First, reverting to an old quibble ("It's so funny: Nick quoted page numbers when I only said that my players can't say 'clan' without coming over all haggis-and-tartan"):
>> Nobody I know has ever used the term "clan" to reference Praxians... >> maybe it's in some of the "later" books, like Genertela, I don't recall.
Apparently means:
> "No players I know have ever used the term 'clan' to reference Praxians.
> Hmmm, it might be published in some of the later books, though, like
> Genertela, I don't recall, and I don't have my RQ books at work."
OK, then: addressing your latter point (from either version) directly, the term 'clan' appeared in the earliest Praxian books ("Nomad Gods" and "Cults of Prax"), and did not spring out of nowhere as a revisionist RQ3 invention. I could repeat the page numbers, but am sure you have printed them out and kept them somewhere handy for reference. 'Zat better?
Then, into the fray:
> I don't believe in the one-dimensional Stormbull berserker/powergamer
> dream cult... [paraphrases] "Stormbulls are not accepted by mainstream
> Praxian society"; "Their actions are often misinterpreted by outsiders,
> as Stormbulls cross any boundary in pursuit of their goals; knowing
> things that others do not often makes their actions seen arbitrary and/
> or excessively violent"?
Sure, I see what you're trying to do. (BTW, much the same point is made in the excellent article on "Sense Chaos", from Tales #8 and "Lords of Terror": Storm Bullies don't do it for the laughs...)
But, rephrase it how you will, this still doesn't make Storm Bull cultists representative of mainstream Praxian society. (Which is defined, of course, by the Way of Waha and Eiritha). Whereas in your post (V6#512) you opined that "Waha is not the defining social cult in Prax, from a game perspective. It's Stormbull."
So it looks like you've shifted ground again. Good.
> Why is that certain cults are labelled as powergamer-type cults and
> treated as one-dimensional, while other more politically correct cults
> like Waha, Ernalda, etc. are allowed to have real depth?
Dunno -- some Frog once tried to write off the wonderful Lunar Empire as a "powergamer-type cult" ("French RQers only play Lunars so they can get Illumination and Chaos Powers"), so it must be largely a matter of playing style and personal opinion.
My own guess would be that when you're looking at a culture's dominant cult(s), the depth is valuable (even mandatory?), because you can envisage a society where "almost everyone does everything this way". So Orlanth, Ernalda, Waha, Eiritha, etc. become "deeper" when you're thinking about campaign play -- births, marriages and deaths, coming-of-age, law, war, settlements, outlawries and the like. (In a more freebooting campaign, like the traditional Prax or Pavis or Griffin Mountain setting -- adventuring with no home, no family, no ties -- Orlanth Adventurous characters have many of the same features as Bullies: no leaders, followers or dependants to worry about).
Storm Bull doesn't require all this depth, because there are typically *no* Storm Bull settlements, tribes, etc. Storm Bull reacts "anti-socially" to the local culture (whether it's Waha or Orlanthi-based): to learn more about Storm Bull, you need to know more about the local culture. If (frex) Storm Bullies are unpopular because they gate-crash feasts, that tells us something about the outside world against which they react: (1) they hold feasts; (2) these aren't usually gate-crashed. If (as CoP says) they break tribal taboos, this tells us (1) tribal taboos exist; (2) most people don't break them.
Naturally, where there is a Storm Bull based location (the Block, say, or a Sartarite tribe with Uroxi leadership, or a watering-hole dominated by Bullies), there is more local "depth". But given the nature of the cult, this will be local -- there isn't a "template" for a Storm Bull settlement. You can't run a society as if it were a Storm Bull warband -- their ways do work just fine for a warband, however.
It's hard to run a game set in occupied Sartar if (as player or GM) you believe that all Orlanthi have a moral duty to kill Lunars wherever they may meet. If OTOH you're off in Prax or the Elder Wilds or somewhere, it's easier to revert to stereotypical behaviour and ignore the social consequences. But the former is the more "normal" case. Killing a chieftain's son is a major campaign event in some games, a detail in others. It depends how you're playing (and how far away the chieftain lives).
> Bottom line here...since Glorantha is a game world, and not real, the
> characters you meet in game play are the characters that define it. Waha
> worshippers are just like the extras in Star Trek; they beam down
> and they die to aid the plot along... other than that they're just back-
> ground noise to provide the right atmosphere.
That depends -- OF COURSE -- on the games you play. In the Greydog Campaign, there are no Storm Bull player characters. You could say that Storm Bullies "are just like the extras in Star Trek: they beam down and they die to aid the plot... other than that they're just background noise to provide the right atmosphere."
Now, if we were playing the Greybull Campaign, that would be "true" of the Orlanthi. But it still wouldn't make Storm Bull the "defining Sartarite cult". It would mean that we were playing a Storm Bull campaign in an Orlanthi country. We should try to stay aware of the Big Picture within which our games are set, IMO -- otherwise Glorantha becomes "what we extrapolated from our house campaign" and not "what everyone else who read the same products knows".
(NB: there's a big Storm Bull-centred Orlanthi heroquest/adventure in Tales #18 -- the first Greydog Special -- which is at the printers even as I type. We may not *play* any Bullies, but we can't just ignore them!).
> IMO, if a factoid isn't useful to gaming and it never comes up in play,
> then it's just irrelevant, plain and simple.
The "factoid" in question is that Praxian culture is defined by the Way of Waha. If that never comes up in your Praxian games... then something has probably gone wrong with your Glorantha.
> You won't find [clan, family or political] campaigns outside the
> cloistered halls of the august digest and its enlightened gamers
Well, with any luck we will see more after "Hero Wars" is published. There weren't many generation-spanning Arthurian campaigns before "Pendragon" came out, after all.
> Actually, [Waha and Eiritha] are not washed out at all, they have the
> same depth as Stormbull for anyone who chooses to play them.
In V6 #512, one B.Tickler wrote: "Waha is a washed-out bit-player by comparison [with Storm Bull]". So you've changed your mind again. Good.
> Demographic or socio-political importance are only "important" in a
> game insofar as they support whats going on in that game. Gloranthan
> socio-politics have no real value outside of that context.
Quite. But when we are working to build living settings for culturally-centred games (perhaps with a clan, family or political context), the demographics become rather more relevant. And foaming grognards saying "But there have been hundreds of Storm Bull player characters and *NO* herders or hunters or foragers or leaders or shamans or women in our Praxian games... so Storm Bull must define Praxian society" appear to be missing the point. (Exaggeration, I agree).
Yes, Storm Bull characters have been played in a lot of games where playing Storm Bull characters is FUN. This does not mean that Praxian society should be changed from its existing description (clan-based, ruled by Waha khans and Eiritha queens, adhering to tribal taboos) to become a wholly Storm Bull focussed entity.
> I also feel fairly confident that my various opponents in these threads
> have an innate understanding similar to what I expounded upon at the
> start of this post, and do not hold grudges too long.
Sure, Brian: you present yourself on the list in an archetypal manner, and are gleefully demolished in the same happy spirit of universal brotherhood. No grudges involved.
> If/when we meet at a convention or something, I doubt you'd catch me
> singing Lunar drinking songs with Nick,
Right, *NOW* I'm bearing a grudge! :-)
Regards, Nick
Powered by hypermail