Orlanthi and single strangers

From: Jeff Richard <jrichard_at_cnw.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 03:22:34 -0800


Andrew Bean writes:
>And unlike the Justin Akkerman's and
>even perhaps Jeff Richard's of this world I don't think all Orlanthi
>immediately reach for the sword as soon as they meet a single stranger
>needing help (groups sure, as they are probably raiders).

I certainly don't think all Orlanthi kill strangers on sights - although they are within their legal rights to do so. Few would do so - especially if the stranger does not appear threatening. Perhaps many might do nothing, it seems to me to be a classic opportunity for a Merciful/Cruel check!

In fact while I'm on that point, rarely do the Orlanthi use their swords (or more likely axes) on even groups of strangers, unless they are obviously raiders. Usually they will demand the Greeting and get it. If they don't get the Greeting, well, folk might rightfully assume that the strangers are raiders. But even carls like Boranthos the Thunderer or dangerous house-thanes like Asborn Horselegs could make a split-second decision that a particular group of strangers aren't a threat - just confused barbarians. My main point is that Orlanthi, like most people, are deeply suspicious of strangers - and since few people travel alone, the single stranger is an unusual event and certainly worthy of role-playing fun.

BTW, great scenario idea, Andrew! I proclaim it "hipster cool".

Remster (who I do not dub "hipster cool") writes:
>MGF rules, as always, but just because a theory is popular amongst
>digesters and subjectivists doesn't mean it always works for me. What
>works for me is having Humakt having an essentially unchanged nature
>since the Dawn. Subjectivism makes Glorantha too humanistic and
>deterministic for me... Although there's definite evidence that human
>heroquesters and human perceptions have an effect on the nature of
>the Gods. As always, I take the middle ground.

Don't give me this "subjectivist" line of bollocks! Glorantha has definite cosmological truth and I don't deny them. Further, I for one, consider the question of whether Humakt's "nature" has remained "essential unchanged" since the Dawn to be a question of philosophical esoterica similar to the great time zone debate. What interests me is whether the worship of Humakt has changed through the ages - which I believe it most certainly has.

I suspect that most Gloranthan peoples' "core myths" (an admittedly fuzzy concept) have true validity and reveal key cosmological truths that pertain to these "core myths" but I think people also have a vast amount of misknowledge about everything else.

David Dunham, a great wise man writes:
>I find it immensely cool that not only is the mythic viewpoint correct,
but
>so is the Materialist. Orlanth killed the sun? Sure, but the Malkioni say
>that there was a big ice age and the sky was always cloudy -- how can you
>say they're wrong? (Granted, there may be difficult bits with a complete
>Materialist theory, just as there was with the Earthly theory that the Sun
>revolved around the Earth. But this doesn't mean that Materialism is
wrong,
>just a specific theory. If it was clearly wrong -- i.e. anybody could
>squint at the sun and see Yelm's Fiery Chariot -- people wouldn't practice
>it.)

Tell it like it is, brother! When I write or blather on about things Gloranthan, I'm usually wearing my strong Heortling hat and recognize that I am writing or blathering from that perspective. Simply because the Heortlings (or even just some Heortlings) hold things to be true doesn't mean that as a writer or a blatherer I should cross-apply those statements if I decided to write/blather about a Buserian from Yuthuppa or a sorceror from Sog City.

Jeff


Powered by hypermail