>More effective, rather than "better". I think that your average
>Lunar soldier may or may not be as dangerous as your average
>Orlanthi in one on one
Yes of course, I misspoke. The Lunar/Orlanthi situation is much like the Roman/German one -- one German may always beat a Roman, but 100 Romans have little to fear from 100 Germans, while 1000 Romans are invariably victorious over 1000 Germans. Or like the Spartan/Persian situation, though the politics are reversed. When Xerxes pointed out that his warriors were so tough that they could each defeat three Greeks single-handedly, the Spartans simply replied that their men didn't fight "single-handedly".
SUPERHEROES OF GLORANTHA
Graeme
>Superheroes of Glorantha or Genertela? May Errinoru have been an
>aldryami superhero?
He might. Have we evidence that he was more than "just" a hero?
>My problem with this is "How do you define a hero"? I'm sure there
>are a lot of people that are considered "heroes" by their cultures
>that may not have a combat factor of 4 in DP terms, but had powers
>beyond the rune level rules available in RQ. I'm not real keen on
>the world being divided into ordinary, cf 4 or cf 20 indiviuals,
>there should be a greater spread of power and effectiveness.
No argument here. For what it's worth, not all the DP heroes _are_ either cf 4 or 20. There's a bit of a range from Keener Than to the Inhuman King. So the question is, how do you define a hero? Here is my answer:
By these definitions, many of the beings in DP (for instance) do not qualify as heroes -- like the Inhuman King, or Androgeus.
>But I find Argrath to be a much more important to the war or to
>Sartarite culture than Harrek (obviously KoS is slanted here), but I
>?don't think DP takes this into account sufficiently.
Again, no argument. Ultimately raw combat power is not the most crucial thing in Gloranthan history or culture, just like on Earth.
>I think none of these ideas are provable, especially as the
>Kralorelans won't agree with any of this. (To Sandy: would they just
>laugh at these ideas, or are there horrible punishments for
>foreigners who propose such ideas?)
The Kralori don't look upon crime & punishment in the same way that this question assumes. Hmm. This might be hard to explain. But I'll give it a try.
To a modern American, "guilt" is a function of what someone has or has not done. If O.J. killed his wife, we think he deserves punishment. If he did _not_, then he should go free.
To the Kralori, "guilt" is a function of our inner self, our personality, our id. A murderer is worthy of death not because he has murdered someone, but because he is the _type_ of person that murders people. Ideally, a murderer would be identified and slain _before_ he has committed any murders. In practice, of course, this is hard, but it is the ideal.
On the other hand, the Kralori approach to O.J. Simpson (here I'm assuming that he is guilty, for purposes of this essay) would be to let him go free. He's unlikely to murder anyone else in his life, so what's the point of punishing him? The Kralori judge might ban him from marriage or long-term sexual liaisons, if he felt that O.J. was likely to form another dangerous obsession. But the Kralori judge would almost certainly have acquiesced in the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti. To him, it doesn't matter if they did the actual crime of which they were accused -- they are anarchists and dangerous and if not executed now, could cause trouble later.
A barbarian, by definition, believes in false dogmas, and is an uncultured brute. If it is determined that a given barbarian has learned enough about Kralori culture to be allowed to travel the land, and he gets in a barfight and kills someone, he is not normally persecuted. It is "natural" for such a half-animal creature to be dangerous when aroused, and his victim should have known better. On the other hand, if a peasant, enraged by the barbarian's deed, kills him in turn, the peasant is also probably not punished -- it is natural to be angry and strike back when aroused. The peasant might be fined, though, as punishment for having the type of personality that tends to find redemption in violence rather than piety.
I'm not sure if I've made my point clear or not, but no doubt someone will let me know.
Nils:
>Not Argrath?
Argrath is not a superhero.
>I've heard arguments that Hon Hoolbiktu may have been a superhero,
>and maybe he was.
>>Who's he?
A famous Doraddi who unified diverse tribes to drive out the Six-Legged Empire. He also helped create the modern Arbennan culture.
>I though that the people of Teleos didn't start to display
>interesting hues until the closing of the oceans?
This is not determined. In suggesting to Greg that the Teleos folk were multicolored even before the Closing, no conclusion was reached, but he did not seem hostile to the idea. I think he just didn't want to commit himself.
Andrew Joelson
>I belong (?) to a group that plays RQII every once in a while, when
>the judge feels like running it. We sometimes have two-year
>hiatus's. Does this qualify as a campaign?
Campaigns are in the eye of the beholder.
>I am in the NW suburbs of Chicago, in the Woodfield Mall/Schaumburg
>area. We are not that far from Elgin, which I understand has at
>least one campaign running...
Er. When I ask "where does your campaign take place" I meant, in your _game_ world. I.e., Prax? Dorastor? If your RQ campaign takes place in Chicago, it must be very variant indeed, and I'd like to know more.
>On a different note, do you know the origin of the Eel-aerish stuff
>I posted?
No.
NOTE: I have been put in touch with two RQ players in their early 20s who live in the San Francisco Bay area. They learned to play the game with me, and are apparently seeking a qualified gamemaster. Anyone interested in contacting these guys can email me.
Ditto for one RQ player in the Provo Utah area.
Powered by hypermail