Garundyer

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_voyager.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 13:34:06 +1200


Nikk Effingham:

>> Because you imply that a hero's best companions are those who has
>> been adventuring with him for longest.

>I can't actually remember where this portion of debate sprang from.

Because you deleted the comments that explained this. Namely "the people he knows for longer are more likely to have accompanied him on HeroQuests and thereby gaining their own share of power and glory". If you wish to retract these comments, then it's better to come out and say so, instead of deleting them and pretending that you couldn't understand what I was talking about.

>> Because most heroes do not pack their boon companions with their
>> childhood buddies or people whom "he knows for longer are more
>> likely to have accompanied him on HeroQuests and thereby gaining
>> their own share of power and glory."

>Fine. But Harandos is not just some piddly childhood buddy or useless
>tag along.

So what was "he was accompanying his friend Harandos, an older child who he spent much of his time with" all about then? Harandros should be a impressive cantury-old lawspeaker whom Garundyer convinces to join him. By making him a contemporary of Garundyer, you are cheapening the child prodigy motif of Garundyer and also making the Iron Council more incestous than normal (considering that Owain is also in the Council).

>> >Again, we are talking about a set of notes.
 

>> You keep whining this but do nothing to suggest plausible motivations
>> for either Garundyer or Owain. Regardless of whethers it's a set of
>> notes or a full-blown novel, this is a defect in your characterisation
>> of Garundyer and I should not have to endure tiresome protestations
>> about pointing this out.

>Besides taking offensive to the idea that I am "whining",

You have trotted out the "these are only notes" a number of times despite me replying as far back as #569 to the first time you made this excuse:

	Given that you wrote these notes to convey to us your 
	impression of Garundyer, the fact that your conception 
	of him has Owain acting somewhat unOrlanthi is independent 
	of your presentation style.

Despite this, you did not acknowlege this and continued to complain that in #582 that "Again, we are talking about a set of notes." and even repeat the complaint in your self-justificatory disclaimer, one can only conclude that it's an attempt to make me look like a big bully merely because you're incapable of putting forward anything else.

>I do not
>understand that you fail to see that these notes are not complete,
>have holes in them, both big and small, some of which you have helped
>me with

I have been pointing out the gaping pit named "Owain is acting in an UnOrlanthi manner". You have been alternatively denying that there is such a pit and admitting the existance of such a pit and feebly filling it up with the mantra "brief set of notes".

>... and one that all Orlanthi misgivings must
>end in bloodshed, death and carnage.

Then name a Orlanthi feud involving a hero or would-be that ends peacefully in the manner _you_ describe.

>_I_ envisage Garundyer as the man who IS Lankst, YOMV.

And I note you deleted the portion where I pointed out that the King of Lankst has a far more valid claim to representing Lankst. How does Garundyer get to "be" Lankst anyhow? Did people vote for him? Did he undertake a blood-and-soil initiation? Or did he simply rack up the biggest score in weapons lost and found (which seems to be your approach)?

To represent the community means that Garundyer has to live up to their mythic ideals. By ignoring reputation and kin, he becomes a mere monster.

>> Huh? Why on earth would Garundyer act for the Good of Lankst
>> if he doesn't have any kin? He would be someone like Harrek
>> the Berserk and wander the world instead if he had no kin.

>Why must he? If his family have all died at the hands of the Telmori
>his hatred would be very strong.

But a hatred for the Telmori does not translate into a strong love for Lankst. Lack of kin means there is nothing to hold him to Lankst.

>I've always had the
>impression that Surkorion was Orlanthi barbarians rather than
>civilised Otkorioni.

They are a tribe or group of Korioni, one of the original inhabitants of this land. I don't know where the Lanksti came from, but they are closer to Heortlings than the Korioni.

>Plus, IMO, the Otkorioni do indeed have friends
>withink Lankst, families and clans that deal with them, or have even
>accepted their religion for politcal or theological reasons.

So when Garundyer hates the Otkorioni, he can't be representing these Lanksti who would otherwise be solidly behind him?

>> If it walks like a duck...

>So in your opinion no Orlanthi ever has, within the history of
>Glorantha, settled a feud for any reason and not been seen as being
>very odd.

Wrong. Owain is still settling the feud for the Greater Good which is even more UnOrlanthi than forgiveness.

>> To object to Garundyer kneecapping a companion
>> on the grounds that it is unorlanthi is specious. Besides _your_
>> version of Garundyer had no inhibitions about crippling Owain
>> mercilessly as a result of defeating him in a duel. So can you
>> explain why one is acceptable to your ideal while the other is not?

>Good point. Perhaps Garundyer is the kind of person to cripple one of
>his allies.

Have you actually read the RQ Vikings excerpt from Njal's Saga where one Gunnar does the same thing to Starkad and Thorgeir under similar circumstances? He was reproving them for their lack of courage.  

>> >I never said he didn't care about honour, just reputation.His
>> >reputation grows without him trying to make it grow.

>> Reputation is synonymous with honor in Orlanthi society. To acquire
>> a good reputatution mandates that Garundyer act honorably according
>> to Orlanthi ideals amongst other things.

>Settling a feud surely does not entail dishonour.

For the umpteenth time, Owain by being the weaker party to the feud is losing face as a result of being forced to settle with Garundyer (and not Garundyer settles with him). Therefore it entails a great loss of honor for him to settle the feud and to serve his once-hated enemy afterwards as a thane. Garundyer ends up looking like a chilvarous Christian Knight as a result of this escapade which is _not_ Orlanthi.

>> If you hadn't interjected (deleted) inane one-liners then you
>> would have seen that the paragraph was the conclusion of a
>> rebuttal to your absurd notion that Garundyer can ignore honor
>> and still be an Orlanthi hero.

>I've never suggested that Garundyer ignore Honour.

You said in response to my statement that Garundyer is liked because he acts according to Orlanthi norms and not Christian ones that Garundyer care less about reputation, while remaining blissfully unaware that in Orlanthi society honor and good reputation amount to the same thing.

>Even if he did
>lose face by settling a feud with Owain perhaps he did anyway.

Owain is the one losing face by settling with Garundyer. Read your writeup.  

>> If he had killed the Telmori, which as a child prodigy, he was entirely
>> capable of doing so then he could have saved his father and the Telmori.

>Garundyer, his dad, a few warriors, twenty three children
>versus one hundred and thirty six Telmori led by five shamans
>gathered together for one huge plunder into Lankst.

So? Garundyer's still capable of putting them to flight. Your contention that he would instead lead the children to safety smacks more of twentieth century civil defense training and not Orlanthi thinking.

>> If it doesn't make the "blind bit of difference" why don't you just
>> quit wasting people's time and ignore what they say, eh?

>By "blind bit of
>difference" I meant that story-wise it didn't matter. At all.

It does matter. By making Garundyer more "realistic", you make him think rationally, act christian-like etc which is utterly alien to the Orlanthi heroic style that he emulates.

End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #590


Powered by hypermail