A lot of the suggestions below are based on thinking that the Loskalmi
system is
a feudal European traditon. It's not. The Rokari sysem IS, however, and these
ideas would work fine there.
You gotta remember that Loskalm is still operating on a "perfect"
level, having
been wonderfully isolated during the Syndic's Ban and having no outside
pressures to distort their idealism.
> wrote:
>>
>> Nor is "own land" that much of a burden.
> This depends on the average level of debt of the Loksalmi nobels,
> and what security they need to provide for the loans they have taken
> out to provide for their day to day needs...
Their holdings provide for their income. They have not had the need to
take out
loans for their day to day need. They are NOT European feudal lords who
have to
maintain their status or lose their titles.
> I would expect that "own land" is a restriction on the Noble class
> in so much as both in order to be considered a noble they need to
> hold land (the King may actually own all the land and it gets
> partitioned down amongst the nobility) and no one who is not a noble
> is permitted to do so (So Wizards Schools and Knights castles are
> built on land belonging to a Lord)
The Loskalmi don't own their land. It is not heriditary, but belongs to the entire country, and is administered by the nobles, blessed by the sorcerers, etc. The King is the ultimate administrator, of course.
> They probably have duties related to their holdings so the lord of
> Manor X is expected to provide for a retinue of 4 Knights, support
> one Wizard and his acolyte and protect the village in his demesne.
This is essentially correct. They get responsibilities on one hand, and then they get the means to obtain income on the other that will allow them to fulfill those obligations.
> In return the Knights are expected to serve the Lord, the Wizard and
> his acolyte to support him and provide magic and blessings to the
> holding, and the peasants to work the land and pay their taxes.
Everyone undertakes their appropriate responsibilities.
> YOu can then cause conflict bu pusjing against any of these
> relationships - What if the lord decides to follow a new church, or
Being a noble require membership in the Hrestoli Loskalmic church.
> just behaves in a manner which the Wizard does not approve?
The wizard would take it to the authoriteis.
> What if
> the wizard or his acolyte is tempted by a heresy?
Temptation is natural. Being tempted does not cause damage. Of course, joining another church or going heretic gets one removed from office.
> What if the
> knights start feudign with the knights of another lord,
This is taken to a judicial council, who decides the appropriate action.
> or seek to
> leave the lord's service to join a crusade.
If they leave on a crusade they lose their office.
> What if the crops fail,
> or bandits or Krjalki strike and the peasants can't pay their taxes?
Peasants are not owned by feudal overlords or required to pay
exhorbitant taxes.
They pay a percentage of what they get, and the lords live on hat. They
have no
authority to squeeze the peasants for more.
> What if the lord's overlord demands a penurious tax,
The lords do not have that ability.
> forcing him to
> borrow from ursurios vadeli...
The Vadeli are not usurers. They hold not property or money, They were exterminated during the Closing (if indeed, any had been in Loskalm) and now are not allowed in the country.
The Vadeli are not the equivalent of th emedeival Jews, and ought to be
treated
as such.
> From: Antonio Álvarez del Cuvillo <antalvarez1976_at_...>
continues with
> Subject: Re: Loskalm
>> What you could do is have a number of codes of practice for
>> each caste. A knight is expected to act like Hrestol, brave
>> and chivalrous. Since the ideal man is expected to rise
>> through the ranks, the code will barely exist for commoners,
>> be somewhat noticable for knights and an immense duty
>> for Lords.
>
> Humm... I was thinking about a sort of accumulation, but I'm not
> sure about it:
>
> -Commoners must be obedient, loyal, religious, hardworking, VERY
> happy, etc.
*Must* be happy? Well, that's their choice of coufrse, not an obligation.
> -Knights also must have these virtues, but the meaning of obedience,
> loyalty, etc. varies. And moreover, they have to be brave, just,
> defender of the powerless, etc.
Pretty much true.
> -Wizards have to gather these virtues (which changes in the
> meaning), and also they have to be wise, rational, ascetic. I would
> say they are not allowed to look for pleasures in the material
> world,
I do not think this is a universal oblifation.
Some Orders would have these, but the Loskalmi sorcerers are not
celibate. They
are allowed to continue in their relationships.
> so It's possible that they avoid sex, wine and good meat for
> avoiding material pleasures and temptations.
Nah. They have worked their way to the uppe echelons, and have access to these luxuries and the right to indulge in them.
> -Lords must gather all the virtues in a superlative grade. In fact,
> I would say that they are suppossed not to pursue any individual or
> personal pleasure. Their pleasure must be the material and spiritual
> welfare of people.
They can enjoy themselves. But they MUST also be responsbile for the
welfare of
all those placed in their care.
> I'm also interested in women's situation. I'm not sure if they can
> theoretically be knights, wizards or lords by her own merits or
> their always remain in her husband's or father's class.
I beleive that women are pretty liberated in Loskalm.
> Glorantha:
> Introduction to the Hero Wars presents a very sexist society (IMO),
> but in Trostky's webpage the situation seems to be more flexible.
I am pretty sure we've liberated them in Loskalm.
> I'm not sure what is the MGF por female PC's and female players. IMO
> sexism is an interesting conflict for stories and a way to deal with
> the conflict between tradition and the reality than the players
> suggested, but too much oppresion would have difficult to generate
> female heroic PC's. Also, it's probably better make up a initially-
> sypathetic loskalmi society and later show its contradictions.
You have here hit upon teh key to th Loskalmi story. They have been living in this wonderful isolaion and allowed to develop their rather strange, entirely idealistic and meritocratic society. However, they are about to be put under unbearable burdens that are goingto creative a challenge to every aspect of their way of life.
The play is in how much they can retain their ideals and how much they have to bend to combat their anti-Loskalmi shadow in the Kingdom of War, an utterly ruthless and amoral power.
> From: Antonio Álvarez del Cuvillo <antalvarez1976_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Loskalm
>
> Many thanks also to Greg...
My pleasure.
Loskalm is on eof my oldest creations in Glorantha and I just want it to be
presented in the way I've created it. After the War with War begins, players
and GMs can do as they wish with it.
>> Actually the Abiding Bok is NOT a major Loskalm scripture.
>> Hrestol's religion [...] They conquered the land and set up their
>> church and government, but were eventually defeated by old times
>> who subsequently rejected the Abiding Book in favor of their own
>> old scriptures. Siglat's Dream is the most important single
>> scripture, being the most recent and the one used to unify the
>> kingdom during the Closing and Syndic's Ban.
>
> So, the Abiding Book is not in the keyword of New Hrestoli Church?
It is not.
> I always had understood that the Abiding Book remained as the
> principal scripture despite the defeat of the conquerers, but I
> don't know why. There is a reference to the Abiding Book in post-
> godlearner Fronela in Revealed Mythologies (p. 16), but it is not
> very clear for me.
If RM says theyuse it, then RM is wrong.
> Certainly, the write-up of Ozur Bay Homeland in Men of the Seas
> mentions the Abiding Book it's a simplification for easy game play
> (a book similar to Abiding Book, mutatis mutandis). Anyway, as my
> intention is to run a one or two sesions game (later, we'll see),
> the simplification is fine
Abiding Book is not an accepted scripture fo the Loskalmi.
> From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Loskalm
> Which suggests that the Loskalmi nobility purchase their titles
> and positions, something which goes against the meritocratic
> nature of the kingdom.
Peter is correct. They do not purchase their titles, nor do they have to maintain them outside of their assigned incomes.
> From: "Tim Ellis" <tim_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Loskalm
>> Which suggests that the Loskalmi nobility purchase their titles
>> and positions, something which goes against the meritocratic
>> nature of the kingdom.
>
> Not necessarily. I got my job on merit, not by bribing my boss - but
> I still have to spend money to travel to work every day, to buy food
> in the canteen and to buy clothes suitable for work. I also have
> expenses unrelated to work (like buying Heroquest books...).
But you are not a Loskalm noble living in a still-funcioning system.
> But
> on occasion things will not go as smoothly - a poor harvest, or local
> banditry reduces his income. A crusade, military expedition or trading
> venture unexpectedly demands a sudden influx of funds. It might not be
> that the price can't be met, just that it can't be met NOW, and at
> such times the lord in question needs to borrow money, and whoever he
> is borrowing form will require some form of security...
There ae effecively no one to borrow form in Loskalm (at this time) except the kingdom itself, and they have apparatus to shift money around to cover losses. At least for now.
As I've said, YGWV, but Loskalm is offerred in high contrast to the "standard
feudalism" of the Rokali lands. Their idealism is pure and unsullied. But
things will be different when the majority of their nobility is
exterminated by
the Kingdom of War, and the conflict between idealism and practicality is
obligatory.
Issaries, Inc.
2140 Shattuck Ave., PMB #2030
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA
Powered by hypermail