> I have a level of about 2% of the adult population being rune level. So,
> in a typical 1000-member Orlanthi clan that's about ten of 'em,
(er, maybe not... still, that's Orlanthi counting for you!)
> many of whom will be Orlanth and Ernalda priest(esse)s, leaving just a
> few for the smaller cults such as Humakt, LM, etc. The figure may be lower
> in more sedentary cultures than the Orlanthi, such as the Dara Happans, or
> it may be that they have just as many rune levels but a higher proportion
> of them follow tame(ish) deities like Mohenjar and Oria.
I'd suggest keeping the figure the same between primitive, nomad, barbarian and civilised cultures, for simplicity's sake and for the reasons you give.
I would suggest using 1% rather than 2% (i.e. you're *right* about ten Rune levels in a thousand-adult clan). It "feels right" to me, given the 100-worshippers minimum to support a shrine, that an isolated group of 100 (say, a small village?) would include just one priest. Perhaps the other 1% are "Acolytes" -- experienced proto-Rune Levels, attached to the temples or shrines?
(Note that in "How to Convince the Examiners" [cf. Wyrms Footprints p.84] Greg posited 2% of total population as priests; but let's remember that this was before RQ3 added both Temple Size rules and the rank of Acolyte to the mix).
Now, if that's not 1000 *adults* in the clan, but 1000 total population (i.e. about 333 men, 333 women, 334 children), then the 1% "ballpark" figure means 10 out of 666 adults are Rune levels -- which is 1.5% of the adult population -- rather neatly splitting the difference between our proposed baselines!
I believe most Gloranthan population figures give total populations rather than adults only (as the word "total" is used in Genertela Book p.6 and PB:G p.23; "adult" never appears), in which case the 1% figure gives us a handy way of calculating just how many priests of (X) there are in any given region, without needing to jump through too many mathematical hoops. There are obvious exceptions -- Lunar troop detachments in the River of Cradles aren't usually comprised of 33% kids or indeed 50% women -- upon which I shall not dwell. Use common sense, if you can.
(1000 Lunar Troops gives you 15 Rune Levels, not 10, because you use 1.5% of their all-adult population and not 1.0% of their notional total population [including kiddies] to work it out. The folks back home will have slightly fewer Rune Levels and, indeed, slightly fewer adult males, because some of them are off serving with the Army: there will be more priestesses back home, and they'll commonly be followers of agricultural, civilised, settled and pacific cults because the more martial or mobile rune levels are away fighting. It all makes sense, I promise you!).
NICK'S CRUDE GUESSTIMATES:
Any human population can be divided into roughly equal thirds of men, women and children. 1.0% of the total population, or 1.5% of the adult population, will be priests, rune lords, shamans, wizards, or equivalent magical status. These will usually be divided equally between the sexes (or species!), and will naturally represent the dominant religion(s) of the populace as well as any weird, extreme or variant cults that may have local popularity and worship. Each priest, rune lord, shaman, wizard or equivalent usually has one acolyte, assistant, apprentice or other hanger-on -cum- trainee. There will also be a shrine or temple (or shamanic/sorcerous equivalent) of appropriate size, which they maintain, and at which they lead worship.
SOME HANDY NUMBERS FOR POPULATIONS: Now, for any number-crunchers out there, here's a proposed Gloranthan Human Populations Age-Distribution Table. It's crudely derived from the UN figures for a population with a life expectancy at birth of thirty years (NB: the equivalent life expectancy at age one is forty years, given c.25% infant mortality), but excising that infant-mortality "blip" (per Glorantha Book p.10: "more infants in Glorantha survive to adulthood..." [*]).
One key assumption I have made is that one Gloranthan year (294 days) is equivalent to one RW year (365 days) as far as humans' age is concerned. If you chuck this away, you make lots of work for yourself, in many fields of endeavour, for little apparent gain. IMO, of course, and YGMV.
Anyway, on with the Table:
Age Range Percent Men Women Children
0-15 34% - - 34% 15-30 26% 13% 13% - 30-45 20% 10% 10% - 45-60 14% 7% 7% - 61+ 6% 3% 3% - 100% 33% 33% 34%
You want more details, or different age ranges? You can easily rebuild the underlying table for yourself: assume that survival odds drop by 6.25% for every five years lived, from 100% at age 0 (100% of Gloranthans are born -- at least, 100% of those this table deals with), falling to 75% at 20, 50% at 40, 25% at 60, and 0% by age 80 (no, this doesn't *really* mean that 100% of all Gloranthans die at eighty -- just that anyone aged over eighty would be quite unusual in most Gloranthan human populations). Then crunch your brain to work out how to do the percentages. Or e-mail me privately if you want to discuss numbers.
Note, too, that as you survive longer, the chances of your living to be older (i.e. your life expectancy) will go up proportionately. Using my figures, when you're born you have a 75% chance of living to be twenty; when you're twenty, you have a (50/75) = 67% chance of living to be forty; when you're forty, you have a (25/50) = 50% chance of living to be sixty... Misunderstanding this is where many common fallacies about what life expectancy means creep in ("Romans had a life expectancy of thirty, so nobody would *ever* complete their 25 years of military service..." -- that kinda thing).
SOME PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Lunar Army: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the average Lunar soldier is aged 15-30. And let's use my old approximation, that 1% of the population of the Empire is in the Army. That means one in thirteen of all adult males in that age band would be off following the colours (Red, usually). It's easy, eh?
Barbarians: let's assume every able-bodied male and around a quarter of all able-bodied females would join in a full muster. Let's crudely assume that Able-Bodiedness (i.e. freedom from debilitation, injury and disease) runs at 80% for ages 15-30, 40% for ages 30-45, 20% for ages 45-60, and nil thereafter. That gives a total muster of men (15.8% of total population; 48% of adult male population) plus women (3.95% of total population; 12% of adult female population) = 19.75% of the tribe. And my old ballpark estimate for nomad or barbarian populations was 20%. Neat, no?
SOME ROUGH NOTES ABOUT FERTILITY: Here's some figures crudely extracted from Enc.Brit. articles on fertility, abbreviated, excised and rounded somewhat for Your Gloranthan Convenience. I haven't yet built any tables or rules to use these, though it shouldn't be *too* hard to do so. Anyone who enjoys working out 365/294ths of years will have hours of fun with this, as I use RW years and ages throughout (except where stated)...
Women are potentially fertile from the age of 15. By their early 40s, up to 50% of all women are affected by their own or their husbands' sterility. Menopause is usually reached between ages 40-60, after which all women are sterile.
The monthly probabilities of conception among newly-weds are commonly around 15-25%: a women of reproductive age who is not using contraceptive methods can expect to conceive within 5-10 months of becoming sexually active. Perhaps 20% of recognized pregnancies fail spontaneously (inc. due to miscarriage and stillbirth), mostly in the earlier months of gestation.
For Gloranthan Neatness, I'd suggest that human pregnancies should last something just short of one Gloranthan year (i.e. 38 weeks, equivalent to nine months in the RW), and that (as in the RW) there is a 95% chance of the sprog dropping within two weeks either side of the expected due date (NB: 50% within one week, 25% within four days, 5% on the exact date expected). I do not hold to any theory of Gloranthan Synchronised Ovulation (the Fertility Week sprogging season), as has been mooted here in the past, because it sounds rather dull to me. But YGMV.
The mother of a newborn child generally can't become pregnant again while the infant is breast-feeding (say, 1-2 years), though this infertile period falls to two months in the absence of breast-feeding. If you're desperate for a big family (Dara Happan patriarchs please note), hire a wetnurse and carry on bonking. Or expose any baby girls. Whatever.
Cheers, Nick
[*] Anyone wanting to engage me in a debate re: the joys of historically-accurate infant mortality rates can find the archives from last time it came up with the Glorantha Digest search engine at http://chmeee.pronetsolutions.com/gd/ -- essentially, use whatever #s tickle your tootsies, but it's probably more trouble and less fun than it's worth to be pedantically correct about this.
Powered by hypermail