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, Sat, 16 Apr 1994, part 3
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
---------------------
From: MOBTOTRM@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Substitute "Esrolians", "the French", etc...
Message-ID: <01HB82BN1K36936J38@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 16 Apr 94 10:40:49 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3656
Sandy opines:
> In any case, the majority of sorcerers that would be met by a
>theist would be weirdos or hired thugs. Not a comforting crew.
> To continue along this line of reasoning, I do NOT think it
>applies to Lunar sorcerers, whom I believe are mostly Bad Guys (this
>despite the fact that I am, in general, a Lunar simp). First off, the
>basic culture of Peloria is a theistic one. Hence, someone who
>becomes a sorcerer and thus abandons his Solar roots is almost
>certainly doing so for selfish, power-gaining reasons, rather than to
>Serve The Invisible God, as among the Malkioni.
Strangers in Prax features a Lunar sorcery-user, and a very nice chap he is
too. He even has a pet dog.
Sandy further opines:
>Second, the exceptions to this, wizards from the sorcery-using culture of the
>Carmanians, are Bad Guys anyway, because the Carmanians in general
>are not very nice people.
Geoff Watson asks:
>>I'm curious, is this a Relative judgement or absolute statement? ;-)
>>Could any culture survive if every member was No Good? I'm reluctant to tar
>>all Carmanians with the same black brush.
I'm sure Sandy is just taking the piss here with his rampant generalised
prejudice against the noble folk of Carmania (at least I hope he was...)
>"Bad guys anyway... (because) ...not very nice people"
Y'know, this is exactly what the Carmanians say about those ignorant
barbarian heathens down in Talastar. Or the Esrolians about Grazers,
or the Grazers about Esrolians, or the English about the French. Need
I go on?
MOB
---------------------
From: SYS_RSH%PV0A@hobbes.cca.rockwell.com (Scott Haney, AFDS770 Functional Test X2069)
Subject: Do - a broo, a female broo.....
Message-ID: <01HB77IOTJ1S9GX3CF@hobbes.cca.rockwell.com>
Date: 15 Apr 94 07:56:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3657
Interesting discussion on whether broos can be female. I have a few
thoughts on the subject.
First up, someone made the comment that broos, being chaotic, could
be female. I agree to a point, but remember that chaos in Glorantha
is constantly being fought and restricted. In fact, no chaotic
creature is completely chaotic! If it were, it could be ANYTHING at
a moment's notice. Obviously, this doesn't happen...gorp remain
gorp, walktapi don't spontaneous transmute into vampires, broos all
look and act like broos (albeit with some pretty wild variations
between specimens). Just as chaos eats away at Gloranthas fabric,
Glorantha forces a certain degree of structure upon everything within
it, including chaotic creatures. Certainly chaotic creatures vary
more within their species than non-chaotics, but they have limits on
their variation...a sign that the fight against Chaos is proving at
least partly successful!
What's my point? Essentially that 'brooness' could just well include
being male. Certainly there could be female broos, but I'd consider
them about as common as giant 14 meter broos...possible, but
(fortunately) highly unlikely. (Good grief...how many larvae could a
female broo produce in a week?!? Scary thought.)
Second up, even if they were female, would anyone notice or care? If
you give your typical right-thinking Gloranthan a free association
quiz, you'd almost inevitably get:
Broo KILL!
I doubt that anyone would bother to check. Even sages might think
twice, given the disease-carrying capacity of a broo.
Having a female in a game might be fun, however.... :)
Scott
---------------------
From: MOBTOTRM@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Thou shalt kill in a just cause...
Message-ID: <01HB830TIXEK936J38@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 16 Apr 94 10:59:14 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3658
Sandy said:
>Most faiths on Earth proclaim similar acts as "good", from Muslim to
>Judaism
Paul retorts:
>Like when Yahweh orders the Jews to kill all the Canaanites in a
>town, sparing neither the women and children nor the domestic
>animals?
>Or when the Moslems exploded across the world, killing any (apart,
>theoretically, from Peoples of the Book) who would not convert?
Sandy asks:
>Let's not start a pro/anti-religion thread in the Daily, huh?
But then goes on at length:
> In any case, your examples are pitifully bad. When's the last
>time the Jews killed all the population of a town? And though lots of
>guys were killed by the Moslems, they did not kill everyone who
>failed to convert, though non-Moslems had to pay extra taxes.
[Several paragraphs deleted]
> I consider this thread closed unless you can find me an
>example of a large-scale religion that thinks it's good to rob and
>kill on an everyday basis, w/o special permission from God.
Tsk, tsk, Sandy! If you want to stop discussion on a topic, you really
should stop talking about it yourself in the same post! If you make comments
in an unmoderated discussion group like this people may want to
respond to it and should feel free to do so.
I too, was going to mention the specific example of the Aztecs, but was
beaten to the punch by Paul Reilly and others. A great historical novel
about the Aztecs is the imaginatively named novel AZTEC by Gary Jennings.
It describes at the dedication of a new temple how 7,000 human sacrifices
were made in one day! Yuk!
P.S. The Koran specifically enjoins its followers NOT to kill (except in a
just cause).
---------------------
From: sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com (Sandy Petersen)
Subject: broos 'n' stuff
Message-ID: <9404151609.AA04244@idcube.idsoftware.com>
Date: 15 Apr 94 04:09:29 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3659
Lewis Jardine sez:
>I am pretty sure that broos impregnate, not parasitize their hosts.
>The justification for this is that the offspring have some of the
>characteristics of the *mother*.
It makes little difference, considering that probably no
single principle of modern genetics applies in Glorantha. For many
years Western scholars believed that the male sperm carried a
miniature version of the child, and all the woman did was nurture the
beastie till birth. According to this theory, the fact that the kid
had many characteristics of the mother was just because he'd been in
such close proximity to her for so long.
Another fine pre-genetic principle which I'm sure applies in
Glorantha is the "marking" of an unborn child when the mother sees or
hears something scary or offbeat.
Joerg Baumgartner sez:
>Both Lodril and Gorgorma are feared by Dara Happan nobility for the
>effects they may produce in a revolt, but Lodril seconds as the
>worker god, so is tolerated. After all, when the Lodril rebels get
>what they asked for, they become tranquil again; Dendara worshippers
>changing to Gorgorma are lost forever, and may only be sold as
>slaves to unsuspecting customers. Yet Gorgorma becomes popular in
>times of trouble. Few people let themselves be abhorred by a a
>strange old man's liver diseases when enjoying their drinks.
This is one of the best discussions of Glorantha magic
ecology I've ever seen. Thanks, Joerg.
Brian Dickinson asks:
>I'm confused by the use of the name "trickster" for both Eurmal
>cultists and Nysalor Illuminates.
Strictly speaking, a Nysalor or Gbaji Illuminate is not a
trickster. Some of them (the missionary-oriented ones) are termed
"riddlers", tho. And the guise of a trickster is probably a handy one
for one of these illuminates to use in traveling through foreign
lands. It lets you act weird and disobey laws without social
disapproval (other than the normal disgust at a trickster's antics).
But "trickster" and "riddler" are different entities. Though it is
possible for a single person to be both at once, most tricksters are
NOT riddlers, and vice-versa.
>Also what is Eurmals relationship to illusions.
The trickster cult teaches all the various Illusion spells,
plus some specialty ones of its own. However, you may have to wander
far and wide to get 'em all.
Colin Watson takes issue with my slandering of Lunar sorcerers:
>Ok, so a freethinking individual chooses not to toe the cultural
>line - does that make them a Bad Person?
Not necessarily, but certainly it increases the odds. Many
folks that decide to turn their back on their normal culture do so
because of less-than-worthy reasons.
>I think corrupt cultists are much more common than evil sorcerers.
I think so, too, but I think that the percentage of evil
sorcerers is higher than among cultists.
(I slammed the Carmanians, saying they weren't very nice.)
>I'm curious, is this a Relative judgement or absolute statement?
A relative judgment. In the eyes of most Gloranthans, the
Carmanians are repressive grasping villains. Obviously there's plenty
of kind, caring Carmanians, just like there were no doubt many Nazi
party officials who liked dogs and children. But most defenders of
Moral Relativism I've met won't go so far as to defend it in regards
to the Final Solution.
>Could any culture survive if every member was No Good?
Not a human culture, at least not for more than a generation.
But a subset of such a society could keep going indefinitely with
every single member being morally repulsive to the majority of folk
-- as in the Thuggee sect, or the Tongs in China.
>This may be true, but I don't believe the stereotype you depict
>would be as common as you imply.
Obviously that's up to your own campaign. Not only do I still
stand by most of my arguments, but evil Lunar sorcerers being the
norm I find more fun for roleplaying in general. I won't let it stop
me from introducing a rare kindly Lunar sorcerer, but I like the
inverse parallelism between Lunar and Western sorcery. I run most
Western wizards as kindly Gandalf/Jolly Friar/Merlin types, with the
occasional heartless exception as a fearsome baddie. But in the Lunar
Empire, I run most wizards as sinister Necromancers/Dabblers in God's
Domain/Mad Scientists, with the occasional exception struggling
valiantly to make up for her compatriots' crimes. Since my players do
lots of traveling, they get to see both types.
I said:
>Among animals that perform dominance "rape" (at least
>mounting), the animals are able to maintain a friendly relationship
>with one another. The lower-ranked animal sometimes even invites the
>superior to mount, to demonstrate friendliness and subservience.
>This is NOT the case among humans.
MOB replied
>>But "she was asking for it" is often a defense in rape trials...
Surely you don't think this is other than a baldfaced lie? No
friendly relationship is maintained, nor did the woman invite the man
to rape her (except in highly neurotic cases). The man is, at best,
guilty of incompetence at reading interpersonal signals (which abets
my argument that humans don't do this, if only incompetents try it),
and, at worst, a disgusting weasel trying to wriggle out of having
committed a terrible act.
---------------------
From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott)
Subject: More Tricks.
Message-ID: <9404151511.AA01605@vinga.hum.gu.se>
Date: 15 Apr 94 17:17:12 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3660
From the Daily of 94-04-14:
> Chaosium has an unpublished Eurmal/Trickster write-up that
>gives the distributions of the various aspects.
What? Where? How? I hereby add my voice to the chorus clamoring for
publication of this crucial document.
Brian Dickinson 94-04-15:
>I'm also confused by the use of the name "trickster" for both
>Eurmal cultists and Nysalor Illuminates. Does this imply that
>Eurmal initiates are commonly thought of as illuminated!
>One of the lightbringers chaotic? surely not! - unless this is
>one of Eurmals more spectacular jokes!
I think you're referring to the Illuminates in CoT, who used their
tricksterhood as cover (Illuminates can join any cult they like, you know).
This particular combination is very effective, since both Illuminates and
tricksters are seen as more-or-less insane, but I don't think it's all that
common. Except in our (the Chaos Apes', to all you Swedes reading this - my
apologies for the incomprehensibility to everyone else) East Wilds campaign
(remember, the troupe in CoT is said to come from Ralios). I have some more
opinions about Illumination; if my Trickster propaganda doesn't spark any
debate, perhaps we could discuss Riddlers instead?
>Also what is Eurmals relationship to illusions. A recent TOTRM
>(not to hand unfortunately) had a Eurmal/trickster (again trickster?)
>hero with illusion magics. I had the feeling that illusions were from
>some other source - I first remember seeing them in Questworld (Lord
>Skydds(?) Manor).
Eurmal owns the Illusion rune (RQ3 Introduction to Glorantha Book).
Which brings me to an argument that I just realized could be used against
my last posting. If Eurmal is the owner (i.e. anthropomorphization) of
Illusion, and Bolongo of Disorder, this seems to contradict the theory of
them being the same entity.
To untangle this, I'll have to wheel out some heavy metaphysical artillery.
Now, according to one theory about the nature of Gloranthan reality (a God
Learner theory, admittedly, but all the really interesting ones are) the
Runes are the building blocks of the world. Or at least of the deities,
which is all that need concern us for the moment. Gods/Goddesses and the
Cults pertaining thereto are simply one way for humans to interact with
these strange and inhuman forces. On this theory, what happens when frex
Bolongo 'inherits' Disorder from Ratslaff, is really that the human
worshippers have aquired a need for a different type of personification.
Not that I think Ratslaff was ever actually worshipped in the 3rd Age sense
- it's the same phenomenon as when Umath (too primal for mere humans to
grasp) was replaced by Orlanth (much more sophisticated, a God you can
really feel comfortable with:-)). If this is all there is to it,
"Trickster" becomes nothing more than a label applied to a bunch of
different cults that mortals for some reason find similar.
This will not do. I once again bring your attention to the
interchangeability of worshippers and spells. The God Learners could only
pull this stunt with deities that had the same runes, and it cost them the
world (literally). Trickster cultists can switch between shrines dedicated
to entirely different concepts (runes), and do it without any effort at
all! Clearly there is some deeper secret hidden here...
Another version of mythology states that there are powers at work that
_preceed_ the Runes. Glorantha, for one. In the more abstract versions,
they are called things like Maker and Grower. Now, since these published
beings are also stated to be later associated with certain deities (Mostal
and Aldrya, I think - could be Mostal and Flamal), couldn't there also be a
primeval Trickster who has been simplified both through the idea of Runes
and the later development of Deities? The reason for there being two major
runes connected to Trickster is of course that it's such a complex and
confusing entity. I would appreciate any comments on this suggestion.
On a lighter note, if Illusion is temporary reality, isn't reality just a
big illusion with lots of Extension? And wouldn't that make Trickster the
Creator? Now I know this is not The Truth, because I suggested it to Greg a
few years back and he was exceedingly sceptical (I think he's an
ontological realist at heart). But I'm still willing to bet that it's what
the Eurmal cultists believe...
Various other subjects:
>Finally I got round to looking in the RQ3 magic book and sure enough the
>casting chance for spirit magic is POW*5 - ENC; the magic bonus is not
>mentioned and the text implies that this is the complete formula.
Yep. The magic bonus addition is an addendum to the rules. I think it's
official, but I can't recall when, where or who said (wrote?) it.
>Note the reason why sorcerors must have at least +10% magic bonus is to
>allow apprentices to be able to cast one 1 pt. spell per day! Remember
>that a typical set of clothes is about 3 ENC and this is subtracted from
>a d6 roll!
Uhh, I don't think normal clothes count as ENC if you're wearing them, just
if you're carrying them in a pack or something. I'm pretty sure this is
stated in RQ2, not quite so sure about the 3rd ed. Though naked wizards
_is_ an amusing idea.
Anyway, who cares about rules?
>Another linguistic problem: the word "thane." In Pagan Shore, thane is
>essentially a clan chieftain. In the Orlanth writeup in Heroes I.4, anyone
>in the Orlanth Rex subcult (which includes tribal council members on
>council business) is called thane. But in King of Sartar, the rank is
>broadly defined to any sort of leadership role
>...
>Has anyone dealt with this in their Orlanthi campaigns?
In my group, we see this as linked to which stage of organization a
particular orlanthi society has acheived. In more 'primitive' clan- or
tribe-based cultures, the thane is The Man, the sole clan leader (and the
tribal leader is called a chieftain, to avoid confusing Kingdoms and the
Kings of tribes). But in a 'sophisticated' kingdom like Sartar (and
possibly some tribal lands as well, no clear-cut boundaries here), there
would be more thanes, as there is a wider dispersion of leadership roles.
Of course, there is the possibility of finding orlanthi so backward that
they have never learned about Orlanth Rex (which was 'invented' through
Heroquesting - in the Second Age, I believe), and they would never use the
term at all. Or "chieftain"(=chief thane), for that matter.
(The reason all my source references are so tentative is that I don't have
access to my collection of RQ material here at the University.)
Btw, I hate admitting how new I am to the Daily, but what's a "GRoY"? Or a
"GREY"? Same thing?
Jonas
---------------------
From: SYS_RSH%PV0A@hobbes.cca.rockwell.com (Scott Haney, AFDS770 Functional Test X2069)
Subject: broos -> females -> rape -> dominance -> ????
Message-ID: <01HB78IP2EC09GX4FR@hobbes.cca.rockwell.com>
Date: 15 Apr 94 08:24:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3661
>But "she was asking for it" is often a defense in rape trials...
It is. And it almost inevitably turns out to be untrue. Rape is not
an act of passion or sex. Rape is an act of violence, an act no less
violent than battery. Certainly we have some few people who enjoy
being damaged/whipped/beaten, but this is not the norm. Neither is
inviting someone to rape you. 'Tis not healthy for humans.
Scott
---------------------
From: niwe@ppvku.ericsson.se (Nils Weinander)
Subject: Invisible God scam or Sandy vs Guy
Message-ID: <9404151714.AA19139@ppvku.ericsson.se>
Date: 15 Apr 94 21:14:20 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3662
Nils Weinander writing
Against better judgement I enter this discussion. Although the theory
that IG is just a scam has merits I think it is too drastic. After all,
the Malkioni saints give their worshippers real benefits. I do however
think that the Malkioni get a crappy deal compared to the theists. Any
cult member who is an initiate can get one-use rune magic and divine
intervention, and they can advance to become priests or rune lords. In
addition they can learn useful spirit magic. What do the malkioni get?
The possibility to learn a few sorcery spells if the society of their
homeland isn't too restrictive. Unless they are Hrestoli they have no
possibility at all of advancement.
As for roleplaying opportunities in the Gloranthan west I can't see
why they should be less than in theistic parts of the world. I do
think that the west is bland and colourless though. Knights and wizards
are fine, but they feel like generic fantasy and totally out of place
in the marvellous creation of Glorantha with its living mythology and
magical geography. The west was the first part of Glorantha which Greg
Stafford wrote about and I think it shows: the other parts are deeper
and more original. Now this is all in my opinion and I expect flames
from the occidentophiles, but anyway: if I want to play medieval chivalry
I play Pendragon, not RQ/Glorantha.
/Nils W