Re: Opposing runes and the circle of elements

From: Stewart Stansfield <stu_stansfield_at_EBWTkvxiWMUhNziZqITep6SBsJo-xrUuZJYKMgnxHr02M44-VHjUJxqp1OXlZ>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:07:19 -0000

Peter:
> > Why not simply give Veskarthan the fire rune? He's not Lodril (in a
> > sense) and isn't the subject of the fire magics from earth rune discussion.

Jeff:
> That might be an option. But the cult of Veskarthan has not yet been > written and probably won't until Simon and I get around to the Holy
> Country book.

Just give him the Heat rune. Please. Like Glorantha's always done. For a reason. Why's this even up for deliberation?

This (and Lodril/Veskarthan's 'own' rune) represent his particular mythic journey and transformation. He is neither a Fire god nor an Earth god, but a god of 'Fire Within Earth'. The use of the Heat rune has never been entirely clarified or categorised, being used for such notions as heat, lava, volcanoes 'Fire Within Earth', 'Fire Without Light' (as opposed to 'Fire Without Heat', c.f. Light)--but is bang on the money here.

Veskarthan's (and I'd be tempted to posit Lodril--though I understand, to an extent, previous comments within a Pelorian framework) association with an Earth rune is as imperfect as with a (pure) Fire/Sky rune.

Whilst I like the renewed importance of runes and their aesthetics in HQ2 Glorantha, I believe that runes are symbols, resonances and abstractions of myth: they should be used to reflect myth and its nature--not define it. Otherwise we're in danger of letting some overly reductive, cack-handed schema wreak its havoc. Like the elemental progression.

I'm not stupid. I can cope with more than five runes of an 'elemental' bent. I'd wager others can too.

Stew.