Bell Digest v940523p3

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, Mon, 23 May 1994, part 3
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk


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

From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Orlanthi worship, various odds.
Message-ID: <9405222155.AA07778@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 May 94 21:55:14 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4102


Joerg:
> I "_need_" the following partly, not totally independent mechanisms about 
> initiation:

> - pantheon initiation
> - religious initiation accompanying adulthood initiation
> - childhood pre-initiation

I know you've proposed them, I'm trying to see why, more specifically.
I don't really see why you can't achieve the (printable) desired effects
of pantheon initiation by tweaking associate worship a bit, and the like.
On adulthood initiation, you seem fairly vague and noncommital: almost
as vague and noncommital as me, in fact.  The last I'm even more (most?)
mystified by.

> > They might be important in some notional sense, but I don't see that
> > they'd be required to actually _do_ anything.  As "non-initiates" they
> > don't have the knowledge, or the necessary magical viewpoint.

> You don't need any magic knowledge to be involved in a heroquest.

I think you do, if you have any sense at all.  We're talking of souls
at stake, here.  This isn't to say they're not physically present at some
ceremonies, though.

> > But fertility rituals (your argument as to why it's a Good Thing for boys
> > to worship Voriof) are of less importance in towns,

> Wrong. A town depends solely on the fertility of the surrounding rural 
> commodities for survival.

I thought we were talking about the worship of the _townspeople_?  Y'know,
these people who keep forgetting that Voriof is the God of sheep.

> You won't find a city inhabited by Orlanthi which imports basic foodstuff.

Apart from all the ones importing them from said surrounding rural 
commodities.  Can we agree who, exactly, we're talking about for 10min?
The above seemingly contradicts your own argument about how Voriof isn't
too important as a sheep god in towns.  It bothers me that Voriof seems
to me to be first a foremost a god of sheep, and only secondly and _by_
_association_ of boys, that you seem keen to throw out the first in favour
of a version of the second run riot.

> Most boys aren't apprenticed yet. (Not at all, according to RQ3 character 
> generation rules, although this takes rules interpretation too far). They 
> have received basic social training, common knowledge, maybe a bit 
> specialisation from their parents' trades. All of them want to become 
> chieftain or something like that at the time of their "Voriof-introduction", 
> sometime around their 6th, 9th or 12th summer.

That's being very vague.  I agree that if Voriof were an exact Voria
analogue, the membership would certainly be younger than the typical
apprentice.  Too young to cart into a heroquest, certainly.  But I
don't think Voriof is such an exact analogue.  After all, Voria is
specifically the Goddess of innocence and new beginnings, and hence, of
very young children.  I think initiation into her cult is more of a de
facto existentialist state, than anything remotely like Yelm the Youth.

Voriof, I think, is somewhat more like a "proper" cult, with a "real"
initiate status, which not all boys would necessarily join.  However,
given his secondary association, there may exist a pre-initiatory status
to which all or most boys belong, until they are perhaps 12, but which
is of no vast magical importance.  At roughly that point, they'd get
apprenticed, begin training as warrior, become a "proper" Voriof initiate,
or something of that sort.

> J> For Orlanthi:
> J> Youth associates

> > I think this is a confusing concept.  Voria "initiates" don't get
> > _any_ magical benefits from their "associates" [...]

> Again and again: Magical benefits needn't be "do it yourself" magic.

And who on earth ever said so?  That you seem to be making this argument
"again and again" in the context of _initiation_ (in a more general sense)
makes me wonder what the whole _point_ of these manifold extra benefits
of pantheon initiation is.  Why is it so Vitally Important to be
_initiated_, in whatever sense, to get these indirect magical benefits,
if direct ones aren't necessary?

However, here I was talking about "do it yourself" magical benefits,
which is what you _generally_ get via associate worship, wherein Voria
is one of the obvious exceptions.

I can see your reasons for using existing terminology such as "associate"
and "initiate", by analogies of varying strength, but moved from the
existing context (principally that of individual cults), I think it starts
to become somewhat vague and confusing.

> > I also think that to say "Storm Bull (not Urox)" is to conflate the
> > notions of different _cults_ with that of different gods.

> Different myths, not cults. In Orlanth's myths, Urox hardly would figure 
> as husband of Ernalda

Or in the Praxians.  That'd be Eiritha.

> he's just beastly big brother, bashing headlong into 
> the fray. In Praxian myth, the Bull had married the Earth. Whether these 
> different myths make them different deities I leave up to Campbells 
> apostles. It makes them different aspects, to say the least.

Since we don't know a lot of Orlanthi-specific myths about Urox, this
is exceedingly speculative.  For the moment I'm inclined to believe
they are the same thing.  It's not clear what you mean by "aspect" here,
as they play very similar roles in the two cultures.  I'm sure the Praxians
and Sartarites have long since decided of each other: "They have a funny
name for our god.  Funny title for head people in the cult, too."

> > I must say that your use of the term "Initiation" is sorta confusing in
> > general. 

> I use it according to Webster's Dictionary of the English Language.

I didn't say it was _wrong_.  It's still confusing.  I don't think the
cultists would use it in so many different senses, and neither would an
orderly-minded God Learner.

> > Put your God Learner hat on for a moment (I'm sure it's handy
> > ): there is clearly a very particular "normal" structure to the
> > Initiate status, the details of which I needn't belabour.  The Seven
> > Mothers cult bends them, Voria and the Red Goddess break them (though
> > use of the term in these cases does make a sort of stream of consciousness
> > sense).

> I don't see how the Red Goddess breaks it any more than say Yelm or Orlanth 
> do, with my hat on.

Red Goddess Initiates are rather more like priests, if anything.  It's
hard to see much resemblance between them and "ordinary" initiates.

> Nor do I see the telling difference between one god per 
> cult (say like Lodril or Etyries), two gods (Caladra and Aurelion) or seven 
> (The Seven Mothers, The Lightbringers' Ring).

Well, six each, actually, for the purposes of active worship.  I recall us
agreeing that the 7M cult "bent" the usual pattern of worship, I fail to
see the controversy of me using the description in a weaker sense.  C&A
is, after all, a God Learner construct, so isn't a great example of theistic
orthodoxy.  For the record, I don't believe the Lightbringers are at all
commonly worshipped in a single cult, though that they could be doesn't
seem inherently implausible.  That's still a big step to the Orlanth
Pantheon Cult, though.

> If Voria breaks the rules, so 
> does Aldrya, and Mostal does, the Invisible God does, the Red Emperor does, 
> the Pharaoh does, Godunya does, in that all of these have sub-rune rank 
> members above lay member (no secrets, no active worship) status.

Voria breaks the rules because _all_ her initiates are "lay members".
Your other examples merely have an "extra" initiate (lay member, whatever)
stage tacked on.

> You mean the bland initiate definition from the Universal Cult Format, 
> right? I am in fact astonished that something so _generic_ is defended as 
> being Gloranthan fact, not to be touched except for a few cases.

I'm suggesting it not be abused as a rules concept, not that it be
defended as Gloranthan fact.  Currently, you are using the term, in
both abstract and specific case discussion, in about three distinct
senses.  (I may be biased, since I also happen to not want/need two
of them.)

If you think this is being excessively picky, consider all the hassle about
the semantics of KoS's unqualified use of the term.

I get very confused when you argue based on GoG cults, Joerg, since the
entire thrust of your pantheon initiation ideas seems to be to ditch them.
Or is it an exercise in reductio ad absurdum?

> > It doesn't unduly bother me that some cults work this way; it's at least
> > clear what god/cult is being worshipped.

> The cult of Orlanth's Stead? 

Fails on about three counts.

> > (Not so very
> > coincidentally, they are also cults which the eligible candidate "must"
> > be (fully, as it were) initiated into, for social reasons.)

> Just like in good old Sartar, right?

Just like some portion of Sartar to be determined at a later date.

> J> Adulthood initiation wouldn't, the basic religious initiation would 
> J> involve POW sacrifice (once).

> > But isn't the whole point of your argument that they're the same thing?

> I said they come simultaneously for "all" Orlanthi.

Then you said they might not.  Are they merely coincidentally simultaneous,
"all" of the time, or are they absolutely-the-same-thing-honest?

Alex.

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

From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Aeolian cosmology, saints.
Message-ID: <9405222156.AA07784@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 May 94 21:56:26 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4103


Joerg, me::
> > I forget the whole creed, but Maker and Grower spring to mind, and the
> > identification of Glorantha, Ginna Jar, and Arachne Solara.

> The Ginna Jar identification is common Lhankor Mhy prattle, hardly God 
> Learner.

Oh?  Why do you say that?  Is this identification actually part of the
creed, btw, or was it just a `marginal gloss'?

> This entity isn't worshipped directly, so why the hubbub?

> Grower and Maker are part of the cosmology, explaining the basics of 
> Creation in one paragraph.

Well, I did _say_ it was specifically the cosmology I was talking about,
not the henotheisist aspects of worship.  Only the dwarves and elves
trundle these two out, even cosmologically, I think.

> [...] I took the mainstream 3rd Age cosmology as per GoG.

If that isn't a confession of God Learnerism, I don't know what is.

> The presence of knights would have prompted 
> any subgraduate God Learner to prove the Hendriki were Malkioni, so even 
> if Arkat had only given them knights, the Empire of the Middle Seas would 
> have given them the Invisible God.

This'll be the Backup Emergency Rationale, then?  Let me reiterate, I'm not
trying to Alex your campaign, by any means, I just don't see the imperative
for the sorts of things you suggest, if, as you imply in between times,
this stuff is _just begging_ to become official.

> > Minor quibble: they didn't, really, as Hendriki "knights" aren't a
> > Malkioni-style caste or class, much less anything at all like modern
> > Hrestoli knights.

> Right. They are most similar to Hrestol's original idea of knights.

That's begging the question.  They are _thanes_, who just happen to be
called knights, according to the source.

> > Certainly not to the extend that a millenium later,
> > a country in the middle of theist territory would end up as IG-inclined as
> > central Ralios, who have Seshnela breathing down their necks.  That they'd
> > influence them in military matters is easier to believe.

> For one thing, knighthood wouldn't have survived without the appropriate 
> hero cults, which happen to be Malkioni Saints.

Knighthood is a remarkably mundane concept, when it comes right down to it.
I bet there are "pure" Malkioni knights who don't even engage in "pseudo-
cultic" saint worship of any kind.

> And in Nochet there is a group of Malkioni living in the catacombs more 
> often than on the surface, surrounded by theists on the streets, who kept 
> their _pure_ faith even against God Learner influence

We're talking about mass conversion here, not covert, residual sects.

> [Quivini settlers from the Holy Country]
> > Indeed, but they and their fellow colonists, who were likely to have
> > similar motivations, don't seem likely to be fertile ground for rampant
> > Malkionisation.

> Then why did they leave, if back home everyone and his cat were good 
> Orlanthi?

I think we (sort of) agreed several messages ago about Malkionised
overlords; I think the _bulk_ of Heortlanders are still recognisable as
Orlanthi, though.  e.g., would see being a sorceror/wizard as being
incompatible with most cult vows.  I'm not sure that even the upper crust
are frequently sorcerors, but if they are, I don't think the hoi polloi
are, nor would I favour having a unitary religion for both which explicitly
includes both "options".

Alex.

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

From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Trinitarianism, and other heresies.
Message-ID: <9405222153.AA07772@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 May 94 21:53:32 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4105


Saint Sandy:
> > I could probably be convinced of the necessity of a Malkioni  
> > Trinitarianism only if I were also convinced of the Trinity as a  
> > basic and powerful mythological concept.

Head Heretic Hnick Hbrooke.
> I'm not convinced of it, but I did find another one in Glorantha. Try the 
> Four Corners of the Earth Rune:

> 	The Mother		Gata
> 	The Daughter		Empress Earth
> 	The Holy Ghost		Earth Witch

Hbah!  That's a Trinity?  Rather more like the Romano-Greek triple earth
goddess, or indeed the hideous number of triple-aspected Celtic deities,
are we going to count those as Trinities?

Glorantha goes a bit far by making the earth one a tri-trinity, mind you.

On the other hand, why does a Trinity have to be "necessary" in order to
amuse ourselves by kicking the idea around?  Is someone out there trying
to prove a "This is True for All Sects, in all One True Gloranthas" type
argument, one way or t'other?

Joerg:
> The Tap schism seems artificial, lets blame the God Learners.

Shouldn't we blame the "Thou shalt not Tap" commandment?

Alex.

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

From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Jeux Sans Frontiers.
Message-ID: <9405222210.AA07804@keppel.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 May 94 22:10:22 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4106


Devin Cutler:
> While a good literary creation does have to possess internal consistency, it
> does not have to provide, in full view of the public, a formulised mechanism
> for its inner workings. 

Nor does a game: at least, certainly not for the characters in the game as
a "public", and not necessarily the players, either.  Should the GMly
public be given a nice, simple, set-in-concrete wind-up Glorantha, with
no need, or scope, for significant creative or editorly input?  Many GMs
would, and indeed already have, complained about this.

> This dichotomy between Glorantha (the literary creation) and RQ (the gaming
> creation) is often at the heart of many of the debates on the net.

As dichotomies go, this is seems a thoroughgoingly false one.  How many
people who write, or post, about Glorantha aren't also players (or refs)
of the game?

> The scholars really tend to focus on Glorantha as literary creation. They
> tend to despise the RQ rules as God "Learnerisms"

I should probably just let this straw man burn merrily, but I think you'll
find "God Learnerisms" in this context are more precisely using the RQ
rules to "deduce" things about Glorantha.  As rules, well, they're just
rules, really.  Not that everyone plays RQ, of course.

> The gamers tend to focus on the game mechanics.
> [...]  We simply put entertainment value first and foremost.

Games mechanics as entertainment?  Whatever turns you on, I suppose.  The
whole "entertainment" line of thought seems to be very much a matter of
personal taste.

> For example, I try
> to follow Glorantha as much as I can, but I do not enjoy setting up an entire
> scenario around the fact that Kolat existed in Godtime, and then finding out
> that he was a God Learner construct. 

Leaving aside whether this is yet Holy Writ, how exactly would this fact
involve itself in the scenario, and how would the players ever discover
that said fact was false?  Or are you talking about _belief_ in one version
or the other, which is a rather different business?

Kolat's "Umbrol" hat is certainly redolent of that certain GLish je ne sais
quoi, but how could it ever be proved, either way?  Certainly not by
heroquest, which is a better way of changing reality than observing it.

> Similarly, despite any brilliant explanations to explain the Elmal/Yelmalian
> switcheroo, the move sucks, and has really bolluxed a number of campaigns out
> here in California.

Only one ("official", and not even a RQ) publication has alluded to Elmal,
so if it's such a stinker, why worry about it?  Those of us who like the
Gregged Yelmalio now have an interesting extra bit of Orlanthi mythology,
and an explanation for the cult that makes a lot more sense than the load
of twaddle in CoP.  What, exactly, has everyone else "lost"?

> [...] but taking
> established facts (i.e. in CoP, Yelmalio IS the one who is revered by Hill
> Barbarians, he IS the one ambushed at the Hill of Gold, he IS the one
> worshipped in Dragon Pass) and then tossing them into the shitter really rubs
> me the wrong way.

To talk of religious beliefs as "established facts" is a bit rich.  I think
you'd find the Yelmalio-worshipper-in-the-street to insist on their truth
just as vociferously as anyone suspected they did back in the Good Old Days
of RQ2.  As for the fact that _some_ hill barbarians still worship Elmal,
I don't see how this screws anyone up to any extent, given that we've not
been told _which_ ones do in any great detail.

The main problem with the Elmal discovery was its timing, I think.  That
it came out at roughly the same time as Sun County suddenly created a rash
of inconsistencies which wouldn't have arisen otherwise.  Perhaps SC should
have been Gregged, but how well would that have gone down with the punters?

> Similarly, I am becoming less enamoured of how cults are being handled. Why
> this need for so many different cultic variations over Glorantha (i.e.
> "...what we really need is a cult of Yelmalio for Peloria, one for Prax, one
> of Pavis, one for Grazelanders, one for Sartar...")? Yes, cults varied wildly
> here on earth, but Glorantha is not earth.

I'm not wild about comparisons which stress the alleged differences in the
nature of religion and deity between Glorantha and Earth.  Particularly the
ones on the lines of "Earthly religions are mere ad hoc superstition,
Gloranthan ones are based on Obvious True Facts."  Earthly religions may
not be an ideal starting point for extrapolation, but it is rather the
only one.  We could of course start from scratch, and dream up a nice, neat
no-muss no-fuss solution, but one thing I find that makes for unsatisfactory
gaming is something that jumps up, tweaks my nose vigorousdly, and yells:
"Artificial construct introduced for Your Gaming Convenience!"

> I do not find it unreasonable to believe that Humakt himself, through
> Divinations and the like, has prescribed a single mode of worship throughout
> Glorantha.

It's fairly unreasonable, given such details as the Compromise.  Given that
Humakt is essentially the personification of Death, just how fussy is he
likely to be about minor matters like the exact pointiness of the High
Priest's hat, just so long as they keep 'em dying?  I think cults are
substantially social institutions, and to make them undifferentiated
minions of a god who makes regular spot-checks of his various regional
franchises would be much less satisfying to me, as a gamer, and as an
(alleged) "`scholar'".

> I see Glorantha as a superb place in which to role play Runequest.

This is very much putting Descartes before the horse, in my view.  If
Glorantha is just a vehicle for Runequest to trundle along in, and must
adapt itself to suit every idio[syn]c[hras]y of the RQ rules, how "real",
how convincing, how likely to inspire creative endeavour, is it going to
end up?

Why, if we "dry scholars" are so irrelevant to good gaming, not just
ignore these Dangerous Revisions, and play in _your_ (RuneQuest-friendly)
Glorantha?

> As long as the scholars continue to "run the show", I feel that Glorantha
> will likely become a wonderful literary creation (and fiction should be
> published) but will die as a game.

Exactly which "scholars" should be fired?  The ones who invented it,
wrote award-winning material about  it, and are responsible for what
most of us enjoy about it?  If RQ is dying as a game, perhaps we should
look to a player base old enough to have too many "better" things to do,
a publisher with a confused idea of what it wants to do with the line,
and a deuced sight more competition than there was in 1982, not the fact
that Glorantha's creator makes minor fiddles with the background when he
feels like it.

Alex.

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

From: ANDOVER@delphi.com
Subject: Pavis personalities
Message-ID: <01HCNE9FINVM91X0MK@delphi.com>
Date: 22 May 94 14:33:50 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4107

On Pavis personalities, isn't Halcyon Var Enkorth, the pride of
Balazar, among them? He appears in one of the griselda stories.  Which
suggests, at the least, that Marusa the Shrew and Bluebird and Valka were
around there too.  See the original Griffin Mountain.  Or did this all
get wiped out when Balazar was "blanked for no good reason?  I
not that Stafford still used Balazar in KOS.