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