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, 30 Apr 1994, part 2
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
---------------------
From: lindsell@rschp1.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell)
Subject: Lots of Stuff
Message-ID: <9404290914.AA13255@Sun.COM>
Date: 30 Apr 94 00:12:30 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3847
John Hughes on Gnostic creation
>This mythological principle - The One into the Many - is nearly
>universal, and extends far beyond the Gnostics
It's also the Malkioni creation myth, from memory of GoG. I wonder
if there's meant to be a connection, or just independant origin like
on Earth.
Re: Sandy P. on Thanatar:
Given that Tien and Atyar were reunited during the second age,
I wondered whether the God Learners did it. After all, Thanatar
is such a useful cult to knowledge thieves (which some of the
GL's certainly were). They could then have been responsible for the
cults spread beyond the East.
> I think the main objection of the Malkioni to the Lunars is
>the Lunar acceptance of Chaos, which the Malkioni oppose with all the
>vehemence of any Orlanthi. And, of course, the Orlanthi "filter" of
A question about the Malkioni and Chaos occurred to me in a private
discussion: do the Malkioni believe that Chaos exists outside the world
of Glorantha? I don't think they do, and this is my reasoning (quoted
from the other discussion) :
> Logical belief in the IG: If the standard cosmology of central Genertela
>is accepted by the Westerners, then one can logically posit a god greater
>than the IG. This god created Chaos, which surrounds Glorantha and can
>apparently destroy it. Of course, Western cosmology may not accept Chaos
>as alien to Glorantha, but the product of its decay, produced (of course)
>by the worship of false gods which leads inevitably to the Devil.
MOB: thanks for detailing Eastern Christianity and the Emperor.
Mike Dawson writes:
>Perhaps I do not have a full understanding of what all went on out
>there, but I think Maples' presented hissystem for handling
> the world and HQing. The reply was, I believe,
>"Thanks but no thanks." No idea why.
Really? Greg was saying that he planned to use EPIC as the basis for
HQ, if and when it finally emerged.
>I guess yours is part of the Australian print run.
It's got your signature on the inside cover (18something out of 190).
I'm definitely looking forward to Issue 2, as I'm planning a Loskalmi
campaign based on Pendragon rules.
Loren Miller writes:
>Everyone joins the same cult. That's the social glue for their community.
>By joining the local cult the adult should get all the benefits required
>to live
Is this true? In Orlanthi culture the men should join Orlanth and the
women Ernalda IMO. I have been playing a similar concept though:
In my current game (Risklands using modified Pendragon rules) I let
each PC join a major "social" cult: like Ernalda, Orlanth, Seven Mothers
etc for free, just as a part of growing up. If they wanted, they could
also join one of the specialist cults, like Humakt or Lhankor Mhy, with
the usual costs of POW and skill requirements
Upon reaching the Risklands they discovered interesting facts about how few
worshippers of the specialist cults there are in the back of beyond, and
how the largest local churches are Orlanth and Ernalda. The Humakti PC - a
Sartarite and thus also an initiate of Orlanth - was even more surprised
to find that decent people don't worship Humakt in these parts. He's
not aware that it's only the orders of the Lunars that has kept him
from being lynched.
Richard Staats writes:
>At RQ-CON, Greg and Sandy said that
>a being could not worship Arachne Solara *directly*, but it *was*
>possible for there to be false spirits/intermediate beings.
Which would imply that the Invisible God is a fake but the central
Genertelans know the _real_ god. There goes cultural relativism...
>The Invisible God draws from many
>primal aspects/Runes, but he/she/it does not ``own'' any directly.
I thought he/she/it was meant to be the source of the Law rune?
(Aside: what gender do the Malkioni assign to the IG? I'd think male
but does anyone know?)
--
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a lindsell@rschp1.anu.edu.au
"I was 17 miles from Greybridge before I was caught by the school leopard"
Ripping Yarns - Tomkinson's Schooldays.
---------------------
From: MOBTOTRM@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Big Women
Message-ID: <01HBRIV2K7D499ER9A@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 30 Apr 94 08:59:46 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3848
____________________
Nils K. Hammer asks:
>By the way, is there any support for the rumor that Australian women
>are taller than American?
This is one rumour I haven't heard, though I suspect it may have come about
because Elle MacPherson (who seems to be shedding more and more of her gear
every week) is a towering 183cm tall.
My wife, whom you may have met at RQ Con, is a 6th-generation Aussie (some
ancestors came out as convicts), and she ain't all that tall. But hey, she's
cute!
I didn't notice that American women were unusually shorter than Australians
while I was in the UK, though I did notice many more people, both males and
females, were obese. But before you accuse me of living in a glass house and
lobbing stones, I hasten to point out I'm no mere slip of thing meself.
Australians, like Americans and other decadent Westerners are
characteristically taller and heavier, due to their rich diets (a friend
of mine who was bornin India but came here as a baby said he looked
like a freak when he wentback to India, as all his relatives were a
good 30cm - that's one foot - shorter than he was, and much slighter
in build).
________________
Sandy announces:
>I'm baack
... and how! I'm glad you weren't away for long.
Sandy writes:
>MOB: in April 22, what a GREAT Pamaltela publication list. Thanx.
I just posted it to the RQ DAILY after we unfortunately had to squeeze it out
of TALES #11. Thanks should really go to Troy Bankert/Stephen P. Martin
who I asked to compile the list.
When we were putting TALES #11 we were unable to get into contact with
Sandy - this was before both he and I got onto e-mail and I think he was
on the move to Texas at the time? This was unfortunate in a lot of ways,
as we would have appreciated his special input as well as that which
we received from Greg. However, we, that is John Hughes and I, went
ahead trying to remain faithful to the previously published Pamaltela
material, which encompasses Sandy's original vision, though I guess we
took a number of sharp turns along the way!
TAELS is planning *another* Pamaltela issue some time down the track, in
which we intend to focus on either the traditional Right Hand Doraddi or
the coastal regions of Pamaltela. Now that we have the cyberspace information
highway to communicate along, we relish the opportunity to work closely and
interactively with Sandy on the zine content, and other e-mailers keen to
explore the Land Down South...
Cheers
MOB
---------------------
From: SYS_RSH%PV0A@hobbes.cca.rockwell.com (Scott Haney, AFDS770 Functional Test X2069)
Subject: Broo sex and other S&M
Message-ID: <01HBQQLGLVUO9I649E@hobbes.cca.rockwell.com>
Date: 29 Apr 94 07:27:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3849
Hmmmm. I was reading the other day and came across something
interesting, something that gave me an idea about broo reproductive
techniques....
What it broo sperm is a form of (or acts like) a virus?
Think of it...millions of sperms (with horns! :) swim around, one
attacks the egg cell, injects its own DNA, and voila! baby broo.
(Assuming, of course, that anything in Glorantha has or needs DNA,
but that's another discussion.) It wouldn't matter terribly much
then which animal the broo used.
Scott
---------------------
From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
Subject: Shrews and Trolls
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Apr 94 20:23:46 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3850
Sandy Petersen in X-RQ-ID: 3840
> Deities without Secret Powers
> seem to come and go from nowhere, often sinking back into
> well-deserved obscurity -- like Sog.
Why do you think Sog has gone into obscurity? The Waertagi surely
depend on his powers again, now they have learned Dormal's (not so)
Secret Power. Of course Dormal would sink into obscurity or have to
adopt another aspect should the Closing be lifted, _and_
anybody noticed (which is unlikely IMO).
> Now to relate the above argument to Glorantha. Er, In my
> opinion, The Veldang, Doraddi, Wareran, and Kralori are all the same
> species. It is possible (but I'm not sure) that the Brithini and
> Vadeli are a different species from Homo sapiens. I can't think of
> any other species in the genus Homo in Glorantha. Dwarfs, elves, and
> trolls are not even primates, in my opinion.
I would think that the immortal humans make up subspecies. There are
the immortal Agimori (those who never drank water) as well, so maybe
immortality for humans is to restrict oneself from reproduction - the
Brithini who procreate also die horribly of old age. The Vadeli are
rumoured to procreate as a means of keeping their immortality, though,
and the rumours aren't pleasant at all. Probably of Brithini origin, yet
not all the Brithini say is wrong.
> I classify trolls as a separate order within the mammals, the
> Styganthropa (yes, I know they're Things of Darkness, but we're not
> talking evolutionary descent here, but rather taxonomic similarity).
> Trolls give milk, have body hair, etc. They're obviously mammals. I
> think the nearest order to trolls are the shrews (also the nearest
> relatives to the Primata). Shrews are nocturnal, ravenous, mean
> beasties, and it seems to me that the trolls may not have "evolved"
> as far from their roots as have humans.
Thanks, Sandy! That's exactly where I placed the trolls in my
evolutionary Alternate Glorantha/Earth game world. The trolls got
their sentience when Trollmother, an underground being which had
developed primate-like tool-hands and a 3D-sensory organ through her
sonar, mated with a darkness spirit (I used a male hag, which is
how I view more powerful and bodily present Dehori).
Although the german translation for the species of shrew is
insect-eaters, I rather doubt the importance of giant insects
for the majority of trolls, which live in the icy wastes of
North Pent or Koromondol. I always felt that these hulking brutes
would look good digging mammoths out of the snow or taking the
charge of a woolly rhino.
> I classify elves as from the Kingdom Plantae.
Elves are a bit difficult to handle taxonomically, because there is
the spirit component to take care of. I view the Aldryami somewhat
similar to hive insects. They possess a certain degree of individuality,
but they depend on the community of plants they are related to for the
upkeep of their intelligence and existence. They still function after
their hive has been destroyed (see Elder Wilds, Rist/Hellwood and
Erigia/Rathorela), and may migrate to new homelands and adapt to them,
but I strongly suspect that without a supporting forest they are unable
to reproduce intelligent life. (This is indicated for the warrior elves
bred with Accelerate Growth - they are spiritually deficient, not in full
harmony with the forest, and probaby exempt from further reproduction.)
Is there a reason why the Plant Rune only has toyed with the Man Rune
or its more primitive forms for its mobile species (elves, runners,
pixies, dryads, even slorifings come mainly as humanoid, if rather
primitive for runners and slorifings), or are there lumbering plant
beasts in the heart of the elf woods predigesting dying plant matter
for the trees?
I think the pixies are an attempt of the plant kingdom to become
independent of the (after all darkness-allied) insects for reproduction.
Wouldn't there be similar attempts to replace other animal functions?
I also think that the descriptions of elves as humanoids are too little
plantish. While comparisons like peach-skinned or pear-bottomed might
be actually true for elves, I tend to think these apply to youths and
very young adults only.
All pictures of elves e.g. in Glorantha Bestiary showed some form of
"mammalia" for female elves. While this certainly is due to artistical
perception of the artists, I think the picture of child aldryami suckling
nectar from their mothers (for lack of other words) bosom-flowers has
some merit. Maybe the existence of Mammalia is one of the form principles
brought with the Man Rune as building plan.
> Dwarfs I'm not sure of. I have yet to be convinced that
> dwarfs suckle their young, frex.
The Elder Secrets description of dwarf procreation heavily suggests
that they are victims of Bradbury's (?) Brave New World. They have
strangely developed ex utero ripening of a foetus, but not in vitro
fertilisation. Now there is something for a Mostali cultural hero to
develop...
I think the dwarfs do have vestigial mammalia, but they have successfully
suppressed their function by using the ex utero ripening of the foeti.
(Again I blame the morphic influence of the Man Rune.) This technique of
the dwarfs reminds me a bit of the Mabinogi story of the birth of
Llew Llaw Gyddes, so don't call it an anachronism.
--
-- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de
---------------------
From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
Subject: Long cult write-ups for local variations
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Apr 94 20:24:21 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3851
Loren Miller in X-RQ-ID: 3837
> Loren here, responding to Alex Ferguson
> IMO, cult and clan *are* unitary. Or if not then why is there a different
> Orlanth cult in Prax from the cult in Sartar? I believe that the Orlanth cult
> is different from each clan to the next, and that the only reason the
> rulesbooks don't mention it is that it would be unplayably complex to have all
> those different long-form cult writeups, one for the Colymar, one for the
> Lismelder, etc, etc, etc.
Why unplayably complex? I know Sandy used this allegory earlier for a
larger scale comparison, but the differences between Orlanth worshippers
from different tribes are hardly more dividing than certain different
forms of protestant creeds. Even within one church, there are different
services in each bishop's see due to slightly different liturgy, song-books
etc. Add to this personal preferences of the ministring cleric, and not two
services in different parishes are the same. Nor would you expect them to
be.
> This goes back to the idea that every worship
> service is a heroquest that has the possibility to change the cult, if only a
> little, and that over time every congregation diverges from the cult as it is
> perceived elsewhere, even over the hill in the next village. Gradually the
> cult is infused with local accretions.
In this you say that all worship within one clan is conducted the same way,
but the size of the cultic and cultural unit isn't the point you make, to
which I agree.
> Eventually, given enough divergence,
> the local cult may become totally incompatible with the cult as worshipped
> elsewhere. It might not even worship the same god. Naturally, this proves that
> everyone else suffers from rectal-cranial inversion, not that *we* might be
> wrong.
How different does a local variation have to become that the deity
worshipped will not be the one others worship.
> So, each locale and/or clan version of a cult would have different
> associated cults. If we had separate long-form cult writeups for every single
> clan's version of each cult they worship then it would handle my concerns. It
> would be compatible with what Greg and Sandy have said about cults. It would
> make Alex's and other folks' objections to pantheon-style worship unnecessary.
> However, nobody has the time to write all that stuff.
No single person, no. However, _most_ of the write-up would be the same for
all Sartarite forms of Orlanth worship. Maybe if we created a modular
system for cult write-ups we could manage this if a lot of us worked
together?
> So... we need some way of describing both cult and society to produce a whole
> which is unique in every little village. Village initiation will then produce
> a religiously active adult, an adult who is initiated into the main cult and
> an associate member of the associate cults, without needing to spend 3POW
> because he doesn't worship Orlanth or whomever the "ruler" god is. Those who
> wish to initiate further into mystery cults may spend POW and do so. That's
> what I want. I'm not sure how to write rules for it either, anybody else got
> any ideas?
Simply say that the initiation into adulthood gives you an all-associate
status, and costs one POW, and that you're expected to join a specific
cult appropriate to your function, for the same point of POW. If you don't,
you might have problems with DI etc, so you'd better do so. Only if your
character wants to join yet additional cults, another set of POW-sacrifice,
temple duties, tithes etc becomes due. By doing so, you remove yourself
partly from your original initiation (similarly to the polygamy arguments
Sandy gave).
This works on village level, where all have one clan in common, or as
outsiders have their minor community. Large cities have the city-god as
common denominator. Do Sartarite town wyters fulfil such a role as well?
Rich Staats in X-RQ-ID: 3839
> The Invisible God changed when the Great Compromise/Time came about just
> as the way sorcery was practiced changed. The Invisible God draws from many
> primal aspects/Runes, but he/she/it does not ``own'' any directly.
He does own Law (and Flamal Plant, and Uleria Fertility), but because he
always did so, he has Law and Infinity rather than twice the Law Rune.
--
-- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de
---------------------
From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Subject: Quantitative Taxonomy, or the 2% difference
Message-ID: <9404292032.AA09914@sonata.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 29 Apr 94 10:32:47 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3852
Well, I think I can dispell the argument regarding the use of simple
quantitative DNA sequence homology comparison as the primary criterion
of taxonomic classification. Let us accept that "a chimpanzee" has
a "98% sequence homology" with "a human". Note the quotes. This is
because, as anyone who has done a good deal of sequencing (like me)
can tell you, the "human DNA sequence" is about as unitary a body
as the UN General Assembly. There is quite a bit of variation, not all
of it phenotypically visible. However, there is plenty of empirical
evidence to support the supposition that, all DNA sequence polymorphisms
aside, humans are all still humans.
But humans aren't chimpanzees (except for certain administrators and
editors) and chimpanzees aren't humans (regardless of cute 1960's spy
comedy/parody TV shows). Inasmuch as we understand biology, we look to
the "genetic code" for a reason why. Ultimately, the basic "type" of
organism something turns out to be is determined by genetic coding, but it's
a great deal more complicated than simple quantitative analysis would make
things appear. For example:
UL33, a protein that may be necessary for packaging Herpes Simplex II DNA
into the capsid, can be mutated in the laboratory. A single amino-acid
mutation has been constructed that has a completely inactive UL33 protein.
Thus, we have two radically different sorts of organisms, if classified
by how they infect and propagate, but their DNA difference is no more than
a SINGLE nucleoside out of hundreds of thousands. There are more dramatic
examples, and examples that are less esoteric, but none leap to mind right
now. My point is that a very tiny quantitative "difference" in genetic code
can result in a dramatic qualitative difference in the outcome. However,
it is also documented that the DNA sequence of the cytochrome C gene can
differ from individual to individual, but the protein itself is identical
(due to degeneracy of the genetic code).
Now, what has this to do with chimpanzees and humans?
The point I am trying to make is that genetic homology is probably an
inadequate criterion to use as a means of classification on its own. It
can be probably used to clarify some finer points, but I wouldn't swear
by it.
Another way of looking at this: A male human shares greater sequence
homology over his entire genome with a male chimpanzee than does a male human
share with a female human or a male chimp with a female chimp. Does this
make male chimpanzees more closely biologically related to male humans than
female humans are related to male humans?
(For the astute: Yes, I am talking about the XX/XY chromosome pairs. I
consider it an excellent way to illustrate the absurdity of quantitative
genetic taxonomy as a primary method.)