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, 03 Nov 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.
X-RQ-ID: index
6824: watson = (Colin Watson)
- Spirits in fetches and such
6825: joe = (Joerg Baumgartner)
- RQA #4
6826: dave_cordes = (Dave Cordes)
- Visable Fetchs ???
6827: erisie = (Sven *Erik Sievrin)
- Re: RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 02 Nov 1994, part 1
6828: pheasant = (Nick Eden)
- Population problems.
6829: 100270.337 = (Nick Brooke)
- Esrolite Defence
6830: ddunham = (David Dunham)
- Marriage and Esrolia; Lunars vs Orlanth
6831: gadbois = (David Gadbois)
- Re: The Nature of Gods, Myths and Heroquests
6832: jonas.schiott = (Jonas Schiott)
- Rumors of Orlanth's death much exaggerated; the Myth Poll.
6833: davidc = (David Cake)
- Evils of the Doraddi
6834: M.Hitchens = (Michael Hitchens)
- Re: The Nature of Gods, Myths and Heroquests
6835: nam = (Nicholas Marcelja)
- FTP site for Glorantha??
---------------------
From: watson@csd.abdn.ac.uk (Colin Watson)
Subject: Spirits in fetches and such
Message-ID: <199411021413.OAA14987@pelican.csd.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: 2 Nov 94 14:13:21 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6824
_____
Simon:
> >Yes, but I thought these were just features of the different binding
> >enchantments rather than differences in the way the spirits worked. You
> >can't use the MP of a bound Intellect Spirit because that's not what
> >Bind Intellect Spirit is meant to do.
>
> That only takes into account bound spirits. Remember, these spirits can
> also be put into a shaman's fetch. In this case there is no binding
> enchantment to determine what the spirit can do, so it comes down to
> the nature of the spirit itself.
That's a good point, I hadn't considered spirits in fetches. But, the way I
understand it, a spirit held in a fetch isn't nearly as useful as one which is
bound into an item. A spirit held in a fetch will only perform 1 service
before it must be freed eg. a Spell Spirit might cast 1 spell for you.
What does this mean in the case of an Intellect spirit?
It allows you to store one spell using its INT before sailing off into the
netherworld (with your spell)? Not entirely useful.
Admittedly, the creature's description says that Intellect spirits can be
used when held in a fetch, but this somewhat contradicts the guidelines on
Captured Spirits if it means they will serve indefinitely.
____
Erik:
> I do not like the thought of "POW spirits", "Magic spirits" etc
> either.... I prefer the thought of rabbit spirits, sundered dwarves,
> pieces of dead gods etc, with the way you use it being dependent on the
> spirit binding
That pretty-much says it all.
Of course, the munchkin in me asks: Why should my sorcerer bother binding an
"Intellect spirit" with (typically) 1D6 INT when I can have a Magic Spirit
with 3D6 INT or Ghost with 2D6+6 INT for the same price? That's the main
upset I see in letting the binding spell (rather than nature the spirit
itself) determine the functionality of the enchantment.
So I guess the cost of the enchantment should reflect the magnitude of
the spirit. An "intellect binding" for a 3D6 INT spirit should maybe cost
3 times as much as that for a 1D6 INT spirit, or something.
> And maybe there is a similar function for a shaman who keeps spirits in
> his fetch
I think the "1 use" rule works fine for spirits held in a fetch: They'll
cast 1 spell; or supply MP to power 1 of your spells (even if it's not a
Power spirit); or perform 1 other service, then they are free (unless you
command them into a proper binding enchantment).
___
CW.
---------------------
From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
Subject: RQA #4
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Nov 94 16:03:34 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6825
RQ-Adventures issue 4 will be reprinted for the European distribution
in Germany, as soon as we get the master to do so.
I cannot say when, though, I haven't heard anything from California for
a while. Probably everybody over there is busy organizing RQ-Con 2,
which might be a realistic date to expect a number of releases...
RQA 1-3 should be available in British game stores soon, too.
--
-- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de
---------------------
From: dave_cordes@cl_63smtp_gw.chinalake.navy.mil (Dave Cordes)
Subject: Visable Fetchs ???
Message-ID: <9411021831.AA17139@Sun.COM>
Date: 2 Nov 94 01:54:39 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6826
CL QM-SMTP gw Visable Fetchs ???
David Dunham X-RQ-ID: 6820
>You succeeded, but didn't Critical, in your Library Use roll. According to
>the errata (no doubt posted somewhere the Internet-enabled can get it),
>Visibility is a ranged spell.
Actually we have the errata. But our GM has not yet decided which, if any,
of the changes he is going to incorporate into our game. He keeps asking us
what we think. (dangerous question). And since there are 6 of us involved he
generally gets anywhere from 5 to 8 opinions (some of us like to pretend
we're illuminated). So my lack of a critical Library Use Roll was based on a
mistake of perceptions. We have not yet incorporated the errata, so I didn't
think to check it before quoting the book.
>>Or the spell could be cast by a shaman's fetch while the shaman was on the
>>mundane plane.
>Can you explain the logic for this capability? The only mention of fetches
>casting spells is while the shaman is discorporate. Given that a corporate
>shaman's spirit appears single, I don't think there's grounds for
>considering the fetch as a separate, spell-casting entity.
Since we couldn't find written game constructs for how shamans handle
spirits, fetches, etc. Our GM decided how certain things should work. In
particular, how a shaman gets a spirit from the spirit plane to the material
plane. Our GM ruled that a spirit which a discorporate shaman defeats on the
spirit plane, can be stored in his fetch (if the fetch has sufficient magic
points). However, once the shaman returns to the material plane he can only
use that captured spirit if he can get it transfered to the material plane.
Since the fetch is on the spirit plane then any spirits that it is holding
are also on the spirit plane.
Our procedure for a shaman collecting spirits is:
1. Discorporate.
2. Find a spirit that you want to keep or use.
3. Defeat the spirit in spirit combat.
4. Demand an appropriate one time service from the spirit.
- or -
4. Ask the spirit it's true name and then set it free.
- or -
4. If the shaman's fetch has sufficient magic points, store the spirit in
the fetch.
5. If the fetch has more room continue looking for spirits. Repeat steps
2-4.
6. Return to the material plane.
7. Prepare an appropriate binding to hold the spirit.
8. Summon the spirit from your fetch to the material plane. This requires
the appropriate summon spell. (ie Summon Wraith, or Summon Magic Spirit).
9. Defeat the summoned spirit in spirit combat and order it into the
binding.
- or -
8. Leave the binding in an accessable place and discorporate again.
9. While on the spirit plane have your fetch, who is now on the material
plane next to the binding you left, order the captured spirit into the
binding. Then return to the material plane
10. Use the spirit that you now have stored in a binding as you wish.
Knowledge of the appropriate Control spell will allow you to use the spirit
more than once since you will be able to order it back into the binding when
it is done.
Examination of these procedures will indicate some considerable limitations:
a) A shaman cannot use a spirit in combat unless he has it stored in binding
on the material plane.
b) Storing a spirit in a fetch is only a temporary control. A shaman cannot
order a spirit that is stored in a fetch to effect the material plane. If a
shaman orders a captured passion spirit to attack someone. When the fetch
releases the spirit it is on the spirit plane and cannot therefore sffect
anyone on the material plane. The only exception to theis are INT and POW
spirits. If a fetch is holding a POW Spirit then the shaman can draw on
that's spirits manna. Likewise an INT Spirit that the fetch is holding can
be used to store spells.
c) Both of the techniques used to capture spirits require the shaman to know
either the summon or the binding spells for the spirit they wish to capture.
My arguement against some of these rules was that if a shaman already knew
the summon and binding spells for the spirit type he was looking for, Why
would he ever go hunting spirits on the spirit plane? He is much safer on
the material plane. There he has the use of his fetch's power for defense
during the spirit combat. On the spirit plane he is all alone.
d) If a shaman wants to be immediately effective in dealing with the
material plane he will have to be a walking storehouse of bound spirits.
Summoning or hunting down a spirit everytime you need one is just too time
consuming.
This brings me to the answer to David's (nice rune, by the way) question.
The logic for having a fetch cast a visability on itself would allow the
fetch and the shaman to interact together on the material plane. Then the
shaman could avoid the repeated spirit combats or the repeated
discorporations. He could store the defeated spirit in his fetch and then
return to the material plane. There he could prepare a binding. The fetch
could cast a visability on itself. Then when it appeared it could order the
spirit into the binding.
But since it has been pointed out that a fetch can only cast spells while
shaman is discorporated I guess we're back to repeating ourselves again.
Either that or we just sit around and summon spirits, and not bother to do
any spirit hunting on the spirit plane.
But I do have another reason for arguing for incorporation of at least one of
the errata corrections.
David
---------------------
From: pheasant@cix.compulink.co.uk (Nick Eden)
Subject: Population problems.
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Nov 94 18:17:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6828
In-Reply-To: <9411010816.AA26201@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM>
>unless Greg wants to tell us that
>Sartar has a population of about ~500,000 - or the 180,000 is adults only
IMHO King of Sartar is wrong. I don't know if it's deliberately wrong,
but I suspect that it's part of the historical tradition of exagerating
numbers. From the figures given in KoS we find that Sartar has a
population density on a par with the modern United Kingdom. (Which is
higher than that of the USA)
Many real historical documents multiply numbers by ten or more in order
to make the king that's reading them feel important.
I'm not very convinced by clans that are 1500 people big either. Surely
with 1500 people about you don't need to worry too much about inbreeding?
Any genetics experts out there?
---------------------
From: 100270.337@compuserve.com (Nick Brooke)
Subject: Esrolite Defence
Message-ID: <941102180306_100270.337_BHL42-2@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 2 Nov 94 18:03:07 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6829
_____________
Michael asks:
> Does anyone agree with me that the God Learners seem to be winning?
> The myths of all cultures seem to be evolving towards each other into
> the mono-myth.
Nope. In fact, the monomyth of the Second Age is falling apart, and the God
Learners are all dead and gone. BTW, why do you think the confusion which
surrounds the whole Elmal/Yelmalio business on all sides is somehow reinforcing
the monomyth? It seems to be doing quite the reverse!
___________
Pam writes:
> Still, Esrolia has held its own against more warlike neighbors
> because its clans are very willing to work together against
> outsiders. Whereas the Lunars can pit one Sartarite clan against
> another, and the Grazers steal each others' herds, Esrolian clans
> stick together like earthworks.
Esrolia has *never* held its own against outsiders. It was run by the Trolls for
the First and Second Ages, by the Pharaoh in the Third Age. Right now, in the
absence of an external central authority, there is a godalmighty civil war going
on there, with the Red Earth and Warm Earth and Old Earth and who knows what
other factions kicking the crap out of each other. Even under the Pharaoh, the
regional dynasties were always scheming and plotting against each other; and now
it's far, far worse.
> Esrolia is actually a fairly egalitarian society, but it looks
> oppressive to foreign men, who are used to doing only 35% of their
> society's work....
"Work? Work!?! We're heroes, I'll have you know! Why should we get our hands
dirty working in the fields, when there's Quests to be done?"
Which is to say, I agree with you completely! The consonance of Esrola =
Asrelia, given that Asrelia is an archetypal Temple Treasurer Goddess, is
particularly useful when working out how Esrolite society looks.
> What do the Lunars do with the baby giants? (Horrible thoughts come
> to mind...)
Urg. You don't think this is the Red Emperor's insatiable lust for horny boys
all over again? Well queried. I shall not sleep well, tonight.
====
Nick
====
"Remember how she said that we would meet again, some sunny day?"
---------------------
From: ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham)
Subject: Marriage and Esrolia; Lunars vs Orlanth
Message-ID: <199411021911.AA08970@radiomail.net>
Date: 2 Nov 94 19:11:42 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6830
What I'd like to know is, is RuneQuest Adventures #4 out yet in the USA?
Pam Carlson contends
>Marraige performs two
>roles in (most) societies: it ensures males that they have sole access to
>their wives, and that the children are their own. It also ensures females
>that they will have committed economic help raising their offspring.
From your individualistic viewpoint, you're forgetting another extremely
important role of marriage: it forms ties between two families.
Also, marriage is a universal institution in human cultures (my anthro book
says there's only one exception). Even in matrilineal cultures, where males
could care less if the children are their own (they care about their
sister's children). Or cultures where women own land.
Said anthro book explains marriage as solving 3 problems: sharing products
of a division of labor by gender; how to care for infants dependent for a
long time; how to minimize sexual competition.
Note that in King of Sartar, Esrolian women say that polygamy is acceptable
[28]. As well as polygny [228].
BTW, my take on Esrolia is that it can't be all that different from Sartar,
in that they're related -- Colymar, founder of the largest tribe, was
Esrolian [130]. Which is why I've said before that "land of women" is
something of a foreigner's stereotype. While many of the models proposed
for Esrolia make sense, I think it's essentially Orlanthi (Theyalan) in
culture, but ruled by a theocracy whose leadership is always female.
Richard Ohlson wonders
>wouldn't there be a flurry of spirits of reprisals when worships
>(worshipers,that is) ditch the big O?
Perhaps spirits of reprisal are really more concerned about bad worshippers
who _stay_ with the cult -- if you leave, you're initiated somewhere else,
and not really their concern; it's when you still claim to be Orlanthi but
you don't behave anything like one that they get on your case. And even by
the rules, Flint Slingers are annoying but not fatal. (Unless they attack
at extremely inopportune times.)
>Or does the fall of Whitewall symbolize the end of Orlanth
I wouldn't imagine it would do anything to the worshippers in Ralios and
Fronela...
---------------------
From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott)
Subject: Rumors of Orlanth's death much exaggerated; the Myth Poll.
Message-ID: <9411021637.AA01625@vinga.hum.gu.se>
Date: 2 Nov 94 18:37:32 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6832
First some brief comments.
Alex:
OK, you got the last word in this round of Illumination, but that's just
because I agree with you. :-) In general, at least. And splitting hairs
just clogs up too much bandwidth.
Erik S:
While we're on the subject of waste - please don't quote a whole page of
text only to say "I agree". In fact, don't quote more than a few lines if
you can at all help it. I'm sure you've already been flamed in private
about this, but I want to make an example of you for the other newbies. ;-)
__________
Richard O. asks:
>Are the Lunars right when they say that they have defeated
>Orlanth when they nab Whitewall, or is this just Moonie PR?
I think we went over this a few months ago? The general idea seems to be
that it's partly propaganda, partly a local problem. Orlanth will be
defeated (for the time being) in _Dragon_Pass_ when and if the Lunars take
Whitewall.
Some would say that DP is the most important place in Orlanthi mythology,
and thus this event should have repercussions all through the barbarian
belt. But others strenuously argue for local variations of the cult, where
there are no myths about DP geography (like Kero Fin ;-)).
A lot of people even seem intent on revising the whole pantheon - for
instance we learn in Codex #2 that Ernalda isn't worshipped in Fronela, and
David D. doesn't want her in Ralios, so obviously she's just some minor
Manirian godling :->. I seem to have digressed a little, hope it answered
your question anyway...
____________
Michael Hitchens:
>Some people seem to be of the opinion that Elmal and Yelmalio are the same
>entity, some say they are not. Could anyone who believes they are not
Speaking. Not that I'm fanatical about it, but the way you put your
question it touches on one of my areas of interest.
>tell me
>if worshippers who switched from Elmal to Yelmalio were visited by Elmal's
>spirits of retribution?
No, they weren't. IMHO, of course.
>If they were not, why not?
Because they _believed_ it was the same entity. Thus they were free from
the feelings of betrayal and guilt that the spirits use to find their
victims. For an explanation of this theory, take a look at the scenario
"The Light of Subere" (by Dag Olausson and yours truly - now do you see why
I brought up the subject :-)?) which was posted through the digest recently
(I don't know if it's archived yet, though...). This theory seems to have
gained a lot of acceptance since I first proposed it (for instance, I
noticed some off-hand references to it on the RQ4 list a few days ago), so
I feel pretty confident in expanding its field of explanation :-).
>why
>can not a Yelmalio Priest use divination to find out if the Elmal worshippers
>are worshipping the same god?
Because this is a question about mythology, not history. Gods, not knowing
much about Time, make lousy historians.
I think I'll rant on about this for a while: I have noticed that some
people on this list take the viewpoint of the gods (hubris, if you ask me
;-)) to be the privileged one. Essentially, if I understand their arguments
correctly, they want history to be just as malleable as myth is, saying
that changes in myths can retro-actively change what happened historically.
This is a good way to duck out of doing the historical research, but a bad
way to maintain cohesiveness in the world - in fact, it could be argued
that these mythologizers are agents of Chaos!:-)
It _is_ true, BTW, that changes in myth change what happens _outside_ of
history, and this might have some repercussions on what goes on inside (at
the moment of the change). And while it doesn't actually change the past,
it does make history rather opaque: what _really_ happened is only
accessible to disembodied timeless alien observers like ourselves.
>just what are the gods exactly? Nonexistent? Schizophrenic?
>Do they exist as identifiable entities at all? Are they completely at the
>mercy of their worshippers?
He. The answer to all of these questions is _yes_. And no... maybe.
>Just WHAT are the gods??
OK, OK, cool down. The real answer is that we won't know until Greg tells
us, and there's not much chance of that happening.
Then there's your questionnare.
>Myths and Heroquests: [...]
YES to all of them, up till:
>Could I make this mythological truth for everyone, not just Humakti?
Hmm, I would say NO.
>Can the myths (ie the state of the godplane) be altered other than by
>heroquesting?
A tricky one. It doesn't look that way. Not directly, anyway. I would say
that if enough people believe something, a Hero will rise from the ranks to
make an attempt at 'proving' it.
>Am I correct on these two points? [the two types of HQ]
Absolutely.
>Does anyone agree with me that the God Learners seem to be winning? The
>myths of all cultures seem to be evolving towards each other into the
>mono-myth.
Ummm, maybe. Most of the evolution took place _during_ the GL's period, I
would think. The rest is a result of a natural process of cultures trying
to understand each other. Which of course means that the GLs had the basic
idea right, they just took it to unhealthy extremes.
( Jonas Schiott )
( Institutionen for Ide- och lardomshistoria )
( Goteborgs Universitet )