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, 23 Apr 1994, part 3
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
---------------------
From: nh0g+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nils Hammer)
Subject: broo reproducing
Message-ID:
Date: 22 Apr 94 17:46:07 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3774
This is a thread perhaps left behind, especially considering the trouble we
see in Andre de Oliveira Fernandes 14 Apr letter;
> Huh, I should have heard the priest at the TV and stayed away from
>RPGs. You guys are pretty bad company. Amem.
_But_ I just can't refrain from putting in my opinion. At first I thought the
Broo reproducing with everything was an error, even to make them the
"bad guys" I couldn't accept it. Now that I see the stove-broo is established I
must rationalize it. I propose that to reproduce with something non-mammalian
the broo must expend POW as if it were an enchantment. The further from the
original species, the more POW needed. To mate with a stove probably cost that
idiot broo 10 POW.
This brings to mind the possibilities of many things not normally listed as RQ
spells being treated as such. I believe any confrontation could have a
pow vs pow
struggle with attendant chance for pow gain roll, assuming that the GM feels
comfortable departing from defined rules. Also, normal activities are
similar to
worship. A loving couple having a successful coupling probably send many MP
to Uleria. I think even on our earth0 it seems like we expend MP during
some acts.
Paul Reilly says "Well sure, sometimes you can actually summon something."
So, in RQ, I would have two _true_ lovers "initiate" to each other
costing 1 POW
with some vague attendant benefits. Remember that I would give POW gain rolls
a little more freely, so the power-gamers need not feel put upon.
Likewise, non-broo who commit rape have a chance of accidentally initiating
with Thed. You don't get to be the bad guys for free. I don't have a
specific proposal
for rules to cover all this of course.
Nils K. Hammer
nh0g@andrew.cmu.edu
---------------------
From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Subject: Playing an Uzko
Message-ID: <9404230209.AA11641@sonata.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 94 16:09:55 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3775
And loving every minute of it.
I recall people talking about the "right" way to envision Uzko. My own
Uzko character, Gorrosh who Follows the Blue Streak (a Blue Moon Plateau
Uz in Dorastor) is very inhuman. He not only has the basic, easy to play
Uzko characteristics of complete bluntness and constant eating of anything
in front of him, but he has no compunction whatsoever over allowing his human
"companions" to go to their deaths--after all, then he can use them as food
for Mistress the Last, and they're only humans, anyway--which puts them
slightly above Enlo on the scale of things (Mostali and Aldryami aren't
really thinking beings, just very clever food animals).
However, he is an Uz of amazing calm, reserve, and tolerance. He's so much
of an open-minded sort that he's going to initiate to Argan Argar! Not only
this, but tonight, he actually gave a PC a warning before trying to kill him
for stating that Uzko were chaos tainted. The human PC considers himself a
philosopher and was expounding upon food chains and hierarchies of beings.
Any Uzko understands both of these: Uz eat everything and are on top of all
hierarchies of beings. Goth (the human PC), upon discovering that Uz eat
chaos (which is an excellent way of destroying it), stated that Uz were,
therefore, chaos-tainted. Gorrosh asked Goth if he wanted to be killed, since
saying such a thing to an Uzko was the same thing as saying "I want to be
killed." Goth said he did not, and Gorrosh let the matter pass. Within half
an hour, Goth once again stated that the Uz are tainted by chaos.
Gorrosh, being such a kind-hearted, gentle, and sensitive Uzko, sighed mightily
and said: "I am very sorry to do this to you." He then proceeded to do his
best to beat Goth to a bloody pulp with a Troll Maul. Only the timely casting
of a Demoralize by another PC and the removal of Goth from Gorrosh's sight
before the spell wore off saved the human's life.
Now, Gorrosh is also a very honorable Uzko, and he is an oath-guest of the
clan. This is why he gave Goth only a warning the first time instead of
killing him outright. The second time, after explaining what it meant to say
that Uz were chaos tainted, it was obvious that Goth was wanting to die and
wished to have a good death in combat. Like a merciful, kind-hearted, and
honorable Uzko, Gorrosh tried his best.
Now Goth is unhappy and has asked Gorrosh to leave the stead. Gorrosh
understands this--humans are weak-willed sissies, and Uzko need to be
intelligent enough to understand and forgive when they are too cowardly to
follow through on things. Thus, since he is a good, kind-hearted, honorable
Uzko who is oath-guest to the clan around Hazard Fort, Gorrosh will go talk
to Rendicot [sic] and ask for a new place that he is permitted to live.
Of course, if the chieftan wishes to ask why, Gorrosh will have to say that
Goth gave an insult to the Uzko people, and it would have been unkind and
dishonorable to kill everyone at his stead and eat their corpses after Gorrosh
had become an oath-guest.
---------------------
From: wire@world.std.com (A Son of the Silent Age)
Subject: Strangers In Prax rules query
Message-ID: <199404230224.AA12937@world.std.com>
Date: 22 Apr 94 18:24:29 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3776
After looking through _Strangers In Prax_, I'm quite pleased, overall. I
do, however, have one technical rules-oriented question.
(This is from Mike Dawson's section, so if he's out there listening, I'd
appreciate hearing from the horse's mouth.)
On p.70, in the boxed section, a sorceror character is described as being
able to prepare a high-powered (and thus expensive and time-consuming) spell
in advance (by making a concentration roll) so that he can cast it when
needed, taking only his DEX strike rank.
Is this an official rules interpretation? I can't find anything in the RQ
rules that suggests this is possible, and everything I _can_ find seems to
suggest that stopping a spell once it has been started constitutes aborting
the spell.
I ask only because if this is the intent of the rules, it considerably alters
the balance of power in favor of sorcerors; if an otherwise combat-weak
adventurer can wander around (slowly) with Venom 15 prepared and ready to
throw at a mere 3 SRs notice, it really changes matters.
Can anyone shed more light on this for me?
===============================================================================
Douglas .S. Bailey
217 Park Avenue #111 wire@world.std.com
Worcester, MA 01609-2243 USA
===============================================================================
it's just for now; it's just for now; even if it makes you happy...
---------------------
From: argrath@aol.com
Subject: Sophistry and other truths
Message-ID: <9404222227.tn66066@aol.com>
Date: 23 Apr 94 02:27:40 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3777
I said: "The Goddess is imminent."
Alex retorted: " Really? How soon?"
For you, Alex, the Goddess Has Left the Building.
Re: John P Hughes on initiation
Couldn't agree more. Party of two (dutch treat, though).
John said further: "'Cept of course Protestants said reality was
absolute, and its OUT THERE, while the GLs said its fluid, and
its IN HERE."
I don't agree with this. I think the God-Learners were
modernists, and believed they were getting to that Core Reality
through scientific rationalism. (Thanks to Peter Michaels, for
pointing this out to me.)
Re: Operation Desert Storm as "Murder"
Uh, well, you get to an interesting point, which is that
every religion has to deal with the concept of war. I don't
think you advance the dialogue by calling killing-through-warfare
murder, especially since the U.S.A. is the only country that even
tries to adhere to the laws of civilized warfare (which is not as
oxymoronic as it sounds). (How many other countries have ever
tried their own officers for war crimes?) And you picked a
really bad example, since Desert Storm was run much more by the
book even than other wars fought by U.S. forces.
I'm rather reminded of those anti-abortion folks who say
that abortion is murder. "Murder" has a specific legal
definition in Anglo-American law (and thus also in Australia).
This definition includes the term "unjustified" and the phrase
"in the peace of the Commonwealth." It simply doesn't apply to
warfare--by definition. Be a pacifist if you like--no matter how
morally indefensible such a position is--but don't call war
"murder." That just reveals ignorance and/or willingness to
obscure the issues through misuse of emotionally-laden terms.
Persons of good will can certainly debate the wisdom of
Making the Mideast Safe for Oil-Rich Monarchies. But trying to
argue away war is wishful thinking, at best. And the medieval
concept of the "just war," though making something of a comeback,
is an unworkable compromise between reality and a crypto-pacifist
religion.
Re: Real law 'n' order
The loooong discussion was a couple years on GEnie, where
someone was arguing that the Praetorian Guard investigated crimes
in ancient Rome because he had read that in a historical novel.
I suggest reading the bits on Viking law in the Vikings
supplement, Sartarite law in KoS, and Irish law in Pagan Shore.
It's alien to our way of life to have laws without law
enforcement officers, but that was the norm throughout history.
Besides, it's much more fun to roleplay out the public
accusations, counter-accusations, and the open manipulation of
the wheels of justice. A good nonsensical ritual ("If she weighs
the same as a duck...") also helps to get players into the swing
of things.
Paul suggests that Malkioni schools are divided primarily by
philosophical differences. I tend to agree, but see them mainly
as different interpretations of Malkion's Laws (there is but one
God and Malkion is his prophet; love that which God has created;
do not ruin that which you love; be loyal to God, Law, your
family, and your lord). 3 and 4 have caused most of the
divisions, including those over the use of the Tap spell. In
fact, it is written that "the ease with which this law can be
misinterpreted has led to many different sects of Malkionism."
In this, I see them as being much like the divisions in Islam.
Islam's two main branches are Sunni and Shi'a, who disagreed
(originally) over who should be Caliph after the Prophet's death.
The Sunni are primarily divided by their disagreements over the
interpretation of the laws, but these divisions are nothing like
the divisions in the Christian church, or even among Protestants.
The Shi'a are divided by their loyalty to various Imams of the
past, but again these divisions are not directly comparable to
those in Christianity. Smaller groups like the Druzes, Baha'is,
and Sikhs take off from Shi'a into areas which Sunnis and Shi'a
would not recognize as Muslim at all. None of these groups (and
none of the Christian sects) correspond terribly well to Malkioni
heresies. It is, however, the KIND of division I see in
Malkionism.
One thing to remember is that Malkioni philosophy is shot
through with caste, something which is missing in this globe's
missionary religions. And the caste progression business has no
earthly analogue.
Greg Fried says: "relativism has no grounds of its own to stand
on to say that it does NOT imply that anything goes."
This man is dangerously close to becoming illuminated.
You have put your finger on the self-destructive heart of
relativism, deconstructionism, and some other isms I probably
don't even know about. This is why the Illuminated laugh at
illumination. (Ever seen the interior illustration to the King
Crimson album "In the Court of the Crimson King"? That guy is
the way I expect Illuminates to look.)
Yes, relativism is a castle in the air. But it has a great
view.
Most philosophies forget one thing--that we are biological
critters. If we were beings of pure thought, like outta Star
Dreck, philosophy would certainly guide us. Since we're eating,
drinking, rutting bags of chromosomes, we tend to avoid things
that cause us (and our near kin) harm. My belief in this ground
marks me as a "soft" relativist, as opposed to a "hard"
relativist, who denies there is any ground over which the castle
is suspended!
To apply this to Glorantha: initiates have contact with the
divine, and this undeniable religious experience anchors their
belief in the rightness of their beliefs. Malkioni only have the
second-hand revelation of the Law and the New Rites, except when
they participate in the veneration of the saints and/or visible
gods. That's why the Brithini and Vadeli, without any religious
experiences, are amoral.
I finally got TotRM #11 today, and read it cover to cover.
Kudos to all involved. The art direction is much better than in
previous issues, and the maps and illustrations are superb. Even
if I never run or play in Pamaltela, the article and ideas on the
role of kinship in RPG's are easily worth the cost of the issue.
I also got Penelope Love's _Castle_of_Eyes_ today,
Chaosium's second novel. It bears a 1993 copyright, but I
haven't seen anywhere before. I'm looking forward to reading it.
I finally found a good game store (Game Parlor, in
Chantilly, Virginia), where I got Castle of Eyes, so I also
bought 4th edition Pendragon, mainly for the magic rules. Has
anyone given any thought to adapting the magic rules to
Gloranthan roleplaying? How about you rugged individualists
(David Hall, for one) playing in Glorantha with Pendragon rules?
--Martin
---------------------