From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer) To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest) Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily) Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Mon, 06 Dec 1993, part 1 Message-ID:Precedence: junk X-RQ-ID: Intro This is the RuneQuest Daily Bulletin, a mailing list on the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha. It is sent out once per day in digest format. More details on the RuneQuest Daily and Digest can be found after the last message in this digest. --------------------- From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) Subject: time for gods' geases Message-ID: <9312040834.AA00598@hp0.zycor.lgc.com> Date: 4 Dec 93 08:34:15 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2548 GEASES & THE BREAKING THEREOF ----------------------------- ---------- Sandy Petersen in X-RQ-ID: 2506 >> >> Sorry I can't write more today, but you'll probably see precious >> little of me over the next ten days (until DOOM! is finished) DOOM! ? >> I think it's up to the GM in question. However, traditional Celtic >> tales about geas-breaking would appear to be on my side -- the geas >> is like a natural law -- if you break it, the curse follows, whether >> or not you intended to do so. ---------- Thom Baguley in X-RQ-ID: 2523 >> >> A good argument. I'll reconsider. What about the act of repentence you >> mentioned. RQ seems to have neglected this aspect of religion ... For some acts >> no repentence should be possible, but for others I would be inclined to allow >> the possibility (e.g. for inadvertant geas breaking). Even for accidents, there is sometimes no repentence. Though they were "natural laws" and not geases, the case of Oedipus stands out. He *accidentally* broke the "law". He did not know that it was his father he killed, nor his mother that he, well, you know-ed, until afterward. Nonetheless, he didn't get much by way of slack from the gods. DIVINE INTERVENTION, TIME, ET AL -------------------------------- ---------- Colin Watson in X-RQ-ID: 2516 >> >> Geoff Gunner wrote: >> >re: Colin Watson's model of God-time as perpendicular planes - Not So ! >> >Anyway, you can't compare the two as they aren't of similar qualities. >> >> They only seem different because we're not used to more than one temporal >> dimension. Just like a fourth spatial dimension would seem bizarre. I think >> comparing GodTime and RealTime is just like comparing length with width. But without common units, or ability to convert between measurements of length and width, you can't compare the two. I'd say that such a case exists in the relationship you describe between RealTime Time and GodTime time. Maybe it's a bit like Heisenberg's principle: essentially you cannot know both coordinates, and also looking into GodTime changes that at which you were looking. ---------- David Cheng in X-RQ-ID: 2519 >> >> While I have absolutely no idea what the hell was going on with this Stafford at his best? >> My ideal guide for divination is the way it is presented in the CoPrax >> Biturian Varosh story. When he needs guidance, Biturian spends a few >> points of Divination and asks Issaries. Issaries doesn't send him >> confusing visions, or arcane max-7-word answers; he just answers the >> question! See the Chalana Arroy chapter: >> >> Must I undertake this dreadful expedition? >> No, but you've got your Lightbringer obligations to live up to. In a way, this is pretty cryptic, too. Depends on your definitions: (first part of answer) 1A. No, you are not obliged by the me/the cult to go. 1B. No, you will not be dragged kicking and screaming by others ( or fate! ) - simply implies that at some future time he "will not have gone", hence it is not thee case that he *must* (second part of answer) 2A. Yes you must go ( *that* is the obligation ) 2B. You *should* go, you're a Lightbringer 2C. You must support in *some* fashion I can easily see how the answer could be 1A & 2A, despite the fact that they're contradictory. Neither half specifically precludes reprisals, either. EVERYTHING ELSE --------------- ---------- Geoff Gunner in X-RQ-ID: 2509 >> >> Sandy says that: if someone had a spell cast on them from behind, then they'd >> know which direction the spell came from. >> ... >> Too much trouble, IMHO. Just treat your spells as 'bucket-of-water-over-the- >> head' effects - so no chance of determining where a failed spell came from. Are you always sure from where a *successful* spell came? In general, I'd say that casual magic users ( not Shamans, people with Second/Soul Sight, et al ) would generally not know. even those who are more aware of spirit matters, may not always know. ---------- Joerg Baumgartner in X-RQ-ID: 2512 >> >> - Who would participate in collecting a "complete" encyclopaedia for Sure. If we may do it, without copyright problems, et al. >> accumulation of these?) How would one distribute this? I have thought >> about Windows Help-textfiles. I don't use a Windows-system, but I Hmm... I'm not familiar with the inner workings of those. If it's a really quirky internal format, we may be better off writing a small, portable shell program, and have our own data format. >> NB: "Ygglinga" sounds much more Viking to me than "Yggites", and I'd >> propose this as national noun for themselves. Means "people of Ygg" in >> old Norse, and sounds quite close to "Ynglinga", the originally swedish >> descendants of Yng (=Freyr) who became the Norwegian royal dynasty. Sounds good. BTW: From where does the -ite ending come ? It's probably specific to one (or more) language(s), and speakers of *those* languages would say "Yggites", as I expect speakers of TradeTalk might say "Ygglingi" ( following from Orlanthi, Humakti, ... ). Maybe Pamaltelan speakers of TradeTalk would say "Ygglingo", or something similar. ---------- Joerg Baumgartner in X-RQ-ID: 2514 >> >> Re horses in Prax: >> John Medway asked whether horse riders were attacked by Praxians on >> sight, ad somebody proposed that they did, if chances were right. ' Someone else asked. I just hoped the hostility was pretty genuine, and not a quasi-friendly and ritualized, like Orlanth & (Y)elmal(io). >> Praxians. Although the Praxians cheat the newcomers in their choice of >> contests (such as a head butting contest between the mounts, proposed >> by a Bison rider), they don't attack outrightly. Having a five to one Why is that "cheating"? 8) ---------- Peter Michaels in X-RQ-ID: 2520 >> >> I thought the Lunar Empire had killed all intelligent life in the Oslir. Or >> am I misremembering something? Hmm, maybe this is connected with the Lunars ruining the fertility of the lands of Peloria. Maybe it's too much artificial fertilizer, and too many pesticides? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- From: sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com (Sandy Petersen) Subject: re: RQ Daily Message-ID: <9312041841.AA13169@idcube.idsoftware.com> Date: 4 Dec 93 06:41:25 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2549 Sam (not Scotland but Sartar) mentions: >The game system itself was purely d6's. I thought it was very >original until I saw Star Wars My gargantuan ego now forces me to admit that the Star Wars game system was first originated by me, in the West End game of Ghostbusters. They purloined it for use in Star Wars without even giving me a tiny mention of credit. *sob* Not that they had to, but 'twould have been nice. Joerg Baumgartner sez: >In my ... campaign one character suffered a successful DI, leaving >him at POW 3. Had I given him the choice of a random chaotic feature >instead, he would have been thankful. In most of my campaigns, the players have not been from chaos-tolerant cultures, but have been Malkioni, Sartarites, Pamaltelans, Hsunchen, etc. Receiving a chaos feature, for them, is the equivalent of having to leave the campaign. But I agree that characteristic loss is the ultimate Bad RQ Thing. I feel it is the equivalent of the D&D undead monster Energy Drain, which is the scariest thing in that game. The sorcerous Tap spell is probably the most wicked thing in RQ. Geoff Gunner mocks: >I'm no alchemist, but then saying something has 80 pt damage per >round is crazy. Must be rules-breaking chaos magic, eh? >That strength acid is going to eat through rock. Yes. >Anyway, gorp acid should only be effective against organics - your >plate should be unscathed by a gorp attack This seems like a non-sequitur to me. Gorp damage has always been effective vs. metal in all the games I've played in. Also, any chemist knows that many acids are far more devastating on metal than on organic matter. >And the thing's an amoeba. A move of 1 ? Active attacks ? As a former protozoologist, I can only point out that amoebas move actively, swim through water, seek out prey, and even grow armor. But in any case the comparison is fruitless because a Gorp is not an amoeba. No way. It doesn't have a nucleus, it secretes acid, it can be split into pieces without taking harm. It is a bit of Raw Chaos, IMO, and is the basic chaos monster from which all other chaos monsters are simply refinements. Note that the Thed Spawn Chaos spell produces a gorp by default if no sacrifice is made. Note that Pocharngo has a spell designed to Create Gorp. re: time travel There's been a lot of talk about time travel lately. I'd just like to say that in none of my campaigns has anyone ever engaged or attempted to engage in time travel. Unless you count awakening nameless entities from centuries-old sleep. D. Schubert sez: >One question I have that really bugs me is this: what is the >relationship between Shamans and Orlanthi society? Strained, but accepted. Only certain cults permit shamans. Shamans are commonest in the more primitive tribes and the more primitive cults (like Umath). --------------------- From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Subject: Gods and Time Message-ID: <199312042352.PAA19523@mail.netcom.com> Date: 4 Dec 93 07:52:12 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2550 >From: watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk (Colin Watson) >Subject: Divination > >>I think the gods are very aware of the concept of time. > >Yes, they are aware of the concept of Time (with a capital "T"; ie. mortal >Time which was the result of the Compromise) but they have no practical >experience of it. This is where I disagree. I interpret mortals as having a limited perception of reality. The gods, while also bound by Time, are not so limited. In otherwords, the gods can understand the time-reference of a mortal, since it is merely a subset of godly perception. >>Before Time, they had free action. To >>save the world, they grudgingly accepted to give this up. I might even say >>that all of the God Plane is bound to a timeline now too, but I'll probably >>catch plenty of flak for it. > >Well, I was under the impression that in GodTime the gods have free-will >to do anything within their power. eg. Humakt can chop you up if he feels >like it. My understanding (which is not based on any official info) is that the gods have no free will; thus the need for mortal heroes. The only way Humakt could chop you up is if you cross one of his paths on the Heroplane (i.e. oppose an event that Humakt performed during Godtime). Of course, one interpretation of such an encounter is that you are meeting a shadow of Humakt, or perhaps a Humakt worshipper who is also heroquesting, rather than encountering the god himself. >>The way I see it, your god knows these things about you, and not much >>else: >>* what you tell him through prayer >>* what others say about you through prayer >>* interactions you've had during ceremonies, or heroquests >>* (roughly) how often you call upon him for rune magic > >Exactly how often you will ever call on him for rune magic for your >whole existance (even for the Time you haven't experienced yet). Even the gods are limited by time. This is quite clear, at least in the RQ2 material. He simply cannot know future events, even ones relating to his worshippers. This also creates the problem of foreknowledge for the GM. By your interpretation, I can ask my god how much magic I have / will cast for him for all Time. What happens if the character then dies the next game? (I suppose you can weasel out of it by claiming the existance of multiple incarnations... still, the correct sequence of questions and events could create a paradox.) This also creates the problem that if my character was, or ever will be a Rune Lord, why can't I ask for divine intervention now? >I considered a similar argument myself and it seems valid enough to me. >If you want to give the gods an implicit understanding of "now" for the >purposes of Divination then that's fair enough. However it gives diviners >access to a *huge* amount of information which could have potentially >catastrophic effects on a scenario (in my group this is known as a "Scenario >Knackerer"). There isn't much excuse for it failing either, so watch out! When dealing with a diety, you are always contacting him at a fixed time frame. In the games our GM runs, we have met dieties from a time before we started worshiping him. Of course, the diety usually recognizes that you are one of his worshippers, although he doesn't know anything about you yet. Using this interpretation, divination contacts the diety at a fixed time time reference, which we generally refer to as "now". This is important, by the way, since a god such as Nysalor cannot be contacted thru worship or Divination, since he is dead. You cannot contact Nysalor, except thru heroquests. By your interpretation, the current state of a diety is irrelevant, since you are contacting him in Godtime (clearly, Arkat didn't remove Gbaji from all Time, since he can be found on the Heroplane). As far as destroying scenarios, I don't think we have ever managed to do that yet (thru divination that is). Our GM generally limits the information available to a god based on his sphere of influence. In addition, our enemies often take precautions to limit the information we can learn. For example, a group of assasins killed a Lunar priest, and it took a hell of a lot of work to track them down, even though we used all kinds of Reconstruction and Divination spells (and they didn't even use Divination Block). -steve --------------------- From: MOBTOTRM@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au Subject: Humatki Swords Message-ID: <01H64EXP34OI90N25B@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> Date: 6 Dec 93 00:34:00 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2551 >Hello from Sam >-------------- >I take it that what was said about Humakti swords being taken to the >afterlife doesn't apply to enchantments and matrices ie Bladesharp. >These stay behind with the physical weapon. Yes? Hello to Sam! I would say Yes, unless the sword had user conditions on it proscribing such use. If Dad really wants his dress sword stuck in his grave, maybe he would make the matrixes conditional to him only. However, this is unlikely if he's got a son and heir. According to COP, it is "not uncommon" for the *broken* sword to be stuck in the grave, so perhaps some cultures require the sword to be snapped as part of the funerary rites. Personally, my fave Humakti PC Murphius wants to be buried holding it in his arms, so that his weapon is handy when he wakes up in Hell. --------------------- From: ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham , via RadioMail) Subject: DI result; Orlanthi shamans Message-ID: <199312050249.AA00528@radiomail.net> Date: 5 Dec 93 02:49:02 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2552 >From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) >Talk about brutality. In my non-Glorantha campaign one character >suffered a successful DI, leaving him at POW 3. I think I had a character who ended up at POW 1 after DI! Luckily, he did have some stored MP. But despite the inconvenience, he was very glad to be alive. >From: crawford@explorer.clark.net (D.Schubert) >what is the relationship between Shamans and Orlanthi society? King of Sartar mentions the kolating (e.g. Dunorl Tooth-winds). Page 245 implies that these spirit-masters are a standard, if rare, part of the tribe. I view shamans as important in mediating between the tribe and the primal air, and the spirits of air. The Orlanth cult provides a more rigid framework to both protect the initiates and guide their access to magic. Orlanth priests might view kolatings like idiots savant, able to deal with mighty spirits without knowing the proper mythical framework. --------------------- From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) Subject: Latest Lhankor Mhy Mission Message-ID: <9312050755.AA01509@hp0.zycor.lgc.com> Date: 5 Dec 93 07:55:43 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2553 ----------------------- Geoff Gunner in X-RQ-ID: 2541 >> >> I think that would be a damn good place to start. A timeline's possibly one >> of the most useful bits of reference material out. Look at the contradictions >> in what we've already got. It would show us what sort of problems are likely Timelines, better maps, period maps, ... all of these would be greatly useful. >> And interesting point there about 'Do we need Greg Stafford's approval'. Yup, >> it would be nice, but it seems Greg's trying to get out of being the ultimate >> authority. So why not respect that, and become a *Democracy* (Whoever shouts >> loudest, wins) ? At the same time, Greg's started caring about copyright infringements. Though he did not know what specifically what materials were involved in the collection distributed by Adam "What's 'Copyright' Mean?" Reynolds, he seemed to take a very dim view of it. He is obliged to either defend or forgoe his copyrights. If we are to do more than merely index existing publications, I would think that we would *have* to get his approval, and should, anyway. ----------------------- Neil Robinson in X-RQ-ID: 2543 >> >> In X-RQ-ID 2512, Joerg discusses an encyclopedia.. >> >> Aren't there full-context search engines out there? I'd like a hyper-text >> engine, but adding in all the links would be a lot of work. A friend >> is currently setting up a simple database, but the entry time is emmense. As for Hypertext engines, there are at least two which are available across several platforms: FrameMaker and Owl's guide. FrameMaker is a page layout program which has had hypertext link capability added in, and it trying to become an undustry standard for Unix on-line help systems. Advantages = pretty looking documents, available for Unix (several), Macintosh and Windows, separate viewer application is available. Owl's Guide is an old entry in the Hypertext area. I've only seen a demo, and cannot properly describe it. Another option would be HyperCard on the Macintosh. It has some database facilities available, or able to be scripted by designers ( us ), and HyperCard files can be converted to other formats for Windows. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------