I woffled about Sartar, spirits, and Rams, then asked:
>> 1) The easy one, I hope - given a spirit that size, just how do you get
>> it home? Your average binding crystal isn't going to do the job, is it?
Robert McArthur sorted that one, at least:
>either
>a) dominate it and get it to follow you, dominating it again to put it
>into the Ram;
>b) bargain or reason with it to do what you want.
>Given it's Sartar we're talking about, almost certainly he bargained with
>it and convinced it to aid him.
I agree - thanks. And changing it into a stone ram may have been another of his metamorphosis tricks. Maybe that was the payment, though I don't see why the spirit would want it myself.
Andrew Joelson suggested:
> You don't 'get it home'. You arrange for a new (or alter an old)
>ritual that allows you to contact the spirit from home. Orlanth's Stead
>in the GodPlane is no closer to Ralios than it is to Sartar, after all.
Well, that saves the Ram from a long walk. So, a bargain plus an exchange
of phone numbers. (Email addresses? With FTP access? Maybe I'd better
drop this analogy.)
and then:
>> 4) Do we agree that this giant protective spirit was destroyed in 1602?
> How about the ritual binding it to the Stone Ram is reversed/
>severed/destroyed sending it back where it came from? Then Kallyr
>doesn't have to 'acquire it' at all. She just has to know about the
>original ritual and be able to repeat it (takes care of question 6, too).
Yes! Especially as I believe the Ram itself was mundanely broken up by the Lunars. So she has to hire some masons and get back in touch with the spirit. All without needing to leave Boldhome. Much better!
>> 5) If we do, is replacing it a prerequisite to re-lighting the Flame?
> No idea. Perhaps it isn't necessary, but makes it easier?
I was thinking vaguely that a protective spirit for the Kingdom would in
any case be a Good Thing, and might act as a power-source for tricky
rituals like relighting of Flames. But of course, Kallyr didn't use the
same method as Sartar for lighting, since she was around afterwards. OK,
I'll drop the link due to lack of evidence.
Thomas Gottschall seems to agree with most of this, then adds:
> Perhaps some of Boldhome's residents even worshipped the ram in some
> way.
That's a very nice idea. I'm sure it would get lots of attention on
Sartar's HHD, at least. Yet another Sartar sub-cult....
He then adds a couple of comments that I don't quite understand:
>> 5) If we do, is replacing it a prerequisite to re-lighting the Flame?
>No, to light the Flame of Sartar means to be a heir to the throne,
>nothing else IMO.
I though "to light the Flame" meant, well, to cause the Flame to be all
hot and firey again. It does seem that only blood-heirs of Sartar can get
any sort of response from it, but more than that must have been needed, or
Kallyr would have re-lit it prior to 1613. I can think of several
possible prerequisites, myself, with this being the most doubtful, but it
does look as if I'm misunderstanding your point.
>> Would this make a high-level PC scenario for 1625, for instance?
>This would certainly make a great scenario for 1625, but I prefer all the
>battles against the Lunars with Kallyr as the first warlord of the
>Sartari.
I don't see how this conflicts. I'd assumed Kallyr didn't have time post-1625 to go off spirit hunting precisely because she was, among other things, leading Sartarite armies against the Lunars. Therefore, she might delegate this sort of job to PCs. Again, I seem to have misunderstood you. Want to try again?
Finally he raises a brand new question:
> From Wyrm's Footprince...
"Prints"? Or is this a subtle joke I'm missing?
> .. we know that Argrath has a sword named the Flame of Sartar. What is
> the connection between the sword an the real Flame, if the is any ?
That's a very nice question. My first thought would be "none at all
except Argrath's over-developed ego". But the sword did have some magical
properties, didn't it? Not knowing the system in which they were
written up, I'm not too sure what they were. Anyone want to translate
them?
Muffins:
are not the same thing as crumpets at all, as I think a few of us have
pointed out. In both cases you tend to eat them toasted and buttered, but
muffins get split first, and crumpets have more holes in the top for the
butter to soak into. Also, I like crumpets but dislike muffins.
I have discovered a possible source of the confusion. I recently visited McDonalds, and discovered their breakfast menu to contain an item called "English Muffin". From what I have observed of these things, they bear a strong resemblance to what I would regard as an ordinary muffin. They bear an even stronger resemblance to soggy cardboard, but what do you expect from a fast-"food" joint?
If McDonalds in all countries produce the same item, you have but to visit and inspect.
(BTW, my husband says I should point out that in very early BBC children's programs, Muffin was the name of a mule. Please feel free to ignore this.)
Howard has found us a Vingan figure:
> Prince August Ltd. of Ireland [Telephone: +353 26 40222, Fax: +353 26
> 40004] produce the Mithiril range of Middle Earth Figures...Back in '94
> they produced a Dunland Girl Warrior [#M318] which is perfect [IMHO] as
> a Vingan. She wears trews, metal discs cover her breasts and has
> shortish, spikey hair. Topping it off - her small round shield has the
> Mobility Rune on it! Perfect!
I've got it, and like most of their products it's a very nice figure.
Good proportions including a sword blade that looks quite realistic, nice
"attitude". The movement rune is a little stylised, but why not? She's
wearing armrings (usually men only, but Vingans may disagree with this
idea), a torc, and dangly earrings. Trews and boots - no other clothing or
armour. The shield arm is cast separately, but is easy to fit (well, if I
can...) and the armring hides the join nicely.
Only two objections:
1) "girl" warrior - she's an adult woman. The same range doesn't refer to
Aragorn as a "boy". This doesn't detract from the casting, but does cause
me to burn the label (and want to burn the writer).
2) the saucepan lids on her tits are impractical, look painful, and in
style are only a step up from a chain-mail bikini. The strap (singular)
attached to them has no chance of making them stay in place. I don't
feel up to filing them out of sight, so as yet this figure is unpainted.
Jane Williams jane_at_williams.nildram.co.ukhttp://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~janewill/gloranth/index.shtml
Powered by hypermail