> Nick has revealed that they left their Farmer caste behind. [I'd like
> to know how they justified that, by the way. Don't rulers have an
> obligation to protect and rule their peasantry?]
Well, Loren: if you're about to march an army of ten thousand men over fifteen hundred miles across hostile country, are you going to stop first to round up the local peasants and drag them along? And would they feel "protected" if you did? A good parallel for Syranthir's March would of course be the Anabasis of Xenophon, except that the defeat occurred on their home territory, "Thalatta! Thalatta!" on seeing the Sweet Sea.
Interestingly enough, some of Stafford's early Western writings (which I was sent for use in writing HtWwO) have Malkion's children by different mothers: Talar, Zzabur and Horal are sons of Malkion and Phlia; Dronar is the "dark-skinned" son of Malkion and Kala; Menena and Waertag have other mothers again (green-skinned Jelela is mother of Waertag; Menena's mother is not named in my sources, but she is said to be blue-skinned!).
So, in extremis (as the loyalist Loskalmi were when the Middle Sea Empire invaded), the wizards could probably take a hard-line ultra-literal view of what the Prophet meant when he said "Brothers must stand together" (or whatever is in the Logical Law), excluding all the half-siblings (whether they be peasants, women, or green-skinned bug-eyed web-footed monsters).
Loren then quibbles,
> Here's my problem. If the Invisible God was not understood as such
> before the GL's then how could this be true? I think it's far more
> likely that the original story went something like this [note that I
> follow with a variant]:
That's a mote, Loren. The text I posted yesterday were composites, built up over a couple of years' correspondence and thought. That piece is a modern Malkioni explanation of what happened in the age of the Prophet. Yep, until the Jrusteli God Learners came along the Malkioni would not have used the name "Invisible God" to describe the Creator. But the rest of the 'I Fought We Won' myth stands as a key event of Malkioni belief.
(Similarly, pedants may like to know that the mention of the "Gods War" inadvertently left in the "History of Malkionism" (SCU Guide) will be bludgeoned to death in future reprints).
Thanks a lot for the interesting alternative stories. What I think Martin Crim may not have noticed (judging from yesterday's post) is that we're trying to propose a framework for the evolution of Malkioni belief which will allow zillions of people to hang their own myths, legends, sects, saints, prophets and heresies off it at various points. So I really truly enjoy reading constructive criticism like this: it's far more interesting than being told, "I don't like Christianity, I don't understand Christian symbolism, but this looks like it to me!"; and/or "How d'you derive that from the RQ3 sorcery rules and shortform write-up?"; and/or "We know all Malkioni sects are basically the same: it says so in Gods of Glorantha", et cetera, ad nauseam atque infinitum.
> I think Humakti are technically outlaws. They are outside the law,
> no-one need pay weregeld for their death but also no-one is responsible
> for their actions.
Well, at least "Greybeard" has one supporter... ;-)
"King of Sartar" has Humakti classed as "foreigners" not "outlaws". This is a very important distinction. From my study of barbarian lawcodes, one thing you'll very often find is that foreigners (having no kin or clan to protect them, but generally being important folk like traders, diplomats, etc.) tend to come under the special protection of the local king. Check out ancient Irish or Frankish laws in this regard. I think some Humakti *may* or *could* come into this "special status" -- clanless by reason of their adoption into the Humakt Temple, they become directly protected by the tribal King (whether as his personal Thanes or as a Temple under the tribe's protection).
Powered by hypermail