>
> The Glorantha Digest Tuesday, September 19 2000 Volume 08 : Number 009
>
>
>
> TABLE OF CONTENTS
>
> David Dunham Re: distribution of steads
> guy hoyle RE: The Glorantha Digest V8 #7
> Guy Jobbins Re: prisoners dilema
> Madeleine Eid Re: Nandani
> Madeleine Eid Re: Glorantha's future
> Julian Lord Helering Nandani ?
> Simon Bray Re: The Glorantha Digest V8 #7
> NAT RE: Marriage and steads
> Olli Kantola theistic magic items
> Rob Nicholls Re: Nandan
> Alex Ferguson Re: Nandan
> Alex Ferguson RE: Operatic Cattle Ownership
>
> RULES OF THE ROAD
>
> 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially
> not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated.
> If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show"
> please do. But don't include the whole message you praise.
> 2. Use an appropriate Subject line.
> 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a
> point-by-point basis.
> 4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're ready
> to stand by it.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:26:32 -0700
> From: David Dunham <dunham_at_pensee.com>
> Subject: Re: distribution of steads
>
> Alex Ferguson wrote
>
> >I don't see how it's reasonably, or even geometrically, possible to
> >arrange 25 steads on a typical tula such that they're a day's journey
> >apart. A quarter-hour walk would be rather more like it, IMO.
>
> IIRC, a typical tula is about 3 hexes on the Dragon Pass boardgame
> map, so one day's walk is about the distance between clans.
>
> So I come to the same conclusion you do.
>
>
> David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_pensee.com>
> Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html>
> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:40:22 -0500
> From: "guy hoyle" <ghoyle1_at_airmail.net>
> Subject: RE: The Glorantha Digest V8 #7
>
> |I was hoping that Nandan was just a bad joke Greg made up late
> |one night. I
> |can't see that people really have such problems with ducks if
> |things such as
> |Nandan exists...
> |
> |In my oppinion it's just silly and makes my think of "Life of
> |Brian" and the
> |Peoples Front of Judea (or was it the JPF?)
> |
> |Needless to say, Nandan don't exist in my Glorantha. If I'd
> |want a queer
> |Heortling, I'd do it in another way.
>
> I probably won't have any Nandani(tes) in my game, either, but you can bet
> I'll let my PCs know about 'em. It's too good a source of rumors and such:
> "It's well known that the founder of the such-and-such clan followed
> Nandan's ways!" I think that this is one of the odd little touches that make
> Glorantha such a fantastic place to game.
>
> I like Ducks, too. We have one in Sandy petersen's campaign, an NPC who was
> finally taken over by one of our PCs: Blackbeak, Scourge of the Seas. From
> leading us to a pirate treasure in the mouth of a volcano (and guarded by a
> large salamander), to running a protection racket in Refuge, he's the tops!
>
> Guy
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:49:51 GMT
> From: "Guy Jobbins" <gjobbins_at_hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: prisoners dilema
>
> Thomas McVey
> <Yup. But it seems to me like a case of the prisoner's dilemma. If you put
> resources into educating the girlies, and then marry them off into other
> clans, then you don't have a *guarantee* you'll see the benefit of their
> education. If you devote the same resources into educating your
> testosterone-poisoned males, then you *know* that most of them will
> be sticking around.>
>
> i guess that one solution to this model is that people are less likely to
> marry your young women if they haven't taught the skills necessary for
> survival in dragon pass. and if they do get married then it will be for
> lower bride prices, or to lower rank carls and cottars than the bride's
> family. the bride price should count as a return on investment, and the
> stigma of marrying to lower rank households or, *gasp*, those of markedly
> lower honour should stick to the wider family group. marriages are
> political events, not just swapping genetic material around, and i guess
> that orlanthi men court women not only on the basis of their beauty and warm
> personalities - a good wife should be able to do x, y and z, and the wife of
> a chief should be able to do them better than the wife of a carl.
>
> young girls also help their families until they leave home, so if she isn't
> able to do helpfull stuff she's just another mouth to feed - waste of
> resources, in this case human capital. i'm doing field research in rural
> tunisia right now, and its no joke to say that girls do the bulk of the work
> around the house and farm.
>
> guy
> ________________________________________________________________________
> be good, and if you can't conform to other people's definitions of goodness
> then create your own
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:50:32 +0100
> From: Madeleine Eid <eid_at_maddye.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Nandani
>
> >
> > Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:59:35 -0500
> > From: Andrew Larsen <aelarsen_at_facstaff.wisc.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Nandani
> >
> > > From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_wanadoo.fr>
> > > Subject: Nandan
> >
> > I agree heartily with what you say about Nandani. They are men (not
> > magical transexuals) who function culturally as women. I believe there is a
> > class of men in India who have similar status.
> >
> They are, as I recall, eunuchs in the Arabian Nights/Chinese court sense
> (rather than as a consequence of a medical condition). They are usually
> prostitutes, and are (I think) classed as Untouchables, although they are
> considered good luck and fertility bringers at weddings. Their numbers are
> declining; if I recall correctly, they were formerly attached to a cult or to
> a court (can't remember exactly which one) - modern 'recruits' are usually
> transexuals obtaining the money for the next stage of the procedure; the older
> members of the group did originally have a religious or ceremonial function.
>
> TTFN
> Maddy E
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:41:26 +0100
> From: Madeleine Eid <eid_at_maddye.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Glorantha's future
>
> >
> > Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:29:44 GMT
> > From: donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk (Donald R. Oddy)
> > Subject:
> >
> >
>
> > >The King of Dragon Pass tour has been in some magazine cover CDs.
> > >Again, this costs money, and our marketing resources are extremely
> > >limited.
> >
> > I hadn't seen it on any UK ones some of which used to pay for
> > contributions. no doubt that's something else that's changed.
> >
> It was on one of the MacFormat cover discs earlier this year. Can't tell you
> which one, except that it wasn't #87 (Feb 2000). Still couldn't play it
> though - my Mac's too old, being a 68K machine, not a PowerPC.
>
> TTFN
> Maddy Eid
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:24:26 +0200
> From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_wanadoo.fr>
> Subject: Helering Nandani ?
>
> Andrew Larsen :
>
> > The only other cultural role for a male homosexual would a Heleri, who
> > is culturally male, which means that the marriage rules remain unchanged.
>
> A Helering is indeed a man from the legal, religious and ritual POVs.
>
> > Since in the myths Heler commits adultery without being punished for it,
> > apparently,
>
> Orlanth turns a blind eye because Heler is actually his Fertility
>
> Are you jealous of your, er, whatsit ?
>
> > perhaps gay Heleri are allowed to have a male 'concubine'
> > alongside their wife.
>
> Helerings function outside the rules for basically cosmological reasons.
> Heler is the Fertility of Orlanth, without social bounds but including
> an ambiguity of gender. This is actually VERY complex.
>
> Pragmatically, Helerings have a devil-may-care pansexuality (although virtually
> all of them are normal hetero Orlanthi ).
>
> One aspect of Heler's pansexuality is that both men and women can join his cult.
>
> Another is that people assume that they're inverts.
>
> But Heler is a male god, and he is unable to take on the magical,
> physical, or social attributes of a woman.
>
> > Marriage to another man is out for a Heleri unless
> > the other man is a Nandani.
>
> Orlanthi can belong to two cults, and among the Nandani the favourite
> second cult is probably Heler.
>
> But very few devotees of Heler feel a need to go Nandanic IMO ;
> at least, no more than other Orlanthi.
>
> > A gay Orlanthi would have to marry a woman, but
> > might be allowed a non-marital relationship with a Heleri?
>
> Yes.
>
> Julian Lord
>
> PS : Quo patrilinearity in Nandanic weddings ?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:15:06 +0100
> From: "Simon Bray" <simonbray_at_cwcom.net>
> Subject: Re: The Glorantha Digest V8 #7
>
> Hi all,
>
> Slightly off topic, but I was just watching the movie "Free Enterprise"
> with William Shatner and I noticed a copy of Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu (4th
> Edition) sitting on the shelves of the book store scene. It was in centre
> shot for at least a minute. Hell! This film was about Trekkers and Geeks,
> but they had a better life than me (especially sex life).
>
> Cheers Simon.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:25:59 +1100
> From: "Hughes, John (NAT)" <JohnP.Hughes_at_dva.gov.au>
> Subject: RE: Marriage and steads
>
> Heys folks
>
> Ian and Donald tunnel through marriage issues:
>
>
> > Donald:
> >
> > >I think that may be the answer, a person living with
> > their spouses
> > >clan will _defend_ the clan and tula even against
> > their relatives
> > >but will not get involved in _attacks_ on their own
> > clan.
> >
> This makes good sense, but top down and legal perspectives become less
> relevant in situations like this. Obviously we have to know the particular
> context: the history of the two clans interactions, the exact reason for the
> current feud*, the status of the woman in her husband's clan, the nature of
> her social network, her cult allegiances, status of her children and birth
> family, her own temperament etc.
>
> (* Lunar conversion is a particularly nasty one, as it can turn
> traditionally very-close clans into enemies overnight. We collectively need
> to give more thought to how the invasion has ripped apart the cultural,
> legal and social fabric of Heortling society. Traditional legal perspectives
> just don't cover the new reality. Ian summed it up nicely: practical and
> legal kinship are different.)
>
> Ian:
>
> >Transhumance is probably practiced to keep cattle off
> >arable land during the growing season.
>
> Definitional alarm here. Several contributors (including myself) have been
> using transhumance to denote the movement of cattle over *relatively long
> distances* to take advantage of seasonal and ecological variation. Ian seems
> to be using it in the sense of local rotation within the tula.
>
> >Depends a bit on the model for inheritance (another
> >debate we have had here). AFAIK the Icelandic model
> >divided the intheritance between the sons.
>
> For me, the key issues of Heortling inheritance are:
>
> * daughters receive their share at marriage ('dowry').
>
> * inheritance strengthens the collective nature of the household or
> bloodline (Alex has battered me around the head enough to convince me of the
> need to practically distinguish the two).
>
> * The inheritance system works in support of the kinship system in
> encouraging brothers to work in close cooperation. Brothers and perhaps
> brother's sons will be nearly as likely to be part of the division as sons
> and daughters.
>
> There has been a definite male-bias in the inheritance discussion so far. A
> woman's wealth would largely go to her children, with fitting acknowledge of
> her brothers and brother's children. IRW marriage exchanges between two
> clans (which can largely subsume 'inheritance' - we have to think communal)
> can continue long after the death of both partners).
>
> I'm uncertain that daddy would sit down and write out an itemised last will
> and testament al la C20 westerners - its just as likely that the household
> would divide the goods after death according to a broad understanding of his
> wishes. I'm open to counter arguments on this - I know that Anglo-Saxon
> wills were common among the rich and landed, but A-S society was more
> centralised, literate and far less clannish and communal than the
> Heortlings. (for the vast majority of Heortlings, we're talking herds and
> personal possessions and obligation networks, not land or buildings). I also
> understand that wills among the non-landed A-S were far less common. (Looks
> askew to Andrew, raises quizzical eyebrow).
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:00:46 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Olli Kantola <nysalor_at_lyyra.kempele.fi>
> Subject: theistic magic items
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Oliver Bernuetz&Peter Metcalfe wrote:
>
> > >Here's my latest question. What do theists call their magic items? >By
> > >this I mean the items created by priests with magical, reusable
> > >properties.
> >
> > Holy [items], Sacred [Items], Relics, Idols, Enchanted [items]
> > and so forth. There's no one name to apply all of them
> > apart from the ugly matrice and of the few ones that come close
> > sound silly in either a Orlanthi context or a Pelorian context
> > or both.
>
> How about some even more important questions. How are theistic magic items
> made? How do they work?
>
> Olli Kantola
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:22:37 GMT
> From: "Rob Nicholls" <gardengait_at_hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Nandan
>
> Delurk...
>
> I've been reading the digest now for some time and enjoy most of it.
>
> Regarding Hero Wars - I found my copy in Waterstones on Deansgate in
> Manchester (for non UK digesters Waterstones is a big chain of bookshops)
> rather than a specialist games shop. Can't find G:IttHW though.
>
> Regarding Nandan - I don't like it - what real need is there for this god?
> But having said that - it makes me think of the film Little Big Man and the
> Sioux cross-gender guy who keeps cracking on to Dustin Hoffman - doesn't the
> 'Nandani' end up with the really hard warrior who hates Dustin Hoffman? -
> Maybe there should be a myth which associates Nandan with Urox? Maybe how
> Urox hates Nandan to begin with but ends up falling for his charms? That
> would add another side to the generally one-dimensional psychotic Uroxi.
>
> Comments?
>
> Rob
>
> Lurk again
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:18:18 +0100 (BST)
> From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
> Subject: Re: Nandan
>
> Andrew Larsen:
> > Marriage here might or
> > might not be exogamic, one of the small advantages of being a Nandani.
>
> Why the distinction? Legally and socially they're women, so they
> should obey the same marriage customs. (I'm still amazed that most
> Digesters seem to think you can have a community of about 1000 people,
> not prohibited from having sex with each other (not all of them, at
> least), but for whom it's completely impossible to have any sort
> of intermarriage, or even 'common law' marriage. NIMG, I telya.
>
>
> > The only other cultural role for a male homosexual would a Heleri, who
> > is culturally male, which means that the marriage rules remain unchanged.
> > Since in the myths Heler commits adultery without being punished for it,
> > apparently, perhaps gay Heleri are allowed to have a male 'concubine'
> > alongside their wife. Marriage to another man is out for a Heleri unless
> > the other man is a Nandani. A gay Orlanthi would have to marry a woman, but
> > might be allowed a non-marital relationship with a Heleri?
>
> Heler worship is definitely the way to go for any 'miscellaneous'
> sexual activity you fancy... It might not formally make one legally
> immune to whatever naughtiness you get up to, but it would certainly
> be 'expected behaviour', and therefore often excused on that basis.
> ("Well dear, you should have known about the sheep/men/she-trolls
> thing when you married him; you know what they're like...")
>
> Cheers,
> Alex.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:41:42 +0100 (BST)
> From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
> Subject: RE: Operatic Cattle Ownership
>
> Hughes, John:
> > I appreciate the approach, but this would create lots of problems in even a
> > mildly-exogamous clan. (Like Alex, I'm tending towards a variable model:
> > clan exogamy is normative and 'the Way', bloodline exogamy is also common in
> > certain tribes.)
>
> Wa-hay, and there will be more rejoicing in heaven... I think the
> operative phrase here is "in tribes". Marriage customs are very
> much a function of tribal formation, since that's a large part of
> what drives them, and one of the first thing you'd iron out when
> they're founded. If you're not in a tribe at all, marriage will
> necessarily be catch-as-catch-can, and exogamy will be more like
> the exception than the rule. (If you have other clans you routinely
> intermarry with, you're at least on the way to having a tribe,
> even if you haven't formalised it yet.) A triaty is a conveniently
> extreme example of this, but in many tribes the patterns will be
> both more complex, less strict, and less formalised, with 'clusters'
> occurring between near-neighbours, and some clans in more of a
> back-eddy...
>
>
> > The vexed issue is how odal is odal property. Ian Cooper has pointed out how
> > the term has been mutated by Greg from its original meaning, and seems from
> > KOS to mean essentially communal property. Obviously not *all* property is
> > communal: it entails severe mental gymnastics to make your HW Wealth rating
> > meaningful if anything else.
>
> To trade HWisms though, clans have Wealth ratings too, odal property
> revisionists. ;-)
>
>
> > If we understand a dowry to be essentially a
> > woman's share of her inheritance given out upon marriage (a common enough
> > understanding in the tribal world), then her own herds would go with her to
> > her husband's clan in the 'default' marriage model. And they would have to
> > remain *hers* for the system to make any sense at all. This would also
> > provide her with a measure of economic security and social power among her
> > new family.
>
> Sounds about right to me. Whether this is personal property or not
> isn't really key, since after all, the clan agrees to (if not actually
> initiates) the marriage 'deal', and are explicitly a party to it, so
> odal property can and will be tossed in there too.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #9
> *********************************
>
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #10
Powered by hypermail