> In the TotRM Rokarism aritcle it talks about 'Most of the Wizards study
>in the Rokari Monasteries.' How much is most? 80% What happen to the
>rest?
They get sent of to a village priest to serve as an altar boy and/or apprentice.
> Does the military maintain a wizard legion?
No. Such institutions are to be found solely in Loskalm.
> It hints in places that Rokar wizards are not allowed to use weapons (and
>armor), but it isn't explicity stated as a sin. Is there a small subset of
>common weapons they can use? Staff?
It depends from wizard to wizard. Most use the staff and wear no armour
IMO.
> Are all wizards priests? If not, how do their roles differ. If so, what
>are the roles of Wizard priests in Rokari society? My guess is the same as
>any priestly role, but being Glorantha...
Some members of the Church are actually Lords as far as I can make out. I'm not sure whether this is true of the Rokari Church.
>Lords:
> Nowhere does it state that the Lords are limited from learing spells. It
>say "They commonly learn..." But are they restricted from others? The
>only restriction I could find was to Intensity.
I think not. They can learn any spell they want but are limited by the lack of multispell, range and duration.
>Knights:
> It says that menial labor is a Sin. How do the armies function? Are
>they followed around by a large group of Peasants to maintain them?
>Granted the knights would have servants, but even the common soldier?
Menial labour is work like ploughing and digging ditches. Hard labour indulged in by military men is not considered to be menial and hence is not sinful.
>Lineage:
> Are bastards considered their father's caste? Is marriage a requirement
>for caste lineage? What caste are widows?
The Player's Book Glorantha (what my father told me) implies that Bastards cannot inherit. From Brithini examples (ie Arkat) it seems that bastards go into their grandfather's caste. I suppose if they are acknowleged then they would have their father's caste. Widows have their late husband's caste.
Doyle Wayne:
>Let me be clear.
>In the FAQ for the mailing list the following points are made:
[snip extract from FAQ]
>The inference I draw from this is that if the ideas involved act to
>explore and illuminate Glorantha, they belong on this side of the list.
Rather than quoting from the FAQ and drawing inferences thereof, it may be better to look to the actual practice. A case in point would be Sandy Petersen's Sorcery Roolz which was a gloranthanized Sorcery. This went largely into the RQ-rules digest. If Sandy had been trying to *thrash* out the mechanics for his gloranthan sorcery in the mailing list *then* I would have expected to see it on the roolz digest.
[snip Dolye preaching to the converted]
>That, at least, is my assumption. And if it is true, then despite
>your lack of interest in such matters, such elements as rules
>discussions do belong on this list, because of the primary purpose
>of such rules will be the exploration of Glorantha on a personal
>scale.
'lack of interest' - yup, Dolye assumes the exact opposite of what I believe. I would have thought my last post would have clarified matters somewhat.
I want to see a GtG rules digest because *I* would *like* to see GtG rules debates. This list is largely for talking about things gloranthan and not rules. If GtG roolz debates were free reign here, we would have the digest clogged with roolz debates and sniping from the RQ4 crowd about what's wrong with RQ? Nobody except perhaps Doyle would like that situation become reality. Hence my post. Where you get the impression that I hate G:tG and do not want to see it emerge into the Light of Day, I frankly have *no* idea.
>To be blunt, I was responding in my earlier reply to the manner
>of your delivery, Peter, as well as your intent (the intent was
>responded with the single "No." at the end of the post).
The manner of my delivery? Did you actually manage to understand my actual comment about the post not being sarcastic in intent?
>As an example, the constant "urm", "erm" and "irr" with which you casually
>dispense with (in the beginning of replies to posts you disagree with) are
>totally unnecessary in the rhetorical sense, not the mention the casual
>abuse you freely deliver in the bodies of your posts. This has the
>disturbing tendency to raise the 'hostility level' of this list, which is
>constantly commented on by newbies.
I find it less hostile then using 'Nope, you're completely and utterly wrong coz' and yet it gives the person at the other end a chance to wriggle out of the contradiction they have found themselves in. As for the casual abuse, perhaps Doyle could give examples? Perhaps the causal dismissal of my post with a curt 'no'? Perhaps the title of your reply to my posting?
>I honestly hope you don't conduct your affairs in the real world the
>way you do on this list. Generally speaking I don't like to see abuse
>heaped on others. and I don't tolerate it at all when it is directed
>at myself.
So why did you direct it against me then? Was I heaping abuse on *anybody* when I made that post?
>Let be specific, young man. Don't ever take that tone with me again. :)
umm, I think you should take some remedial reading lessons before you should venture to disagree with somebody again. [Fully intended to be offensive to this dipshitted moron]
Considering that Dolye's response has brought two offline requests to cool it, I plan not to respond to any further droolings by Dolye. Indeed the primary reason why I decided to respond to his last one is to correct the mischaracterisation of my position.
End of Glorantha Digest V3 #159
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail