> As far as I can see, the idea of Orlanth being an exclusively male cult
> is an invention of Greg's to make Glorantha less accessible to female
> players and wreck the game for established campaigns, without adding
> anything.
That must be it: I can see it all so clearly, now. ;-)
> It contradicts plenty of early scenario material, and some
> quite important bits of King of Sartar. If he'd said "female membership
> of Orlanth is unusual: here are the paths available to unusual people",
> then fair enough: but he isn't. If he'd said "aspects of Orlanth that
> involve male fertility are inaccessible to women" then I'd have agreed.
> But he didn't.
He didn't, but while I'm not Speaker To Gregs, (much less _for_ same), I'd say that was pretty much what he _meant_. OA/OtW, yes (see Vinga) OR (yes, 'by inspection' IMO), OT fuzzy one (see copious prior discussion), Orlanth the god of (male) adulthood, and the husband god, definitely not. (Short of 'Nandan in reverse' type measures.)
Thunderous seems the case most likely to be contentious. This is partly due to the fuzziness of the aspects: one could think of OT shading into Hedkoranth, and thence OA, on the one hand (thunder, comma, smiting with), and into Heler and thence O the Farmer/Husband on the other (thunder as the harbinger of life-giving rain). Perhaps counter-intuitively, it seems that the 'dark thunderous' is more accessible to women than the 'light thunderous'. But I think this is a matter of 'degrees of impossibility': it's not to say that it's de jure prohibited for a woman to do [blah], as of what's customary and "usual". YexceptionalindividualMY, in any case.
FWIW, I have a female Heler worshipper "IMG", since the player was interested in that cult/keyword/(insert other game mechanical abstraction here), and I thought 'what the heck'. So if I advise anyone not to vex themselves overly with the Canon, I am indeed the sort of person I'm preaching to...
Cheers,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #152
Powered by hypermail