Bell Digest v940505p2

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, Thu, 05 May 1994, part 2
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk


---------------------

From: argrath@aol.com
Subject: Things 'n' Stuff
Message-ID: <9405042035.tn157730@aol.com>
Date: 5 May 94 00:35:25 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3909

Alex mentioned that I had said that dwarves don't have the man
rune.  I got this from Mike Dawson, who claims its official, but
I've never seen the source.  Anyway, it makes heaps of sense to
me.  The shape was convenient when "Mostal" started making his
little helpers.  He didn't need to reinvent the wheel, as it
were.

Alex, your "\begin{foghornleghornimpersonation}" bit had me in
stitches.

Count me as a member of the "directed acyclic graph" taxonomy
party.  Now if I could only understand what it *means*...  But
yeah, I've been arguing for abandoning all Earth-based taxonomic
systems and taxons (mammal, primate, blah blah).  

John--
     Please explain shamanic consciousness some more.  Is it
anything like Morgan La Fay's explanations of The Other Side in
Pendragon IV?  
     Because they're (almost) all dead, the God Learners are open
to all sorts of projections.  I see several types, all of which
are parodies or satires of modern Western attitudes.  You have
the "whoever dies with the most rune magics wins" type, you have
the "Daddy killed the Raccoon Guardian and all I got was this
lousy hat" type, and so on.  That's the LR (Literary Reality)
level.  What they are on the GR (Gloranthan Reality) level, I
dunno.
     I'm not sure how much help the theologian comparison is. 
Theologians say they deal with the unknowable as it has made
itself known.  Thus, they start with a text.  The God Learners
may have made a lot out of one or another Malkioni text, but they
went far beyond that into what the 19th century theologians
called "the book of the world."  The argument from design proves
the existence of God, according to some people you may meet even
today.  
     Speaking of outmoded ideas, tree shrews' inclusion in the
primates seems to depend on when you went to college.  I went in
the early 80's, and they were out.  For all I know, they may be
back in, now.

Re: G.I. Joseph Campbell skewering himself
     Ah, the tragedy of the post-modernist.  LR meets GR or GR as
LR?

Re: SPPPAM, Eggs, Sausage, and SPPPAM
     I echo these statements; probably should have stated them as
well (might have kept the flames sub-nuclear), but tend to assume
that if people feel that a statement is not well-supported,
they'll just say so; otherwise, I go on to the next point. 
Please note that in 18th century and prior America and England
(and maybe other parts of European culture), there were separate
spheres for men and women in daily life.  Their idea of marriage
was very different from ours.  It was those damn Romantics and
Victorians that screwed everything up. ;-)
     I didn't say (or mean to imply) that the MAIN problem with
polygyny (or anything else) is jealousy.  I was just exploring
the economic roots of jealousy and how they drive marriage
patterns.  There are certainly other things going on in marriage
patterns besides the economics of jealousy, and John points out a
few of these.  Though let's not forget love.
     Polyandry occurs in uz society, and probably with husbands
related by blood.  But Trollpak only hints at uz marriage
customs, and we need much further study of them.

Paul Reilly sez:
     "I think that Troll society is sufficiently different from
human that it is difficult to compare what 'adulthood' means. 
Certainly they continue to gain status throughout life, thus
'adulthood' may be more relative than absolute."
     Yes, except for that initiation thing.  So there is at least
one jump.  And humans gain status throught life in most
traditional societies, too, so where's the difference?

He also sez:
"2. Trolls _must_ use a lot of onomatopaeia, and also 'echoic
onomatopaeia' - the word for an object may sound a lot like its
echo."
     Yes!  A bit of convergent thinking--I had the same reaction
to Sandy's statement that Darktongue was hard-wired.  

--Martin

---------------------

From: argrath@aol.com
Subject: CR/RQR/LR/GR
Message-ID: <9405042208.tn161774@aol.com>
Date: 5 May 94 02:08:48 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3910

Upon further reflection:

I accept John Hughes's ways of looking at Glorantha (he calls
them "levels"): as combat reality, RQ rules-derived reality,
literary reality, and gloranthan reality.  (I might quibble about
these labels, the boundaries of the ways, etc., but there's
entirely too much quibbling on the Daily already.)
     However, some things that are undeniably Gloranthan work
best in only some of these ways of looking.  Ducks are a
frinstance.  They're funny, and work in the rules-derived and
literary realities.  Do they have teeth?  Of course, so they can
hold their cigars (says John Castellucci).  This is prob'ly not a
GR answer, as John Hughes sees it (fully-functioning closed
world).  Creating a plausible GR answer is going to be tough,
because the essential comic relief nature of Ducks will show
through.
     And I disagree strongly that it is "unprofitable to
vacillate in discussion between different levels."  Trolls and
(especially) trollkin were originally just monsters to kill, or
CR.  They have evolved through Trollpak, which is in the RQR or
LR area, into GR (at least on the Daily).  They continue to work
in all four of these ways, though I agree it is best to look at
them separately.  Maybe it's the word "vacillate" I disagree with.
We can switch from one to another, but should be aware of the
switch.

Speaking of disagreeing strongly:
Will Joerg and Alex please restate their points of view about
whatever it is that they're talking about?  I think it was god v.
pantheon initiation, initially, but I can't tell my players even
WITH a scorecard, at this point.  Now that you've had a chance to
go point/counterpoint for a while, maybe you could sum up.

--Martin

---------------------

From: pmichaels@aol.com
Subject: Various stuff
Message-ID: <9405050007.tn167212@aol.com>
Date: 5 May 94 04:07:52 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 3911

Hi folks!
Sorry I've been gone so long.  Had LOTS of various family stuff to do.  
So, I apologize if the first part of this post goes back a bit to an old 
topic that I just want to finish up.
 
Let me also apologize to all the folks who have had problems reading my 
postings.  I did not realize tha
t they were such a problem, and will from 
now on follow Bryan J. Maloney's advice to make them easier for all to 
deal with.  Bryan, thank you for pointing the problem out, and (most 
importantly) for being able to suggest a solution!  :-)

way back when Bryan also stated (on my ideas regarding Glorantha and
constructivism): 
>I find what Peter has posted to be interesting, and worthy of further 
>investigation if not acceptance on the face of it (nothing is acceptable on 
>the face of it, by the way).

The only thing I accept at face value is my own beard, even that I shave 
off every once in a while.  ;
-)    

I'm glad you find it interesting and worthy of further investigation.  
That's a
ll I was really hoping for by bringing up the subject.  

I'd like to hear other people's stories about the Heroplane and how they 
make sense of it in relation to Glorantha.  My story currently is that it is
the 
stage upon which the stories that socially construct  Glorantha are played 
out.  But this 
is just one story, one way to think about the Heroplane.  
Another story, such as Colin's, is just fine too.  I think that in a place as

obviously constructivist (to me, anyway) as Glorantha, ALL these stories 
could be the way a GM might concieve of the Heroplane at different 
times.  It would all depend on what the GM wanted to do with the 
Heroplane at the time.  Colin uses the metaphore of Arachne
 Solara's 
web of his Heroplane.  To me, it's ALL a metaphore, it's all a story.  Al
l of  
the Heroplane is just stories!  BUT, (and here's the important piece) these 
stories, these metaphores, these myths, are what create the experienced 
reality of the people living in Glorantha.

  Personally, I think it's that way here too.  At least as far as people are 
concerned.  I'm
 not so nuts that I'd say that the only reason I can 
communicate with you is because enough people in the world all agree 
that this thing on my desk we all decide to call a computer is a tool for 
commu
nication and not a tool for brewing beer.  I'm not a radical 
constructivist.  Nor do I believe t
hat events are "just stories."  Charles 
Gregory Fried mentioned that some folks feel the Holoca
ust was "just a 
story."   I am not one of them.  My mother and her family were in 
Shanghai when it was occupied by the Japanese.  My grandfather was 
picked up and taken to the Hongkew internment camp with prominent UK 
and USA officials.  He was tortured for two days before the Japanese 
admitted that he was Belgian, and he was sent to join my grandmother, 
mother, and uncle in the Lungh Wa camp.  When my grandfather was 
picked up, the Japanese had a story that he was American.  Everything 
he said or did was interpreted as an American being disrespectful, 
uncooperative, and trying to make fools of them.  My grandparents had a 
story of themselves as survivors, not victims, as did many of those who 
had lived through the greater horrors of the Nazi concentration camps. 
What happens to people is real.  Events are real.  It is the story we make 
up about those events that is socially constructed.  Believing is s
eeing,  
NOT seeing is believing.  It is the meanings people draw from events, the 
"what re
ally happened and what it all means," that are created by the 
individual through language, and language is formed in the context of 
social communication.  The language we use both internally and 
externally, the stories we tell about ourselves and others, creates the 
meaning of what we experience.  This is of import in Glorantha when, for 
example, people try to make sense of the stories they are told of their 
peoples and their gods.  What does it mean that Orlanth killed Yelm?  
The Orlanthi interpret this 
as meaning something like: "Yelm was killed 
for not acknowledging the might and right of Or
lanth."  The Solar people 
interpret this as meaning something like: "Yelm's son Muharzam wa
s 
killed by a rebelious upstart who would not stay in his place in the 
universe."  The impact of these meanings on the respective cultures is 
enormous.  But, what if the Orlanthi were to reinterpret their part of the 
myth differently?  Maybe as something about Orlanth being called upon 
to kill Yelm in order to aid him in learning about death and dying?  
Orlanth as teacher, instead of Orlanth as bully?  If the whole of Orlanthi 
society really believe this, and practiced this belief, and changed their 
rituals to reflect this changed belief, then I think the reality of Glorantha

would be changed.  (NOT that I think this has a chance of happening.  
The mythic struggle between the two is just too great at the moment, and 
neither of them have a different manifestation of their mythic/(runic?) 
opposite to form a different struggle with.)  Anyway, this is what I mean 
when I say that I think Glorantha is a constructivist place.

On to other things.

More recently, Paul Reilly mentions:
> Primal Darkness mating is pretty indistinguishable from eating: they 
> bite hunks off of each other. 

I agree!  I think trolls experience pleasure in biting.  In fact, I think
part of 
the trollish sexual response, part of their arousal, includes getting hungry.
 
In addition, I think female trolls have a biting reflex on reaching orgasm. 
I 
see this response being almost uncontrollable in Mistress race trolls, 
somewhat controllable in Dark trolls, and almost non-existant in trollkin.

This would mean that food also plays an important part in Uz seduction 
and sex.  Male trolls would always bring food for their mates, perhaps in 
the belief (hope) it would lessen the biting response to the point that they 
will not accidently be bitten to death
.  Any males who do die are probably 
just eaten.  Remember, they weren't killed for food, i
t was "a crime of 
passion."  Maybe the trolls create enchanted lead biting sticks for females 
with a particularly powerful bite response.  Male trolls are probably proud 
of their "love-bite"
 scars on their face, neck, and shoulders.  

Makes me wonder if the (admittedly rare) troll Uleria worshipper would 
draw the more masochistic type of client, becoming the S&M specialist in 
the templ
e.  Gleaming black leather, lead chains....   She : "Kiss the whip, 
you human!"  He : "O
h please!  Please just bite me again!"  Gives a whole 
new meaning to the words "Mistress"
 troll! 

Sandy says:
>   It is my firm belief that ducks and keets lay eggs, which they must 
>incubate in a nest until they hatch. My reasons for so believing are 
>solely based on the comic possibilities of such an arrangement 
>("Please, sir, could you hold the egg for me while I go shopping.")  

I don
't know.  There's something about the RQ 2 interpretation of ducks 
not knowing their origins that I really like.  Were they originally human 
and became feathered and web-footed, or originally ducks cursed with 
flightlessness and intelligence?  If the ONLY human characteristics they 
have are i
ntelligence (something a small percentage of ALL creatures (I'll 
avoid the dangerous "s
pecies" word) have anyway) and flightlessness 
due to having arms and hands, I think you lost a lot of the duckish 
mystery.  I think this mystery is at the heart of the duckish race.  It
colors 
their psy
chology, makes them neurotic, is something they obsess about.  
It's the source of their racial insecurity.  Think about it.  They are a
small 
people who taste good to all other carnivores and so are often prey to 
both intelligent and animal hunters.  They do not posess any great magic, 
strength, intelligence, or cunning and so sometimes feel inferior to 
anything larger than themselves (or even to many things smaller).  Some 
ducks probably attempt to feel superior at the expense of other creatures, 
including other ducks, which leads to them being mean, petty, self-
centered, bullying punks.  Other ducks try to gain sympathy from others 
by whining and complaining, and they are expert at nagging and 
pestering others.  Still others use the fact that other races find them 
amusing, and seek acceptance by trying to be funny and make others 
laugh.  Much as the Uz seek the goal of healing Korasting, I think the 
duck goal is to regain whatever it was that was lost by their curse, 
whether it was the ability to fly or their humanity.  It is the desire to
return 
to their true, most ancient way of life.  For those that seek the ability to
fly, 
there is a longing for the lost freedom of the sky.  For those that seek
their 
humanity and not to be hunted, there is the longing for the lost 
brotherhood of Man.  I also think that some ducks seek either of these 
goals just because they hate the idea that something that once belonged 
to them was taken away, and they want it back out of pure selfishness. 

Personally, I think the Duck race are at LEAST a creation of Trickster, 
more probably a case of multiple incarnations of his 
"tragically comic" 
role.  They obviously exist to be made fun of.  (And, some would add
, to 
be eaten.  It's a mythic nitch thing.  Dwarves are Makers, Elves are 
Growers, Trolls are E
aters, Ducks are the Eaten.)  In a letter in TOTRM#2, 
Greg Stafford writes, "Ducks are intended to 
be comic.  I usually ridicule 
them, both as a GM and as a NPC."  And Sandy notes, "After all
, if your 
ducks aren't funny, why have them at all?"

>This is also why Greg and I concur that duck
s have teeth (so they can 
>grin). 

In John Castellucci's RQAF#2, S.P. Martin says it's so that the
y can hold 
their cigars! ;-)

Well, enough of this for now.  Until next time,
Peace,     Peter