didn't bother to apply it in actual 
roleplaying. Something to do with playing style, I guess.

If anybody came up with a less mechanical but as orderly solution, I'd 
like to see that.

-- 
--  Joerg Baumgartner   joe@sartar.toppoint.de

---------------------

From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
Subject: Nick's Wenelians
Message-ID: 
Date: 31 May 94 22:51:03 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4284


Nick, in X-RQ-ID: 4257

> Me, I think a lot of Orlanthi have Hsunchen ancestors: just think of those 
> Bulls and Sheep and Cats worshipped all over the place. This tendency comes 
> closer to the surface in Wenelia than in other places I've seen -- not in 
> traditional Hsunchen one-animal clans, but tribes where Fox and Lion and 
> Boar and Stag people all work together, and intermarry, and worship gods as 
> well as totem beasts (like they do in Rathorela these days).

While I agree broadly with this theory, I still think that there were 
a lot of descendants of Orlanth's stead around throughout the Barbarian 
Belt. I think the Dawn Age Theyalan missionaries did not just convert 
Hsunchen, they also searched for and found the "lost tribes" of Orlanthi, 
spread well into the West.

These need not necessarily have been direct descendants of the Kero Fin 
tribes. I envision quite a lot of nations of hill people descended from 
lesser goddesses of the land (powerful Oreads) and the host of Vadrus 
(whoever he was) sweeping over Genertela, who were contacted by the 
Theyalan missionaries.

I don't think that we ought to differentiate between Hsunchen and other 
humans in the Godtime and Dawn Age as much as we have to do after the 
God Learners invented the Hykimi. The ability to change into one's 
phylum seems to have been wide-spread in Godtime. Yelm seems to have 
been able to do so (how else do we explain King Griffon?), Ironhoof 
seems to have reawakened this creating the Grazer tribe, Triolina 
still is (although in a different way), Paul claims this for all 
darkness creatures. The Praxian ancestors and founders are depicted as 
part human, part beast, and King Heort with his antlers looks similar.

Maybe the (EWF) Remakers ignored the Hykim connection and 
caught their creatures somewhere in the transition stage? (see 
below for the durulz)

The Hsunchen descent:
GRoY introduced "new" hill barbarian peoples, like the Ram people 
with their deity my God Learner secretary recognized as Heler, or the 
cattle people. (Do all the finger goddesses relate to some Hsunchen 
tribe which at some point became aggressive towards Dara Happa?)

The Dara Happans say they descended from Uldoviham. (Does this make 
them somewhat like the Japhetites christian scholars of the early world 
conquest (by Spain and Portugal) pretended to find throughout the 
new continents?)
Anyway they too say that these people descended from animals and 
humans, conceived during the early stages of the lesser darkness 
already. Excuse my God Learning, but the Kralori legend of Wild 
Man comes to mind, who mated with all kind of nature. But the 
host of Vadrus did the same, didn't it? Urox' mating of Eiritha also 
fits this bill.

Would it be presumptious to say that Grandfather Mortal was a Vadrudi?

Hmm, again at my pet theme of human origin... Back to the beasts.

Heler was adopted into Orlanth's stead - probably along with his 
people. Cattle had been in the family for a long time - Urox and 
Eiritha did bring their children (outside of Genert's garden) into 
Orlanth's stead, both animalic and human. Yinkin had been family 
from the outset. Elmal and Ernalda's horse-loving daughter (any bids 
for her name?) brought in the mountain pony. The pig people, led by 
a descendant of Orlanth, separated from the Stead after the Arrowmound 
judgement.

Of the other animals kept by the Orlanthi I fail to draw Hsunchen 
connections. Neither the Dog People to the north-east of Kerofinela 
nor the goat people also located there during Urvairinus' reign were 
admitted into the stead, and I doubt that any fowl people (except 
the durulz, who just might be duck Hsunchen cursed to stick in an 
intermediate form, having lost their shape-change powers) were 
admitted into the home of the slayer of the Solar Emperor.

The post-Compromise admittance of the Ralian Hsunchen into the 
Orlanthi fold apparently did not result in new husbandry for the 
hill barbarians.

[Gods of the Wenelians]
What happened to Entru and Entruli? The Entruli people? King Lalmor and 
the Vathmai tribe which settled Slontos? How did the God Learner 
occupation of Slontos change the Wenelians? We see what happened to 
the Ramalians?

Why the Sow Mother, and not (male) Mralot? Or are both worshipped? Do 
any of these relate to the Aram-ya-Udram story?

Is Wendel more a human hero (like King Heort, inhuman though he appears), 
or rather a Trickster deity? Both?

What makes swords so rare in Wenelia, when the joint forces of the 
Holy Country regularly are beaten by Greymane and his sons?

> [re: Tsarist Safelster]
>> Whereupon we get _another_ load of freedom loving Orlanthi fighting
>> evil oppressive foreigners.

> "Another"? Where's the first? 

In Jonatela, for starters...

> If you want "bad guy" Orlanthi nearer to home, look at what the Wenelians 
> are doing to Esrolia. The bastards.

In what regard are they worse than the Porthomekans? At least they leave 
again...

-- 
--  Joerg Baumgartner   joe@sartar.toppoint.de