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, Fri, 20 May 1994, part 2
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
---------------------
From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott)
Subject: Spirit Sorcery?
Message-ID: <9405191320.AA01151@vinga.hum.gu.se>
Date: 19 May 94 22:31:38 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4077
A few days back, "TRexHavoc@aol.com" posted some stuff from "The Prospectus
for Heroes of the King" (whatever that is):
>"Battle Magic or Spirit Magic
> "The average adult Sartarite clansman or woman has three or four spells
>which are probably used everday.
>These spells are learned as a normal part of the culture, and are nearly always
>successful when used.
>"Most people have a set of secondary spells as well, which they are not
>likely to need everyday. These are less likely to be successful,
> These spells are not always successful, nor ar they simply based on some
>>statistic.
>
>They work more quickly and efficiently when they are used often, and so a
>Humakti's Bladesharp is probably more likely to work than an Elmali's.
This sounds a lot like having separate skills for each spirit spell, or
perhaps one skill for commonly used spells and another one for esoterica.
Is this the direction RQ is taking? Who wrote this stuff anyway?
Jonas
---------------------
From: sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com (Sandy Petersen)
Subject: now see here
Message-ID: <9405191522.AA10268@idcube.idsoftware.com>
Date: 19 May 94 03:22:01 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4078
MOB sez:
>I side with Nick is because having the Malkioni as a bunch of
>squabbling heretic haters is ***LOTS MORE FUN*** than the wimpy
>eucumenicalism promoted by the other view.
A) having the Malkioni capable of accepting the sainthood of
an individual outside their religion is NOT full-blown wimpy
ecumenicalism.
B) and in fact, having them be a bunch of squabbling heretic
haters is NOT more fun, at least in my own campaigns. Consider. If
your players are Malkioni portrayed in this way, then they find it
hard to cooperate with characters from other backgrounds and, more
importantly, will tend to have trouble getting along whenever they
leave their territory. In addition, when your non-Malkioni characters
visit Malkioni lands, presto! they're instant anathema and can barely
travel at all.
Admittedly, my campaigns are not specialized things set in
one little corner of the world, as it appears many other (very fine)
campaigns are. Rather, I like going on long trips, visiting the Nidan
mountains, sailing along the coasts of Jrustela, etc. Hostile locals
are often integral to my stories. But having hostile locals covering
as huge a swath of the world as all the West is too much for me. I'll
admit that I also ignore the comment in GENERTELA that Kralorela is
forbidden to outsiders. I think Greg made a serious error in doing
that. What fun is a land you're not allowed to visit? It may as well
not be there. My entire career in writing about Glorantha has been an
attempt to make it accessible and available to players to visit.
Anyway, that's why I don't like witch-hunting prejudiced
Malkioni. But clearly, if my campaign were set solely in, say,
Heortland, and my Malkioni were all NPCs, I might feel quite
differently.
---------------------
From: DevinC@aol.com
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 19 May 1994, part 1
Message-ID: <9405191536.tn285040@aol.com>
Date: 19 May 94 19:36:20 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4079
Devin Cutler here:
MOB writes:
"After 15 years of RQ I thought I had finally
come up with a legitimate use for this pretty much useless and costly spell,"
Costly yes. Useless no. I will admit the usefulness is not worth the cost,
but still the spell has uses. It is especially useful for sneaking up to an
enemy encampment downwind and listening to the battle plans going on inside
of the leader's tent the night before battle. In a sense, the spell functions
like the AD&D spell Clairaudience.
Re: Pavis Personality List:
Also on the Pavis personality list, what about Riveps, the RIverside Thug
from the Krang's table adventure. Also, what about Delfron the Butcher from
that same scenario? Finally, what about the diseased man in Badside from the
Devil's playground adventure (I forget his name)?
Andy writes:
"To which I must say: I respectfully disagree. There are numerous sects
of Jews (many of whose members believe they are getting weekly or daily
updates from God) and whose views differ diametrically. "
I am also a Reform Jew, BTW. What you say is true, but I defy anyone to prove
and I would be amazed if anyone on this net would even suggest that
Yaweh/God/Allah is as directly active on Earth as the Gloranthan deities are
in Glorantha.
Ancient times aside, in modern times, I have never seen someone able to call
on God to save them from, say a robbery or death in a war and have it happen
in a direct and provable manner. In Glorantha, gods answer close to 10% of
all calls for Direct Intervention! Somehow, I don't think that same rate
applied to, say, Allah's intervention on behalf of his worshippers in Desert
Storm.
The point is, for example, every Humakt worshipper has probably witnessed,
several times in even a short 5 year career, a Divine Intervention of direct
and physically manifestible nature. He has also probably seen someone's sword
shatter in his hands. He has witnessed the casting of Humakt's Divine Magic
and has probably cast such magic himself.
Also, despite what you claim about certain sects of Judaism claiming to
commune with Yaweh on a daily or weekly basis, I find it hard to believe that
they are communing in as direct a manner as Divination. And, while Divination
can sometimes be murky, in every published Gloranthan scenario where it has
been mentioned, it seems to be fairly informative, even in an allegorical way
(e.g. Gaumata's Vision).
Regards,
Devin Cutler
---------------------
From: DevinC@aol.com
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 19 May 1994, part 1
Message-ID: <9405191537.tn285074@aol.com>
Date: 19 May 94 19:37:15 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4080
Devin Cutler here with part two of a long post:
Joerg writes:
"If it fails to have an internal set of rules, it will be found lacking
if continued over a longer time, since the inconsistencies will amount
to glaring errors."
I never stated that Literary worlds did not need to be consistent. I stated
that they may be consistent in a more complex manner, since it is the RESULTS
that need to display consistency, not the inner workings (i.e. the rules).
For example, a literary creation might be consistent by showing that it takes
great effort to cast a spell at more than one person, but a rules creation
must define exactly the mechanics, exactly how much effort is expended, must
decide how to quantify that effort, decide how fast the expended effort is
regained, decide what exactly constitutes another "person", etc.
"Even a rules/world combination as obsessed with details and realism as
Harnmaster/Harn does little more than describe how the world works."
And by all reports the Harn system is unplayable, both by overly complex
rules in certain spots where it does try to mimic its rich literary
tradition, and by gaping holes in the rules where it does not.
"I thinnk you fail to see that this diversification has also the aim to
leave the GM space for his own imagination and creativity. If I couldn't
twist at least local phenomenons to my gaming purposes, _then_ the world
would become unsuitable to _my_ gaming. I stopped playing other systems,
on other worlds, for just these reasons before."
I personally favour minor subcult variations and local variations in "colour"
or "flavour". What I don't approve of is the need for an entirely different
cult with different spells and different initiation and ordination
qualifications, etc. What I don't need, for example, is Elmal, Antarius,
Yelmalio, Ku-what's his name, and any number of other Yelmalio avatars.
I think Sandy said it well in the May 19 daily (which I deleted, so I cannot
quote)
Joerg continues:
"Interesting. Would you classify me as a scholar, or as a gamer?"
First, no one, hopefully, is an absolute. I don't archive my dailies, so I
can't say for certain. Being well-learned does not qualify one as Scholar,
IMO, but saying things like "forget the initiaion rules in RQ...I'm talking
Glorantha!" or starting to claim anyone who brings up a rules issue is a God
Learner/RQ2 bunkhead is a definite sign of Scholarhood. Such things have been
said by various persons on the net.
"Untrue. The game mechanics are a vehicle for gaming, little more. Unless
certain mechanics come up sour, to discuss them is to me like comparing
sport cars - a pastime I wouldn't take part in."
Well, then maybe you are a Scholar after all -)
A game mechanic can be unbroken, but could still be improvable, no?
"It wasn't, but that's not the point. The scholarly pursuit of themes
Gloranthan to me is another level of gaming."
Undeniably true, but when the Scholarly level is promoted at the expense of
the Gaming level, then I think priorities need to be rethought. As you can
see by some other postings to this daily, and as I have seen by private
emailings, there is a large body of Gamers lurking on the net (they might
even be a silent majority) who feel very unwelcome and intimidated by the
daily, not just because the level of discussion is high, but because rules
concerns and gaming aspects of Glorantha are treated hostiley.
The daily used to have a nice mixture of scholarly debates and "useful"
information such as cult writeups, magic items, etc. Except for David
Dunham's posting on various dictionaries, and my recent posting of two magic
items, there hasn't been much exchange of "gaming" type info on this net for
quite some time.
"So you would object if another part of game world history was revealed?
Sorry, but this happens to all game worlds alife. You do want new game
material, don't you? Then do you object if this contains historical details
previously unmentioned? Buy generic scenarios, then."
You have misinterpreted what I said. I love new material. I crave new
material, I lambasted Greg personally for not producing enough new material.
What I am railing against is not new material. I am railing against taking
what little material is out there and changing THAT.
"Who said Kolat was a GL construct? Burn that man! The GLs _claim_ to have
constructed Orlanth, Humakt and Yelm as well (the False Gods)."
It was mentioned somewhere in a daily posting (or maybe an RQ4 playtest
posting). It was mentioned as being a published fact, and since I don't own
GRoY or any of the recent Convention generated material, I presumed it
authentic. In anycase, there has been a tendency to act as if most gods are
GL constructs, but this gets into Mythic Relativism, which is another topic.
" Do you blame the scholars for trying to minimize the damage
done to campaigns?"
No, I have openly condemned Greg for actions like the Yelmalio/Elmal switch.
What I do condemn is the recent tendency to start applying this type of
switch to other gods (i.e. Humakt is Orlanth Honourable, Urox is Orlanth
Berseker, etc.).
"I hate monolithic game worlds, which strangle my imagination. Any game
world with a fixed number of cults to divine entities to me generally sucks."
NOTE: This may not have been Joerg's quote, my copy function got messed up
I hate monolithic worlds too, almost as much as I hate completely entropic
worlds that change at whim -)
Seriously, I would rather see more deities as opposed to more cults. Rather
than having various areas worship different aspects of Humakt, simply have
them worship a different death god. This I have no problem with. What I do
have a problem with is stating that an area DOES worship Humakt, but then
later telling me:
1) The Humakt they worship is completely different from the writeup
2) They really don't worship Humakt, that's just God Learnerism. They really
worship X
Let's decide on the major deities of the pantheons, and leave local
variations to minor spirit cults and demi gods.
"Then you don't allow for local cult heroes? Or is there a high holy day
broadcast of cult heroes, transmitted via satellite to every cult centre,
describing the hero's deeds, and rewards?"
I do not mind subcults which ADD ON to the "generic" worship of a god. I do
mind regional variances which look nothing like the cult writeup in GoG or
CoP or Cot, etc. and which change the very basic worship of the god. As
stated before, I like local colour and flavour. I do not like multiplicity.
"And don't you see that this cult diversity even allows you to retain
your RQ2 Sword Sages of Lhankor Mhy and Sword Priests of Humakt?
Bugger the rules changes, if I want my Issaries Rune Lord, I play it,
and claim that his community still has this rank. This is a gamers'
tool, not a scholars' construct."
Tis far better, IMO, to develop consistent rules and let the GM add diveristy
than to develop inconsistent rules and expect the GM to create consistency.
"Did it ever strike you that all these discussions we have here are based
on the same divinations (sources) we all received, and that our opinions
and interpretations differ greatly? And we _do_ have a means of immediate
communication between different centres of power."
But Greg is not a god (at least not yet -)) and he does not command the same
weight of words as Humakt. If Greg (who originates most of the "divinations
(sources)" you are talking about) were Humakt and was telling me that
something is true, then I would hardly be engaging in a debate over his
pronouncements. Our interpretations over RQ stuff differ becuase Greg is not
trying to make godlike pronouncements, and because even if he were, we could
safely question or ignore them.
" If something
was constructed at any time during history or myth, _now_ it is reality.
If the report about its having been constructed is accurate at all.
Face it: Glorantha has always been a world subject to change by
interference with the myths."
Not so, although this gets into an argument between absolutism and
relativism. As a GM, I use a world like Glorantha to game in because I want
to be presented with a world in which to run a campaign. If Glorantha is to
become a mish mosh of conflicting concepts where nothing is true and nothing
is false, and at every step of the way I have to decide what is true and what
is false, then why not just create my own world? What's the point of using
Glorantha as a game world?
The fact that something is real now doesn't mitigate the fact that many of us
like a world with a history...you know, events that happened in the past that
provide insight into the current situation. A world with a rich history is
one of my requirements as a choice in which to game. Glorantha had the
richest history out there. Now, it seems not to have a history at all, at
least not before the God Learners.
Devin Cutler
---------------------
From: 100116.2616@CompuServe.COM (David Hall)
Subject: What the Wizard said was wrong
Message-ID: <940519203412_100116.2616_BHG64-1@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 19 May 94 20:34:12 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4081
I stand by Nick in his views that "the idea that all Malkioni saints are
recognised and
worshipped by all of the sects (is) ludicrous, and will not countenance
it."
Sandy's responds:
>I don't agree. Here's why. Unlike Earthly saints, Malkioni
>saints give actual magic powers to their devotees. Clearly, there are
>no "false" saints, especially since any saint must gain his powers
>from the Invisible God.
This would seem to me to make the beliefs of the worshippers of the various
sects of Malkionism irrelevant (and merely game contructs). Whether you
believe in tapping or caste mobility the one true Invisible God does not
care. As long as you worship from the Standard List of Saints you are fine
and dandy.
However, Sandy clarifies this with:
>>Even if you belong to a sect committed to the primal sin of Tapping?
>Okay, I'll back down a little bit. I now believe that there
>ARE certain "Saints" accepted by fringe heresies that are rejected by
>the mainstream sects. These obscure saints may have tapped, or some
>other crime.
So the Galvosti and the Borists are now fringe heresies. Presumably their
saints are "false" and fail to get magic from the Invisible God? I wonder
if a Galvosti who has Gerlant as his patron saint gets magic, or is he
denied this because he is of a "false" and fringe sect?
What's the view on Castes? Are the realist Rokari or the idealist Hrestoli
"fringe" sects? Does the Invisible God deny one or other his magic?
Gosh! What about the Castle Coasters - they think there is a fifth caste!
Heresy!
Ughh! I don't believe any of this.
In Glorantha belief and faith lend substance to religion. The Galvosti
believe that tapping non-malkioni is correct, and is Malkion's and the
Invisible God's commandment. And so it is, for they believe it.
Saints are commonly heroes, martyrs, or role-models for those who follow
Malkionism to look up to and emulate - those who are holy to the Invisible
God. Therefore, it is ludicrous that each sect cannot create their own
saints - saints which epitomise the theological and social differences of
their particular form of worship. Those who are holy to their understanding
of the Invisible God.
Because of the differences between the sects it is only natural that a
Saint of one sect is another sect's anathema. Saint Rokar, who who
instituted the caste immobilty of the Rokari, is not recognised by the
Hrestoli.
There are some who may try and claim that there is only one true Invisible
God from whom all powers come. This is false and it is true. It is false
since the powers are different for each sect, as different as their
theological doctrines, and thus the source is surely different.
However, it MUST also be true! For surely there can only be one Invisible
God? Indeed, once we all worshipped Him following the precepts of Malkion
and Hrestol. Surely we can do this again? If only we can all get together,
thrash out our minor disagreements, and in the Holy Spirit of the
Compromise, found a United Church of Malkion!
Join us at the 7th Ecclesiastical Council of Malkion at Sog City University
in Storm Season 1625 and together we will forge a new creed. One for all
and all have Won!
---------------------
From: carlsonp@wdni.com (Carlson, Pam)
Subject: Religious titles, Storm Bull Follies
Message-ID: <2DDBDDE2@itlab.wtc.weyer.com>
Date: 19 May 94 20:43:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4082
Howdy, all!
Having finally gotten in touch with my sadistic side, I've started to run
Risklands/Dorastor for some of my more unfortunate pals.
I like to add small role-playing details, to make the NPC's seem more real.
Lately I've been wondering if there are any standard forms of respectful
address commonly used, particularly within the major cults. How does one
address an Ernalda acolyte? ("Mother"? "Sister"?) A Storm Bull kahn?
("Warrior"? "Big Brother"?) How about a Humakti, a (Y)Elmalian, Orlanthi,
or a Lunar official?
Also, one of my PC's is a Storm Bull worshipper exiled from Prax. The
Lunars let him take his wife and a few bison, so he has a herd to guard and
care for. He wants to join the Templars outside of Hazard Fort instead of
farming the stead with the other PC's. (The Praxian swears he'll starve
before he digs like a slave.) While I can't fault the role-playing logic,
I'm not sure how the Templars would feel about a part-time member.
Once the Templars found out that this new guy had actually been to the
Block, they decided he was at least an acceptable candidate. Peacock told
him that he would have to undergo an initiation into the Templars.... I'm
planning something like an fraternity hazing, Urox style. Any ideas?
Off to plan for that delicate Dorastor balance between Challenge and Certain
Death -
Pam
<^==@
/\ /\
(This, John, is keyboard-crypto for a nordic-type dog - my other hobby).
BTW- if anyone in the Western USA is interested in rescued Akitas, drop me a
line.
---------------------
From: Argrath@aol.com
Subject: True/False Dichotomies
Message-ID: <9405192110.tn297173@aol.com>
Date: 20 May 94 01:10:39 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4083
Re: Scholars and Gamers
I have to disagree with Devin Cutler, Nils Weinander, et al.
on the scholar/gamer dichotomy (while thanking Devin for bringing
up a new and interesting topic). I believe this is a false
dichotomy, because scholars are a subset of gamers. Scholarship
(if you want to call it that) has deepened my appreciation of the
game and enhanced my roleplaying. Instead of having information
presented as objective facts, I can appreciate and develop my
characters' personal and cultural beliefs.
The Elmal/Yelmalio business, for example, only gives GMs the
opportunity to develop complexity in their world. Any GM worth
his salt can explain to his players, "Yes, I told you all these
things about Yelmalio which you, as players, now know to be
false. But your characters still believe it, so you better act
that way!" You can even hint (if you want to be tricky) that
other things that you've given them as gospel truth are in doubt.
As third age Gloranthans, my characters don't know half of
what I know. On the other hand, they have the kind of day-to-day
knowledge which I lack. The scholarship, the nitty gritty what-
the-cult-of-Orlanth-in-the-Lismelder-tribe-is-like stuff, adds to
my appreciation of the game. It also keeps me going between
games, since I have a hell of a time finding decent players
within reasonable geographic proximity.
And I'd much rather discuss how the "real" Glorantha works
than talk about whether the damage bonus table needs changing.
I liked Joerg's response too, and generally agree with it
(to the point of not picking any nits, at least).
Re: high and low sorcery
This is part of the attempt to make sorcery work in a social
sense, by restricting some spells to specialists. I forget which
spells got designated "low" and which "high."
--Martin
---------------------