Re: Re: Carmanian castes

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:45:03 +1200


At 05:10 30/07/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Me:
> > >They don't even aknowledge Malkion except to corrupt his name
> > >to Fronalko and consider him a servant of the LIE.

> > Wrong. Malakinus is acknowledged and the Servant of the Lie
> > is actually Makan. Even the Loskalmi have similar concepts
> > about Makan "an evil demiurge that sought to entrap the
> > ignorant in the world of matter so that they will never know
> > Solace" (Glorantha Intro p78) as the Carmanians do.

>I'm afraid you're wrong on that one.

No, I am not.

>P.66 of Enclosure states that [...]

I am well aware of what Enclosure says on this matter since I drew on that to describe the changes in Carmanian attitudes to sorcery. The "Fronelan Malkion" is Makan, the God of the people who expelled Syranthir from Loskalm as I said before. You may remember that they happened to be Syranthir's Kin thus it is perfectly rational for the Carmanians to describe Makan as the Fronelan's Malkion.

>Plainly you must have read this piece but how you have interpreted
>their evident hatred of Malkion to mean that they are still Malkioni
>is beyond me.

The Loskalmi hate Makan just as much as the Carmanians do. Once again, read the Doctrine of the Hidden Mover on p78 of the Glorantha Intro. Yet they are still Malkioni.

>Aside from the Wane Histories and the work in FS, we
>have nothing on the Carmanians and even those works contain nothing
>detailed on the actual evolution of their religion.

I have described how their religion evolved on p120 of the Glorantha Intro. They got their butt kicked out of Loskalm and then lost a contest with the Logicians. As a result of this, the Carmanians discovered that sorcery was not a Good Thing as they had thought it was. I even described the steps they took as a response to this.

Caste Law was not affected by this earth-shattering revelation as nothing the God Learners or Logicians ever did, struck at the basis of Caste.

>It is
>specifically stated as being dualistic, which the Malkioni are NOT,
>so again, this leads me to think that they are not Malkioni.

I don't see anything that says Malkioni cannot be dualistic. In early drafts of the sorcery rules, Greg was describing Carmanian dualism as an example of the divergent ways in which Malkioni understand God.

>I know you and Nick disagree, but the article seems pretty open and
>shut to me as to how they feel about Malkion, in two places, Greg
>states that he is the god of Evil sorcery.

Who then is Malakinus?

--Peter Metcalfe

Powered by hypermail