> When discussing things on the Digest, we are normally discussing
> what we believe is either The Truth or A Truth. Poetic license IS a
> problem, I think...
I think not. We are normally discussing Glorantha, which is a fertile and creative wellspring for all sorts of ideas. Poetry included (though I wouldn't class my Songbook or the Ballad of Beat-Pot Aelwrin in this category).
For my part, I write Gloranthan folktales, which I do not think are either "The" or "A" truth: I trust my audience to make of them what they will. People who get into arguments on the Digest may be "discussing" Truth, but I'd rather they wrote something new that they loved rather than niggling about something they didn't.
Anyway, using the culturally-specific "NOT!" to pretend you *didn't* mistakenly state that there were trolls living in the Kingdom of Ignorance is underhanded.
> Is it possible that Greg envisioned Glorantha to have a camel-like
> creature but not have something equating to a dromedary or bactrian
> camel? Camels aren't mentioned after all in the creatures book...
Yep, the "alticamelus" (that's "High Llama" to us peasants) of Prax is definitely based on that distant precursor species you've found. But why shouldn't someone call this (in a myth) a "camel"?
> "The llama is a quadruped which lives in big rivers like the Amazon"
This explains:
1) Why High Llamas are so tall (to keep their heads above water); 2) Why they spit so much (to expel accidentally-inhaled water); 3) Why in the boardgame "Nomad Gods" the High Llama Tribe has bluecounters and are associated with the Water Spirits of Prax.
Well spotted, Andrew!
On a side issue, the Praxian Sable Antelope has a russet, reddish coat, not the darker coat of the RW beastie.
> I have no real contact with Mr. Stafford, but rather I work from his
writings.
> If others have privileged information, then I am out-and-out WRONG, and
> I am sorry.
The "privileged information" you're citing (complaining about?) is widespread currency in most recent Gloranthan products, certainly including the Elder Secrets boxed set out of Avalon Hill. You aren't just going against a privileged informed minority or a mainstream supposition, here. That doesn't mean you're "wrong" (I know other estimable folk, including Chris Gidlow and Jon Quaife, who have played with similar variant ideas about the Elder Races), but it does mean that this particular suggestion is more than just a "variant interpretation" or some "unpublished opinion of Greg's".
> A rules clarification needed, please. (Yes, I know this isn't the rules
> digest, but in the absence of one, this will have to do).
I guess I have time for a quickie...
> An initiate has divine magic, but it is one-use. In order to become a
> priest, they need ten points of such magic. Once they become a priest,
> they can sacrifice for reuseable divine magic. But what happens to the
> ten points they had before? Does it become reuseable automatically
Yes.
> Also, is it possible to be a priest without having the Worship Deity
> spell? I would have though that at least they would have had to get it
> within a few weeks of obtaining the new rank, but it isn't spelt out as
> such in the rule books that I can find.
True: it isn't stated, and I'd tend to agree with your interpretation that some points of "ritual" spells (Sanctify, Worship, Spellteaching, Command Cult Spirit, etc.) are needed by any real priest. The variant RunePower system by David Cheng in Tales #12 helps a lot with this kind of jiggery-pokery, and I'll also mention in passing my own take on One-Use Rune Magic in the same ish.
To worry powergamers: why shouldn't Rune Priests have to spend not just 90% of their time and money, but also 90% of their Rune Magic, for the benefit of their temple and congregation. A Rune Priest who has already used up nine-tenths of his magic before an adventure starts is a lot less unplayable... :-)
> One wonders why a mostly non-fighting cult of a non-martial deity would
> have a cult weapon at all.
Answer: combined effects of Steve ("Sword Sage") Perrin and RQ2. Probably deliberately stripped out in the conversion to RQ3, but no harm keeping it on.
Thought for the Day: is Yelmalio Lightfore?
End of Glorantha Digest V4 #48
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail