>>> Some things are "magical" in Glorantha which we would say were psychologi-
>>> cal or intangible in the real world. [e.g: Fanaticism, Demoralise, Morale]
>
[I disagreed strenuously]
>I believe you're disagreeing with what you *think* I said, rather than what I
>said.
>
Probably. I think your initial comment could be interpreted several ways, and I may well have misinterpreted you. But what did you mean?
You could be saying simply that magic can have psychological effects, can cause psychological states to exist. Well, sure. But that is trivially true. I think Gloranthans consider the state of being Fanatic to be both psychological and magical, much as they would consider the state of being Protected both physical and magical.
What I think you were saying is that some states that would be considered psychological states here are considered magical rather than psychological there. Which implies that earth humans are capable of getting in a state like 'demoralised' or 'fanatic' without magical aid, while Gloranthans are not. Which I think is a damn odd thing to believe.
>>> I'm very pleased with the way the Cult of the Granite Phalanx gave rune
>>> spells for hoplites to explain the mechanics of their way of fighting...
>
>> Its public knowledge that I hated it.
>
>Not to me.
>
Well, I have mentioned it both here and in the Tales letter column. Obviously you have not been devotedly studying my every utterance. For shame!
Though to be fair, I don't really hate the cult writeup, just the spell descriptions.
>Not at all! In order to be able to form a Shield Wall, you have to be part of a
>trained and dedicated unit of Hoplites (as initiates of Granite Phalanx are
>known), giving up 90% of your time devoted to the rituals of the cult
>(square-bashing, marching cross-country, practicing pike drill). The Granite
>Phalanx aren't just "guys with spells" -- they're a full-time regiment of a
>professional army.
Which is sort of my point - if they are trained Hoplites, then they don't need spells to form Shield Walls, they are already good at it. Now obviously they use their spells to enhance their combat efficiency, but why take a silly step like writing the details of their combat tactics into the spell descriptions (seemingly in an effort to enforce and encourage shield walls) when a trained Hoplite unit is going to be doing it anyway for more natural reasons?
And describing the training of the cult as 'rituals' is silly - it implies that it is their religious nature which is important. I'm sure an Invisible God worshipping Hoplite unit with no religious attachment to the weapon would spend just as much time on pike drill.
>> To me, forming a shield wall should be something that seems like a good idea
>> simply using the combat system if you have the appropriate training...
>
>There's the "if". I'm proposing that some key elements of this "appropriate
>training" (an understanding of and willingness to participate in the rituals of
>hoplite warfare) can be looked on as a cultic secret, enhanceable by
>Magic, just
>as the "appropriate training" to run frothing into battle against Chaos is a
>cultic secret of the Storm Bull.
Well, I agree that to some extent that the "appropriate training" is a cultic secret, or at least that you would be pretty unlikely to get much training from them if you refused to join the cult (though probably hardly a secret). But my key problem is with the assumption that if there is magic that enhances the cult fighting style, then it should only work on that fighting style. Does their Protection only work if they are wearing Hoplite armour? Do their missile enhancing spells only work on standard issue weapons? No, of course. Then why should they have magics that only work on appropriately formationed Hoplites?
The root of my disatisfaction is twofold - having the spell enforce the tactic implies a) that the spell is there to encourage the tactic, when the tactic should need no encouragement and b) that spells should be designed as custom crafted things of highly limited use, rather than a general way of creating a magic effect (which for a start I find mythologically unsatisfying).
> You need to participate in Phalanx rituals (drills, manoeuvres
>and training) if you want to maintain the ability to use the formation ("regain
>the rune spells once cast").
And here was I thinking that Phalanx rituals might involve religious ceremonies, and that the training was engaged in in order to learn the skills.
>> The Standfast spell (for example) can in theory be used on anyone on the
>> casters front... in my game I remove the 'only in on Hoplite in front'
>> restriction on Standfast...
>
>What? You first create a problem, then blame us for it? Fie, foolish youth!
>Standfast should only be cast on hoplites standing in front of you in a shield
>wall, as the spell says. Take that away, and any abuses that become
>possible are
>your own fault.
>
I turn it back into a reasonable minor combat spell, rather than a tool to enforce Hopliteness. I think I can cope with any abuses that might result.
>They are the spells of a Hoplite cult. Is this so foolish? Should we complain
>that Storm Bull spells are to do with fighting chaos, Humakt spells with swords
>and death?
Does Berserk say 'only to be cast on a Storm Bull berserk charging towards the enemy', or a Humakti bladesharp spell work only on the swords that are in the hand of a Humakti soldier? No, and I should hope not. They have magic that enhances their normal tactics, not magic that enforces those tactics.
>I'd suggest reading Victor Davis Hanson's "The Western Way of War" and the
>collected essays on "Hoplites" he edited for a more psychological look at
>hoplite culture. You seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on how *easy* it
>is to
>stand in a giant, armed rugby scrum, pinned in front of the enemy and wholly
>reliant on your comrades' support to prevent yourself from being killed,
>without
>first wondering why anyone would want to do such a stupid thing.
I don't think its easy at all, which is exactly my point. You do it because of months of training, not because you know that if you don't your spells won't work otherwise.
>
>GOD LEARNERS
>
>> I think the God Learners are demonised a little less than the Nazis in
>>general
>- -
>> their crimes are seen as more of criminal stupidity and hubris rather than
>evil.
>
[very pertinent quotes deleted]
>I completely agree that some things the God Learners did were "good", and that
>more were done with the very best intentions. But I suspect that saying so
>today
>(in Third Age Glorantha), against the widespread popular opinions I quoted
>above, would mark you out as something similar to a Nazi apologist or denier of
>the Holocaust: a pariah, holding socially unacceptable views.
I think my point is that while the God Learners en masse are held in wide contempt, many individual God Learners are revered. It may well even be that some people are both revered and acknowledged as God Learners, including some Rokari Church Fathers. So the accusation of God Learning in itself does not carry automatic hatred, but it does greatly predispose people. And for every God Learner that is thought of a decent chap, there will be another half a dozen who are either well known as evil and villainous or criminally stupid (like the twit who tried to set up the Universal Trickster Church).
So I don't think accusing some historical figure already well liked of being a God Learner will much worsen peoples opinion. But if all you know about them is that they are a God Learner, then that is probably enough to treat them with disdain.
Cheers
Dave
------------------------------
Powered by hypermail