>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: glorantha-request_at_rpglist.org
>To: glorantha_at_rpglist.org
>Sent: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 -0400 (EDT) 13:50:40
>
>Send Glorantha mailing list submissions to
> glorantha_at_rpglist.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
>visit
>
>http://www.rpglist.org/mailman/listinfo/glorantha
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body
>'help' to
> glorantha-request_at_rpglist.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> glorantha-admin_at_rpglist.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
>is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Glorantha digest..."
>
>
>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.
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Which Volcano god(ess)(e)(s) ? (Julian Lord)
> 2. Man-skin too soft. Broo skin better!
>(simon_hibbs2)
> 3. Continuing Chaos Guff (James Frusetta)
> 4. And more troll guff (Phipp & Greg) (James
>Frusetta)
> 5. Scotscon - Freeform Sign-ups Soon (Graham
>Robinson)
> 6. Kra and Lo(r). (Alex Ferguson)
> 7. Re: Glorantha digest, Vol 9 #500 - 7 msgs
>(Claude Manzato)
>
>-- __--__--
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:24:26 +0200
>From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_free.fr>
>To: glorantha_at_rpglist.org
>Subject: Which Volcano god(ess)(e)(s) ?
>Reply-To: glorantha_at_rpglist.org
>
>Hello,
>
>Reviewing information on the Volcano god(ess)(e)(s)
>of Caladraland, I discover and the fact that the
>literature refers to the goddess Caladra, the god
>Caladril, the god Calandra, and the goddess Caladra
>(still female in some paragraphs of the French
>version of
>Glorantha, to boot, erroneously I imagine).
>
>I am confused.
>
>Can anyone tell me if these refer to one entity or
>many, if this is a case of one entity being known
>by different names over the course of the Ages, if
>these are subcults of the (male) Caladra cult, and
>what do the locals call the god who fought against
>and was
>temporarily enslaved by Argan Argar during the
>Storm Age ?
>
>Or is there some other relationship between
>"Calandra" and "Caladra" that I'm unaware of ?
>
>Is this confusion deliberately illustrative of some
>kind of GL balls-up ?
>
>Facts, theories, speculation : any answers will be
>most welcome !! Even extra stuff about Aurelion, to
>be frank ...
>
>cheers,
>
>Julian Lord
>
>
>
>-- __--__--
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:47:03 -0000
>From: "simon_hibbs2" <simon.hibbs_at_marconi.com>
>To: glorantha_at_rpglist.org
>Subject: Man-skin too soft. Broo skin better!
>Reply-To: glorantha_at_rpglist.org
>
>Simon Phipp says:
>
>>I play that some of the Dara Happan aristocracy do
>this anyway.
>>Not in a barbaric way, but in a nice and civilised
>way.
>
>Of course, well, that's allright then! :)
>
>>Simon Hibbs:
>>> Troll _do_not_ hunt their own people for food.
>>
>>Except for the Kaarg Sons who had to eat a
>relative once a
>>season. Or has this changed now? It was a Rune
>Lord requirement
>>in the bad old days. Maybe trolls are a lot nicer
>now than they
>>used to be.
>
>I don't think they're any nicer at all, and I would
>expect
>that this requirement is still there. However, the
>requirement
>doesn't say anything at all about killing a
>relative, or the
>circumstances of their death.
>
>My guess would be that this was orriginaly intended
>to make
>sure that the Kaarg's Son did his duty in taking
>part in
>funerary rites and such. It may also have been
>intended to
>promote competition and warlike behaviour. For
>example I
>wouldn't be at all surprised if a Kaarg's Son,
>getting
>towards the end of a season and not having met the
>requirement, decided to lead an expedition of clan
>warriors
>(all related to him by definition) on a dangerous
>raid
>against nearby enemies, refusing to give up the
>assault
>untill he was 'forced to retreat due to the
>casualties we
>have taken'. He would then enthusiasticaly take
>part in
>the funerary rites of the fallen, naturaly.
>
>I would not expect him to sneak up on a cousin from
>
>behind a bash him on the head.
>
>Promotes warlike behaviour, encourages competition,
>
>encourages 'creative' thinking. All good things!
>
>>Except for Food Trollkin, but perhaps they are not
>trolls
>>and don't count?
>
>They absolutely do not count. Trolls do not
>consider
>trollkin to be trolls (but they can still be
>relatives).
>
>>Trolls go to their worship ceremonies and see
>their
>>Shamans ripping the skins off live broos and
>making
>>them into magical drums to beat when Chaos
>approaches.
>
>To be fair, trolls do peel the skins off humans,
>and
>I'm sure they're known to occasionaly make drums
>out
>of them too.
>
>>3. Don't have a full meal before worshipping.
>
>Hur, hur, hur!
>
>
>Simon Hibbs
>
>
>
>-- __--__--
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
>From: James Frusetta <gerakkag_at_yahoo.com>
>Subject: Continuing Chaos Guff
>To: glorantha_at_rpglist.org
>Reply-To: glorantha_at_rpglist.org
>
>Simon wrote:
>>dead as a funeral rite, but if they were starving
>they
>>wouldn't routinely consider killing each other for
>
>>food to be acceptable.
>Yah. Such behavior would automatically lead to
>being
>declared a non-troll, and being killed by outraged
>uz.
>
>
>If chaos is "cultural" (e.g., if chaos is seen as
>having different aspects in different societies, or
>
>taking different forms in different societies),
>this
>and marricide are IMO the #1 prime suspects to be
>labeled "chaotic behavior" by uz.
>
>For Sartarites, rape, cannibalism and murdering kin
>
>are all the stuff of chaos. For uz, marricide and
>"live" cannibalism are.
>
>> My point was about 'destruction of the universe'.
>I
>>thought I gave plenty of more immediate reasons
>for
>>seeing that (in general) chaotic enemies are
>obviously
>>worse than non-chaotic ones.
>Hmm. I may be obtuse (always a possibility), or I
>may
>be uncommunicative.
>
>The examples you give do *not* convince me that
>Johnny
>Troll will say "Holy crap, chaos is a hell of a lot
>
>worse than anything else that exists, period."
>
>The point I have in my own brain, at least, is that
>
>there are *lots* of bad things out there. A Solar
>disciple frying trolls and a chaos monster both
>bad.
>Neither "category" is "automatically worse" than
>the
>other.
>
>Sure, some monsters rape your womenfolk, stuff
>disease
>in your home and taint the land -- this is Bad
>Stuff.
>A chaos monster doing this is *clearly* worse than
>a
>Yelmist doing nothing. However, a Yelmist laughing
>while he burns your kids, fries your womenfolk and
>spreads light across the land is *clearly* worse
>than
>a swordsnake slithering down the road.
>
>It's a decision made on the *individual* thing, not
>
>the "category" -- Big Bad Yelmists are worse than
>puddly little chaos things.
>
>AFAIK, most Heortlings consider a single broo a
>"worse
>enemy" than a ravening horde of, well, trolls. I
>don't
>think trolls share that opinion: a horde of
>invading
>Sartarites is *IMO,* for trolls, worse than a
>single
>broo.
>
>>Unless it becomes an issue.
>I definitely agree, and you make a great point
>about
>captives. But I don't think trolls really think
>about
>it much until the broo show up. And you kill them
>because they carry nasty diseases and you probably
>can't get a ransom. But again, I think these are
>*practical* things, not "kill chaos *because* it's
>the
>worst thing in the universe." You kill chaos
>because
>it's bad, really bad, like lots of other really bad
>
>things.
>
>However, uz are *equally* unlike to (IMO) take
>captives from untrustworthy humans that will likely
>
>turn around and shaft them. Are they distinguishing
>
>broo as "yuck, chaos, kill it" or as "crap, chaos
>stuff can't be trusted kill them. Kill that
>Orlanthi,
>too, those buggers try and escape. Save the
>Issaries,
>we can trust him."
>
>>Likewise if a band of chaotics were spotted moving
>
>>through clan territory in one area and Yelmies in
>>another, 9 times out of 10 the trolls would target
>
>>the chaotics first.
>Sure, *if* the chaotics are a bigger threat. A
>couple
>of broo in the hunting grounds isn't worse than a
>band
>of Yelmies near the heartland. If the Yelmists are
>worse, *IMO* 9 out of 10 trolls want to kill them
>first.
>
>Again: Yelm screwed the trolls ABOUT AS MUCH as
>chaos.
>Why would trolls automatically overlook this with
>regards to chaos? Why is chaos, as you seem to
>argue,
>the worst thing in the unierse, *unless* the
>average
>troll recognizes that chaos = universe destroyed.
>If
>Greg sez this is so, of course (and I have the
>feeling
>he thinks so from his comments) all of what I'm
>saying
>is guff. <grin>
>
>>Uz would show through their actions that in
>practice
>>they very well know the difference between chaotic
>
>and
>>non-chaotic opponents.
>I think where we disagree is on the level of this
>--
>I'm (possibly mis-)portraying uz as generally
>ranking
>them about the same, while I'm reading you as
>saying
>there's a fair anti-chaos prejudice stronger than
>other known prejudices. Chaos is worse than
>Yelmies,
>etc.
>
>In many cases, I think it's a moot point because uz
>
>have lots of segments in their society that hate
>other
>groups more than another -- Tree-choppers woudl
>rather
>kill elves than chaos. IMO.
>
>Not all enemies are equal, but the "values" differ
>from troll to troll, too!
>
>And frex, because no one noted it: is the Moonbroth
>
>thing completely non-canon? FWIW, if the freakin'
>Praxians can ally with Chaos, the "All chaos is bad
>
>chaos" argument seems flawed. But I remember it was
>
>TotRM, so it may not be canon...
>
>>know how trolls behave when it becomes an actual
>issue
>>they have to deal with.
>My opinion, then, is that it's a question of
>practicality. Uz have a "set" of enemies, and they
>chose to smite them based on things like "who's
>most
>dangerous," "who's threatening me," "who can I beat
>up
>and eat without risking anything." They don't have
>an
>ideological basis that says "Kill chaos first, then
>
>yelmies, then elder races, then other humans, etc."
>
>
>Of *course* the uz realize chaos is different in
>many
>ways, it's not just humans or elves or sumthin'
>with
>tentacles and stuff. They *know* about things like
>disease, chaos taint, the untrustworthiness and
>madness of many races.
>
>But I *don't* think Uz say "Chaos should be killed
>before anything else, because chaos is really
>gods-awful and must be slain." I think uz say,
>"Chaos
>is something else we hate, which we hate for these
>reasons, and we kill it when we see it, because we
>don't like it." For *those* reasons, not the
>"destroy
>the universe" thing. It's *just another foe,* like
>the
>other foes they *like* to beat up and eat. Again,
>this
>is all IMO (and Sandy P's, for that matter, if
>anyone
>cares to check the old GDs -- I looked it up, and
>we're following almost point for point an existing
>debate! <laugh>).
>
>I *understand* Sartarites to basically follow
>"Chaos
>should be killed before anything else, etc." I may
>be
>wrong on this, of course.
>
>>I don't think that Chaos being realy, realy bad is
>an
>>amazing, novel discovery that only Sartarites have
>
>>managed to work out.
>No, but it's not "It's the worst thing in the
>universe, worse than anything else, ew, icky,"
>either,
>which is how I'm reading your posts. It's bad. It's
>
>really bad. I don't think (for uz) it's the Worst
>Thing Ever, however.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>James
>
>
>__________________________________
Sincerely,
Greg Stafford
--__--__--
End of Glorantha Digest
Powered by hypermail