Re: David Dunham
> Orlanthi culture survived because it is *flexible*.
I quite agree.
> And to some extent, it *hasn't* survived.
Yup, but down and not out.
Re: Joerg Baumgartner
> Priests don't adventure, they warp the wind, call clouds to ensure rain,
> teach spells (teaching one adventurer a spell costs the priest a full day to
> recover that Spellteaching spell
In the real world, violent cultures (or ones in danger) breed priests for war (I probably should add a usually or often here). The Vikings culture (on the mainland Scandinavia, not Iceland) are one example of strong military war chiefs who are also priests. Even a religion which preaches pacifism (Christianity), when threatened produces warrior priests to defend itself (Pope Leo iv, the Archbishops of York in the War of the Roses, etc.). The Orlanthi culture in Sartar, in the lead up to the hero wars, has been geared for war, responding to invasion from the north for some time. Also I think that there is a lot of inter clan and tribal conflict (like mainland Vikings). Thus I think that many priests would be primarily war leaders. The advantages of divine magic in battle / raids are too important for a clan / tribe to miss out on. So I think you would have quite a few warrior priests. Brave, proven adventurers might well have many advantages when considered for such a post!
One source of possible confusion is my usage of the word priest. I mean a general 'rune level' person. So in fact, my 1 rune level per 200 population might be even more stringent limit than some out there think. It is not just people who cast namby pamby spells over crops, but the rune lords as well. So 5 rune levels per clan really does seem to be spreading them a bit thin. Especially if disaster strikes, and a few are cut down!
Why I do not like the idea of godi:
On mainland Scandinavia, the chiefs, who because of the Viking love of independence, started off as simply war leaders and had actually reduced political powers in the hope that they would not dominate too much, gradually, under external pressures on the tribe (largely the expansion of tribes leading to conflict), became political leaders as well. The chiefs were also the priests of the Viking gods.
Iceland was different. One of the oft cited reasons for the colonisation of Iceland was to escape the oppression of the rising powers of the kings (Harald Finehair in Norway - so called because he vowed never to wash his hair until he conquered the whole of Norway, and it was only when he had done so that everyone realised he actually did have fine hair. A marvelous little story I think!). On arriving in Iceland there were no real external threats, and so the system developed there was radically different. The chiefs had greatly reduced powers, the priest element was removed from them, and given to the godi. Though there were chiefs, each person could pick and chose which chief would represent them, and (as far as I can remember) the chiefs had a largely legal role. Later on this changed, and the chiefs became great leaders of men, but this seems to occur when the Norwegian crown was trying to force its lordship over Iceland. Sounds like people uniting under a strong leader to meet an external threat. (And gross simplification from me. I think it was more like infighting which lead to the consolidation of power in a few hands (the advantages of strong leadership in times of trouble), which created more rivalries. In this mess the King of Norway had the opportunity to step in.)
In Glorantha, I envisage that the 'rune levels' are the leaders of the clan / tribe. They are (usually) the chiefs and elders. The society orders itself along the lines of the pantheon. As rulership is modelled on the gods, so it seems natural to me that the rulers are infact the direct representatives of the gods, i.e. rune levels. Godi conjures the Icelandic tradition. The Godi represented the gods, but were removed from political leadership. Perhaps I am just ignorant, and godi (the singular for godi is something else isn't it? Goda? Or is that a cheese? Is this the real reason I do not like the word?) was a name used through-out Viking culture, and not only in Iceland.
> One tribal wapentake/folkmoot per year at most
Tribes are fairly small, a few thousands. I cannot remember area of the tribes in any of the maps (anyway the scale varies on all maps published! The map from the RQiii trollpack agree in scale with King of Sartar (KOS) if you substitute miles for km!) Some years ago I did some work with population figures, and the map scales in KOS seemed (if I remember correctly) to be believable. One tribal moot per year, which was the Icelandic tradition, seems o.k. if the tribe is spread over a vast area, like the whole of Iceland, but for such small areas of Sartar tribes, where everyone is within a day or so travel, means that it is quite plausible for tribes to meet more often. As well as the big Thing once a year, Iceland was split into four smaller regions, each region meeting more often (4 times a year? But I cannot really remember how often).
Tribal cults
I was deliberately over emphasising my point (trying to be contentious, to get maximum response). I think that the 'rune levels' will have a lose network across the whole tribe. Individuals will group together (as much for friendship as anything else), and 'rune levels' of different clans might group together. These groupings would help offset the problem of 'rune levels' being spread too thinly (there is not a large enough selection of divine magic) within the clan.
There is still lots of scope however for lots of inter clan or family feuds, indeed with lots of coalitions, there is perhaps more scope for intrigue! As a last word, I think the exact nature of the cult (clan v's tribe) will vary very much, from one region, or even tribe, to another. It is just everyone seems to emphasise clan cults, whereas a tribal network has advantages but seems overlooked.
Powered by hypermail