I am not disagreeing about elves -- it is a valid viewpoint to have them descended from the Man Rune, as long as one understands what is and isn't meant by that.
Dwarfs, on the other hand, by their own Mythos were _created_ by the Ancient Mostali, who in turn were created by Mostal. Nowhere in this whole series of myths (see both Elder Secrets and the series of dwarf articles now available on Chaosium's Web Page) is the Man Rune, Grandfather Mortal, Old Man, or any such figure mentioned.
Nowhere does it say that Argrath is NOT Gbaji reincarnated, but that doesn't mean that he is -- in a world as incompletely described as Glorantha, lack of reference cannot be used as proof of something, can it? Shoot, that doesn't work in the RW either, as I recall. It can be used as _support_ for a theory, but certainly not proof.
I understand your desire to make non-humans more playable, but what is the point if they are not alien from humans? If you want a person to be able to play an elf or dwarf or troll, and yet want them to be basically humans in a funny costume, you might as well play DnD, IMO. I much prefer the aliens of Glorantha to just a bunch of humans who happen to look different.
Keep in mind that even orthodox dwarfs are not above using humans in certain circumstances, and this can be turned into adventures very easily, even for the long term. Elder Secrets provides a plethora of ideas for adventures involving non-humans, and none of them seem to rely upon making the non-humans any less alien.
>You are free to suit yourself in this matter,
>but: a) if I have to chose between the authorities, I'll pick Sandy (the
one
>with the biology degree) over you.
I have no problem with you or anyone taking Sandy's opinion over mine when the two are at odds (as they often are). But why is his biology degree relevant here? Neither the Man Rune nor Gloranthan dwarfs have anything at'all to do with RQ biology.
Besides, Sandy, isn't your biology degree a rather specialized one? Entomology? :)
MOB criticizes me:
>>And Tales #8 is not an authoritative source -- the notes used to
compile
>>that article were very sketchy, and a fair amount of detail was added
by
>>the Tales crew.
><sigh>.... is Steve cranking up his obsession about things having to be
>"authoritative" or "official" again?
My primary point, perhaps badly conveyed, was that this article could not be considered an authoritative statement that such and such a deity was chaotic, rather than just evil. And the primary reason for this is that it is a single viewpoint. I apologize for any implied criticism -- what I said about the Tales article applies equally well to most of the material in every issue of Drastic as well. None of the articles in Tales or Drastic should be considered to be "authoritative" unless they are solely and unambiguously by Greg Stafford.
Which is why I have so many credits in Drastic where the article is "based on material by" Greg or Chaosium.
>Tales of the Reaching Moon does not pretend
>that anything it publishes is "official" or "authorised", but we
certainly
>hope that what we produce is "useful", "fun" and will add to your
>understanding of Glorantha and the games you play there...
Neither of which statement I have ever disagreed with (excepting only the Daughters of Darkness article, to be honest).
As you say I am "cranking up [my] obsession about things having to be "authoritative" or "official" again," I in turn say that you are being a mite sensitive here -- relax, dude.
Stephen Martin
ilium_at_juno.com
- -----------------------------------------------The Book of Drastic Resolutions
Powered by hypermail