> OK, no problem here.
> > I do deny that Kallyr herself could
personally
> > participate in these activities, except secretly
or
> > possibly very early in her career as a resister,
[chopped here]
> With all due respect, why? Killing Lunar colonists
and settlers would
> hardly get her in trouble. And during the
Fimbulwinter, I suspect
> massacres were widespread on all sides. Heck, the
Fimbulwinter was > to some extent an attempt to
utterly eliminate all traditionalist
> Orlanthi. Her actions then were desperate acts of
survival.
Killing Lunars, whether military, admin and settlers, again, no argument. They're furriners, and they don't belong. No kin, no qualms. Killing Sartari individuals and groups, that's far more problematic. Even if they are putatively in the Lunar camp, it's almost certain that many of their relatives aren't. These are the people who had to accept Kallyr as Prince, later on.
Killing Sartari refugees who are eating the only food in sight, Lunar-provided or otherwise, is not saving traditionalists. Many of these people *are* traditionalists, who have decided that starving to death as Orlanthi is not going to perpetuate the worship of Orlanth. Ernaldans in particular, i.e. the women and children, are the most likely recipients of Lunar handouts. Kallyr needs more than the men's favour to rule in Sartar. Anger the women, and she loses half her likely support. It's not that I don't see desperate and cruel things done, it's that given Kallyr's future, they won't be done directly by her.
> What made Kallyr Prince of Sartar was the
Dragonraising. After that
> deed (and the death of King Broyan), Kallyr had no
significant rivals
> who were willing to challenge her claims to primacy.
She went to
> Boldhome and lit the Flame.
I have my doubts that Sartar's Flame would even light for a person who had committed such divisive acts. Sartar was a nationbuilder, and as a degree of discretion is obviously built into the Flame; i.e., it doesn't always light for someone, regardless of the blood claim that person might have, I don't think that Kallyr would qualify with the blood of hundreds of her own people on her hands. At one or two removes, perhaps.
As has been said with regard to the Dragonraising, there were others involved. K may have been the only surviving tribal leader, but that's not a prereq for becoming Prince. And, again, a powerful act, but does it qualify you to become Prince? Are there other qualities or acts to be taken into consideration? Yes.
> > [ ] we cannot think of anyone in history who
performed
> > terrorist acts on their own people, and then was
> > accepted as a national leader. It's always more
> > moderate resistance fighters who get that role.
The
> > idealistic, extremist,
> > kill-them-all-God-will-know-his-own types, who
commit
> > the really ugly atrocities, are always sidelined
in
> > the eventual peacemaking and government
rebuilding.
> > People just don't accept them as peacetime leaders
or
> > nation builders/rebuilders.
> Like Octavian Caesar? Like Philip or Alexander?
Like Yassar Arafat?
> Like many of the anti-colonial fighters who later
became President
> (for life)? Jeff
Poor examples, to the best of my knowledge, and also ignoring the very real power of religion in Glorantha. I can think of heaps of people who committed atrocities on their own people once they had become leaders. Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Mugabe and others come to mind in recent history. Various Roman emperors, Israelite kings and pharoahs pop into memory for ancient periods. Philip and Alexander, if they did so, did so as reigning monarchs. Yasser Arafat was not, and will never be, head of a peacetime state, as the Palestinians are still in the midst of civil war.
As for Octavian, I cannot find that he took his war to the women and children, except during the sack of Perusia, when the army was let loose in the town after its surrender. Not at all unusual with armies, even after a surrender. Not good, but not quite the same circumstances as for Kallyr.
I think that the point made over on the WoG, in which it was posited that someone doing so would be akin to a monster, and might turn into one, is well made. Or, at the very least, might find herself an involuntary Gagarthi. Kallyr is rebelling in the name of Sartar, not Kheldon alone. As such, she must wear the mantle of that ambition. If she victimises the members of multiple tribes, it is inevitable that there will be attempts to anathematise her, pace the recent conversation on exiles and outlaws on WoG.
You are free to disagree, and if these events are already written by you, I suspect that you will. However, as someone newly told that this is Kallyr's history, I wish to raise legitimate reasons why it might be worth reconsidering the extent of Kallyr's direct involvement in massacres or atrocities committed in the name of fighting Lunars before it becomes canon.
Alison
Powered by hypermail