David Dunham:
> I completely disagree. Gloranthan politics is about organizing
> factions of supporters, who may support you in a ritual fashion. Or
> they may support you in war. Or simply in administration.
Happily, IMG this isn't so. Ritual isn't something you tack on at the end in order to 'go do heroplane stuff now', it's a constant interplay between the the mundane and the mythic. If you do your man-management and factioneering in an a-mythic way, you'll be screwed, because a) in the medium term, the magical consequences will bite you on the bum, and b) before this ever happens in practice, your clan-mates will cunningly anticipate 'a)', and stitch you up good and proper, in the short term (like, don't plan on still being chief, come next Windsday...).
John's 'primarily' may or may not be overstated, but I certainly think the factors he describes can't be neglected. I think ring members come in flavours for which either ritual or mundane considerations predominate. A crude stereotype of our clan history (i.e. the one you'd get from the ale-house a tankard or four after dusk) would suggest, for example, that our last chief, Borlkar, was a too-clever-for-his-own-good politician, and our current one, Erstar, is a 'What Would Orlanth have Done?' cypher. ("Hrm, so the ritually correct thing to do in any miscellaneous situation not covered by any other Obvious Best Advice is to do what Ernalda manipulates me into doing -- hey, that's handy!") Clearly though, both conform to that well known Sartarite truism, if you want to get ahead, get an '-ar' in your name...
> Don't forget that sending warriors to whoop at a tribal moot is
> part of the fun (see King of Dragon Pass). Sure, they are performing
> Orlanth's whooping war dance, so it's ritual in one sense. But the
> true sense is: our clan's got lots of muscle, and we're not afraid to
> use it.
Your 'true meaning' without the (correct) ritual element would be at best meaningless, and at worst a monumental blooper, though. Chances are people already _know_ how much muscle you have, and how free you are about using it, but this is a means of not simply demonstrating how much you're prepared to 'stake' on a particular issue, but is also the magically effective and socially normative way of doing so.
> Wrong (at least from having played in a politically oriented game).
> See the writeups for either Taming of Dragon Pass (particularly
> Kerenath's Saga) or the Dawn Age game. Kerenath became chief of the
> Varmandi essentially because of disagreements over how to run the
> clan and deal with the Lunars. He had no mythic outcome in mind.
i.e., a 'secular effect', to use precisely John's phrase. If your game implied to you that this can be done without regard to ritual _method_, then I believe your game is, if not outright wrong, then misleading lacking in emphasis in that area.
> To take another example from King of Dragon Pass, the object of the
> game is not to perform some mighty ritual to eliminate the
> Horse-Spawn menace. It's to make a political union with the Feathered
> Horse Queen.
The distinction being?
KoDP isn't my favourite Definitive Source (don't get me started on Orlanth the non-Warrior), but as regards the importance of ritual it's pretty spot-on, I'd say. Click thee to thy nearest "If we did the following apparently daft thing, it'd strengthen our clan magic" option, Author! (I'm not sure if they're always the smart play, but they're definitely the real mood-setters...)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail