> The Cannibal Cult, the Basmoli, the Men-and-a-half and the Ostrich
> Riders are able to survive in Prax without Nomad Gods.
Apart from the fact that the only major reference to the Ostrich Tribe (In Heroes) has a portion of the tribe raising Herd Beasts and worshipping Waha/Eiritha. So much for not worshipping Nomad Gods.
Sergio Mascarenhas:
> Wife-stealing?!! This seems to me to be a great idea with a lot of MGF
> on it. Coul this be inserted into praxian mores?
Absolutely. Praxians, Pentians and Orlanthi all have traditions of stealing their wives from other clans. Their Gods did this all the time. It's a good scenario for low-level characters from both ends - stealing your wife and protecting your sister from rival clans. Of course, many cultures have this as a ritual where the wife is "stolen" and squeals a bit but no harm is done, could be good cause for misunderstanding when misinformed PCs kill the "wife-thief" and return the poor woman to her family.
On the New Glorantha:
People have argued that the New Glorantha is different from the Old
One and that this is:
(a) Good
(b) Bad
>From what I have seen from Posts (albeit slight) I would have
problems with, for instance:
Is the "Death Lord" a bona fide change or is it a typo?
If a typo or an honest mistake then how could something as
mainstream have slipped in?
If a bona fide change then for what reason?
Similarly, Orlanth the Warrior.
Is this a change designed to reflect the new Gloranthan Orlanth
Aspect, that of the Warrior or is it merely Orlanth Adventurous but
without Adventuring as that is an old RPG concept.
Is Glorantha being changed to make it fit in better with the new game, is it being made different to the old RQ Glorantha or is this the new and better Glorantha?
I remember reading when RQ3 came out that Arkat lived for 75 years and that his War was compressed from the timeline in RQ2 Cults of Terror. At the time this was one of: A Mistake ; a Change to make things better; A change to make things different. I imagine it was the first.
It seems to me that whenever a new game comes out things are changed simply for the sake of being changed. This tends to negate the concept of Glorantha existing in its own right outside the Game Structure.
The argument that "if you don't like it then you can simply ignore that part of Glorantha or use your own ideas" sucks. If we all did this then why have Glorantha as a game world in the first place. We could adventure in any one of a number of Heroic worlds, ranging from Ancient Real World to almost any Fantasy Worlds described in novels. However, people who like Glorantha like it because it is a CONSISTENT, BELIEVABLE and PLAYABLE world. If things are changed at the drop of a hat then it loses all three of these attributes and we may as well get out the history books and play at Troy or the Roman Empire, Alexander or the Mongols. They would be easier to adapt, less prone to change and involve no fruitless arguments over where Alexander came from using illustrations from the Aztec Empire, for instance.
I may be too cynical but from what I see, Gloranthan as a RolePlaying World is in its death throes. Maybe Glorantha as a World Designed by Committee is here to say - but look at what they said about the Camel.
See Ya
Simon Phipp
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #203
Powered by hypermail