> >>I'll have to check the exact sources for Broyan being
> >>ultraconservative
> > Thunder Rebels p6.
>Isn't that info outdated compared to the OiD entry?
No.
> > Which is the moral flaw that got him done in.
>Agreed. But does this have to be the only flaw he is guilty of?
If we start having Broyan act in an unorthodox manner (like make alliances with the Esvulari or engage in experimental heroquesting) and blame these on his moral flaws, then Broyan ceases to be an ultratraditionalist in any sense of the word.
What is lacking in the Broyan theories that have been put up so far is any sense of the man's personality. He's always doing the right thing whether it is correctly divining what the Lunars are intending to do to Orlanth even though the Lunars do not themselves know how it will end. There's no daylight between him and Kallyr even though she later leaves Whitewall. There's no appreciation of his personal motivations in the way that there is of Fazzur or Tatius. Everything he does is to the greater glory of his god or to the greater good of the Orlanthi people.
Broyan has one critical flaw in that he somehow learns a secret way into the lair of his enemy and then betrays that secret. The details of this are largely unknown to us and may happen after Whitewall falls. But does this flaw that causes his death later on show itself at whitewall? Dos he do something bad as a result of his personality that causes the Orlanthi camp at Whitewall much grief?
Where does Broyan think he is going? Is he acting on the misunderstood advice of three witches? Is he torn between the need to demonstrate his undying loyalty to Orlanth and the consuming hatred against the same God for some dreadful wrong that has been visited onto him? Does he suspect his wife of adultery? Is he thrall to some forbidden passion? Does he want Orlanth to die to extirpate his own evil crime?
> > So? Vogarth is still said to be known in Central Genertela which
> > includes more than the Orlanthi, the last time I looked.
>I'm afraid I don't get your point.
>Do you want to tell me that it is/ought to be possible to worship a
>hero within any cult, as long as there are no open hostilities?
Yes. I've pointed out Vogarth as a example.
> > When you described the Pharaoh as leeching magic.
>Well, he does.
Evidence?
All we have is your supposition with absolutely other possibility excluded. My point is that if you choose to describe him in such a way, then the implication that he is a bad god follows automatically. Hence it's wiser to avoid making up hypotheses which construe the Holy Country in such terms since nobody elsewhere describes similar arrangements in such terms.
> >>Their ancient freedoms as manifest by Hendreik's followers, the
> >>Larnsti, right?
> > No. The general practice of freedom in Heortland, i.e. not keeping
> > slaves and the like.
>The god learners weren't known for introducing slavery to Esrolia or
>Ralios, either.
Because it was already existing there.
> > One can worship Orlanth without being in a clan.
>As a devotee I have seen this. (The six-winds guy in BA)
>As an initiate, I fail to see how. Remember that formal exiles lose
>their Orlanthi magic.
That is because they are cut of from the clan's worship ceremonies. One does not need to belong to a clan to worship Orlanth.
> >>According to your history, it seems the Andrini simply said "Ok, we'll
> >>stop having clans. Let foreigners schooled in Larnsti magics commune
> >>with our wyters, direct our magics, distribute our odal property".
> > I don't know where you got foreigners from. Could you explain?
>Yes, simple. "Foreigner" is anybody "not of our clan".
Why do the sheriffs need to be from outside the clan? Do you see the problem with making assumptions and treating them as ironcast fact?
> > [The Andrini] haven't [lost their identity]. It's like saying that scots
> > have ceased to be scottish by not living in clans.
>There was a strong disagreement between highlander clansfolk and
>lowlander townsfolk on just this issue, yes. This is the core issue
>why Volsaxar remained apart from the rest of Hendreikiland.
The opinions of the Volsaxar have nothing to do with how the Andrini view their identity.
> >>Why would Larnste be concerned with the freedom of the Heortlander
> >>Orlanthi?
> > Because the Larnsti are worshipping him for that benefit.
>That's the Larnstis' expectation, then, not the deity's orientation.
>There is no published myth where Larnste freed anybody, or where he
>caused anything in order to provide freedom.
Wrong. Read the Glorantha: Intro. I have had it up to here with complaints that the Larnsti can't be the way I described them because nothing's been published that way, while seemingly allowing you the same right to define the Larnsti the way you want even though nothing has been published.
>The Travelling Stone itself is a manifestation of Larnste. Surely it
>will have worshippers.
It does but they are not Larnsti.
>Do they have special freedom?
No.
> > No. Traceable through a bloodline of which the genealogical
> > rules are more restrictive than simple lines of descent. The
> > Players Book Genertela spoke thus:
>
> > Usually among the equal minded Orlanthi, kingship
> > is usually restricted to members of several bloodlines
> > who trace paternal ancestry back to Orlanth.
> > PB: G p16.
>
> > That doesn't sound like one in every two and I don't think
> > Heort's lineage qualifies as he is not descended from
> > Vingkot.
>Heort is a descendant in direct paternal line of Korol Vingkotsson.
So? The genealogical rules for a bloodline are still more restrictive than simple lines of descent.
>As an aside: Sartar's lineage seems to be less paternal-minded, with
>the various maternal Sartar descendants among the Argraths...
Sartar wasn't a Vingkotling King tho.
> > Why is [Broyan's lack of heirs] not an issue? Is it general knowledge
> > that he's impotent?
>It was agreed here that it is general knowledge that he doesn't
>acknowledge any male heirs.
That doesn't stop him from having male heirs at some point in the future, does it?
>Even so, continuation of the line is not ascertained.
Why not? The kingship is now a Vingkotling one and hereditary. The Tarshites didn't say "oh well, Yanasdros doesn't have any heirs and so it's alright for him to convert the crown of Tarsh from an elective office to a hereditary office".
> >>No. This looks reducible to a certain number of subcults, and only one
> >>of these is available to the Heortlings of Kethaela.
>
> > Which is? Glorantha: Intro says otherwise
>
> > Hendreik's secret lay in that he was a worshipper of Larnste,
> > the God of Motion. By remaining free in thought and deed, no
> > one could ever subdue his people. Although Hendreik embodied
> > freedom, the Larnsti were not restricted in the mysteries of the
> > God they chose to study.
>
> > Glorantha: Intro p143.
>
>That's another case of intention vs reception:
>I read this as the Larnsti's freedom to study other magics as well.
What does "not restricted in the mysteries of the God they chose to study" mean? It hardly means they can go around and worship Chalana Arroy or Humakt but rather there's more to their God than just Freedom.
>Let me note that if you mean there is no restrictive set of sample
>feats,
I have said nothing of the kind. All I am stating is that there is more than one Larnsti affinity. Moreover the lists of feats in Thunder Rebels and Storm Tribe are not restrictive.
>then the game mechanic of a Change affinity might be the wrong
>way to handle this,
No, it isn't.
> > What's wrong with Larnste being worshipped through ordinary
> > theism? Why do we have to muck around with mysticism?
>Because Larnste is even less normal as cultic worship object than
>Donandar or Lanbril.
Since strange gods can be worshipped in a theistic manner, this is not good grounds for invoking mysticism.
>You pointed this out yourself when you mentioned
>the lack of limits of his powers.
What statement would this be? I pointed out that there was more to Larnste than just Freedom, which is not the same thing.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail