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, 26 May 1994, part 1
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
X-RQ-ID: Intro
This is the RuneQuest Daily Bulletin, a mailing list on
the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's
world of Glorantha. It is sent out once per day in digest
format.
More details on the RuneQuest Daily and Digest can be found
after the last message in this digest.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Subject: More initiation nits.
Message-ID: <9405251532.AA20902@barren.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 25 May 94 15:32:23 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4160
Egad, another unsent mega-message on initiation found lurking on my disks,
which Wakboth is making me post, regardless of the danger of it having
been overtaken by subsequent events. Oh well.
The usual suspects:
> > Your "definitive sources" are getting thinner by the second, Joerg. ;-)
> I fail to see any of yours... ;-)
Never claimed to have any. Unless you count every single reference to
a "cult" of any individual deity, of which there are bazillions, which,
fortunately, I'm far too sporting to do.
> > Minaryth isn't a "typical" 14 year old, I'm sure. Someone given "a quill,
> > a way with words" at birth could be at 90% Write Sartarite by 14.
> By a "gift and geas" mechanic? How do I create such unusual characters as
> PCs?
Sparingly, I hope. I don't want to get into advanced character generation
rules drafting. (Yet.)
> > Cultic initiation is _not_ a rite of passage, as such, for adults: no
> > one argues that one can join a cult as an adult, of any age, so it
> > can hardly have the same ritual significance as passing into culthood
> > (for the first time), and Adulthood (for the only time).
> Hey, cultic intitiation defines your afterlife, your Runes, your life.
> Your standing in family, clan and tribe changes, you get access to
> radically different positions. _Not_ a rite of passage?
Fine, Joerg. If this is such a big deal, why are you sweeping it under
the carpet entirely, in favour of turning up at the Generic Temple and
saying "I fancy an Issaries spell this week"? If I understand your
pantheonist rules correctly (and it's a big If, I concede), then being
initiated into a _particular_ cult has either become entirely superfluous,
or has become roughly "sacrifice a point of POW, take on no new
responsibilities".
> Tell that the guy initiated to Eurmal, for instance.
Special case.
> > This is a pretty deuced clear-cut example of initiation into a single
> > deity, but paying attention to one's normal social, including other
> > religious, due.
> I.e. to the pantheon, ot the temple.
I think if we want to wind this discussion up, trying to get in the
final "Is too!" without making any new point is counterproductive.
> All (85%) Orlanthi males are initiated to Orlanth (KoS p.245f).
I think this statement is true by itself, but isn't a correct reading
of the paragraph in question, which seems to be using the phrase
"ways of Orlanth" in some way known only to itself. (It doesn't specify
"male", please note.) Perhaps to mean "adulthood/clanic/tribal initiation",
since the beginning of the _next_ paragraph speaks of "any cult in the
pantheon".
> Is this worthy associated with e.g. Eiritha, Babeester Gor or other
> associates of Ernalda? Since he uses oxen to plow, possibly with Eiritha.
> If he tends an orchard, maybe even with Aldrya? Is he associated with
> the Lightbringers? With Heler? With Mastakos? Urox? Humakt? Valind?
I'm not sure in which sense you mean "associated". Do you mean in the
sense of "associate worshipper", or in the sense of "is an `initiate'
of"? In this context, I'd say the Barntar cult would be considered
associated to some of Ernalda's associates, and some of Orlanth's.
Say, Voria, Ernalda, Asrelia, Eiritha, Orlanth, Heler, Chalana Arroy.
I don't think he'd typically be an Initiate of any of these.
My understanding of the concept "Initiate of" isn't, as Joerg implies,
"entry-level worshipper of", or "person turning up at the ceremonies
of". Rather, "walker in the hero paths of", "cosmologicly bound to",
"keeper of the secrets of", "person prepared to commit themselves to
a significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the service of".
I think Joerg's model, in seeking to liberalise worship in broadly
laudable ways, does serious damage to the established significance
and importance of cultic initiation.
I think that if you ask the typical Gloranthan "Who is your god?", you
get a short, singular, non-collective answer, not an elaborate formula
involving recourse to concepts like pantheons.
(Though if you ask a Eurmali, he might just fib.)
> All of these, with varying degrees. If you can express this in
> the one man - one cult scheme, you are well off. I can't really.
"Initiate of Barntar" works for me. If he wants to joins another
cult too, great stuph, but I don't see why it'd be necessary.
> > I find it strange that people can simultaneously propose, or agree with
> > propositions that initiation is a "theistic heroquest of personal
> > transformation" [...]
> > and then suggest that the person who emerges from this is a
> > Generic Theyalan Pantheon Initiate.
> I heroquest in my (cultic) initiation rite to get my place at Orlanth's
> Stead.
For me, heroquesting means following the path of the god, initiation
HQing doubly so. Some aggregate involving putting on the hat of every
god in the (even local) pantheon seems much less satisfactory to me,
even if you can think of a suitable composite myth.
> If I am to plow the land, I ask Barntar to show me the knack
> [...many others...] I fetch Chalana Arroy to help my charge.
This is all one initiation HQ? Or an example of My Life as a HeroQuest?
Let's not get on to that topic, too, at least in this thread.
> Whenever a specific problem is at hand, I worship the appropriate
> member of Orlanth's Stead.
Recall that I proposed a (possible) such cult (I suggested "Orlanth's
Hearth", roughly Orlanth, Ernalda, Barntar, possibly other children, to
rationalise the plowman's dilemma ("Do I worship Orlanth, Barntar, or
what?")), but this description doesn't cover all the deities in the
pantheon. And in any case, it would be a (gasp, horror) "fudged" cult.
> If I want assistance in a
> matter of love and courting, I can either fall back to Orlanth's youthful
> role in his wooing of Ernalda (which is perfectly well for a dalliance with
> an experienced woman), or I ask Uleria (or even Eurmal) for charm and good
> looks to get that maiden from the neighbouring stead into the hay
Unless you're suggesting that the current rules suggest that you need to
become an initiate of Eurmal or Uleria in order to fall in love, I don't
see the force of this argument. I think I need to define a macro-key
bound to "associate worship" to spare myself some RSI.
> This needn't be measurable magic by rules criteria, but it is one
> element of this individual's worship - of Orlanth's Stead
I agree that individuals worship, in some sense, more than one deity from
the pantheon. Have been agreeing, loudly and seemingly ignoredly. I
just think it's a great mistake to devalue the meaning of the status
of Initiate so that "everyone gets to be an initiate of everything".
A much more profitable avenue, IM(NS)HO, would be leave initiation (mostly)
unmolested, and ask: "What magical benefits should accrue to a person not
an initiate of any cult, or to a person belonging to a different cult in
the pantheon?" And: "How do they take part in the worship of the given
deity?". And while we're at it: "What do we call them?"
> In fantasy literature, most authors have their characters invoke a deity
> fit for the task at hand [...]
> I use the pantheon initiation as an attempt to make the player realize
> that there are a plethora of potentially benevolent entities which might
> be helpful in specific situations.
This is what John H. would call a "RQ-level" argument. I'd rather
have a role for initiation with some "Glorantha-level" mythic power,
and cultural significance and worry about how I'm going to work in cameos
from assorted pantheon bit-players afterwards.
> If being an initiate is close to
> roleplaying one's chosen deity, then asking one's patron's recorded
> helpers, the members of his pantheon, for help is playing in role.
Yes, I see that analogy. Sounds like associate
worship to me. At least _some_ form of associate worship, even if there
are serious problems in the current rules. Are there?
> If my mundane occupation lacks a direct role model in the pantheon,
> then I have to fudge my role model form the existing ones.
Hrm. I think the best question to ask is simply what deity (or recognised
aspect) is the _most_ important or applicable. Others are probably
satisfactorily rationalised by associate worship.
> I am a male adult, so my role model is that of the male adult - Orlanth.
> I live in a village where everyone, including myself, plows a piece of
> land, so my role model includes the plowman - Barntar.
> I happen to be the village's clerk, in that I am responsible to collect
> tithing and feorm for temple and chieftain (Issaries) and to record
> the village history of economy (Lhankor Mhy).
A fairly contrived-sounding example (clearly, you can't have a whole
community of such people), but if I were playing or reffing such a
character, I'd say he fitted the Lhankor Mhy job description rather well,
if the clerk/historian roles are the keys ones. Or Orlanth Lawspeaker,
if that aspect is locally recognised.
I don't believe you have to be an "initiate" of Barntar to use a plow.
Particularly if the Barntar cult is already strong, and can "support"
a non-member or associate member who is providing a useful contribution
otherwise. I don't believe you have to be an initiate of Orlanth to be
a male adult. Well, unless you do: I'm hazy about this one. ;-/ (And
I don't believe you have to be an initiate of Voriof to be a male child.)
I don't believe you have to be an initiate of Issaries to collect taxes,
in fact I don't think that's even the correct cult. (LM function, I
think.)
> My role is a complex one. I could call myself a Harst initiate, but
> there is no such independent cult. If there was, it would be weak, and
> my exclusion from the village's worship would weaken the village as well.
Exclusion? I don't see how he'd be excluded. Clearly he's not as much
magical "use" as a dedictated Barntar initiate, but to hope otherwise
is surely over-optimistic. If "All of the benefits, none of the costs"
is an intended selling point of pantheon initiation, I'm certainly not
buying. If the local LM site or shrine is located in the Barntar temple,
then they are de facto associates whether the rules say so or not.
> If viewed strictly by the rules, only old Venharl would qualify as Orlanth
> initiate, the rest might as Barntar initiates.
I don't think it's true that farmers worship Barntar in preference to
Orlanth, as a rule. After all, your source for widespread Barntar worship
as such is Heortland, an area you yourself think is "not really Orlanthi".
(Of course, in Sartar, Lunar occupation makes a difference.)
> But how should they perform
> their Sacred Time rites with but one real Orlanth guy, and one who is
> getting too old for all of this short LBQ business?
"God of Chieftains, Warriors, and Farmers, all." Personally, I believe
your model is in danger of us having no "real Orlanth guys", and no real
Chalana guys, etc, as they all end up as some undifferentiated shade of
Cafeteria Theyalanism. I'm quite sure this isn't your intent, but your
suggestions seem to me to risk throwing the identifying-with-your-god
baby out with the overly-rigid-cult-writeups bathwater.
> A certain flexibility in these matters is mandatory.
Indeed. But too much flexibility looks like laxity. Or even fudge.
And having much more flexibility in the "rules" than in the "real" cults
is obviously undesirable. And I don't think you can deduce what the
"correct" structure of a cult is purely on the basis of what would suit
a worshipper, or even community of worshippers: they have to contend
with the harsh, awkward, bumming-out facts of life of magical ecology.
Whatever they are. The question is duly begged, I know.
> One might "fudge the cults", as Alex proposes. Makes me ick.
I really don't see why: Do you have this objection to Orlanth Goodvoice,
then? And if so, why doesn't Pantheon Initiation have a similar, but
greater effect on you? It sounds, to me, that it'd be One Great Fudged
Cult: if you ever actually described it, that is.
> In RQC, these are called
> initiates of Barntar, in KoS they are called initiates of Orlanth, assuming
> the Volsaxi Orlanth-worshippers fit both bills.
Different people. The Heortlings of KoS (a term originating from the
first age) are _not_ the Malkionised Heortlanders of the RQC (third age).
> > Worshipping many entities makes you _less_
> > specialised, by any reasonable metric, surely.
> Expressed by Cult Lore skills, my character above is likely to have
> 89% Orlanth (Thunderous) and Ernalda Lore (he's pious), 85% Barntar Lore,
> 65% Grain Goddess Lore, 55% Issaries Lore, 35% Asrelia Lore, and quite
> low skill in say Mastakos Lore or O.Adventurous Lore.
If he's particularly pious, it's not unlikely for him to join more than
one cult, and put up with the extra mundane costs. Especially if he's
a priestly (/RL/acolyte) wannabe. I don't accept you can be zealously
involved with several cults (as RQ3 would have it), while only putting
in a fixed ammount of effort. Jack of all trades...
Alex.
---------------------
From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott)
Subject: Re: A Proposal for Ralios...
Message-ID: <9405251224.AA21667@vinga.hum.gu.se>
Date: 25 May 94 16:24:54 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4153
Gary Newton in X-RQ-ID: 4100 has
>A Modest Proposition for Safelster
My group has a long-running campaign in the East Wilds of Ralios (no, it's
not the same as David Dunham's - we were there long before him :-)), and in
the "History" section of our background material we naturally have to
discuss the rest of Ralios, including (here it comes...) _Safelster_. I
could post some of this, and then we could argue endlessly over what
various sources actually say, what has been Gregged, and how "NN told me in
'87 that all the orlanthi in Ralios are really illuminated ogres". :-)
What do you think, Gary?
( Jonas Schiott )
( Institutionen for Ide- och lardomshistoria )
( Goteborgs Universitet )
---------------------
From: Michelle_Ringo@ed.gov (Michelle Ringo)
Subject: Request for NonGloranthan Information
Message-ID: <9404257698.AA769885454@ed.gov>
Date: 25 May 94 15:04:14 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4154
Response to Peter
HAVE SOME NON-GLORANTHAN CAMPAIGN NOTES ON DISK FROM
A FRIEND'S CAMPAIGN. CULTURES/SOCIEITES/GODS ETC. DO YOU
WANT TO SEE THEM OR NOT?
Yes, Please.
---------------------
From: henkl@aft-ms (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland)
Subject: Re: Indexes From Steve Martin
Message-ID: <9405251407.AA09249@aft-ms.Holland.Sun.COM>
Date: 25 May 94 18:09:45 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4155
Eric Rowe:
> To: runequest-digest-editor@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM
> Subject: Indexes From Steve Martin
>
> These ever going to come out Henk?
>
> eric
>
Yes.
I'm in the process of creating a separate distribution
for these, excluding those people who've refused the
indexes...
I will first send out an announcement to this distribution,
accompagnied with a short note to the Daily.
Hit me if you don't see these before the weekend.
Henk
---------------------
From: DevinC@aol.com
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Tue, 24 May 1994, part 1
Message-ID: <9405251009.tn467569@aol.com>
Date: 25 May 94 14:09:48 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4156
Devin Cutler here:
Sam writes:
"This Scholar vs Gamer really is a non argument. I hex whoever brought it up.
"Ibbledy-bibbldey-wibbldey-dee etc..""
I started it, and I have Countermagic 6 up, so your hex fails. I also have a
Chaos Feature, so it is reflected back onto you.
"No, I
do not understand a great deal of what is discussed on the daily - but then
I do not begrudge anyone their freedom to discuss it. If you want rules
try the RQIV discussion - but boy! it's dry. Glorantha *is* RQ (IMHO). But
you don't have to agree with me to discuss stuff on this daily."
No one is calling for censorship or saying that the Scholarly stuff should be
eliminated. What we are calling for is more "useful" stuff in addition to the
learned treatises. The fact is, the Daily used to have a lot of the useful
stuff, but as the Scholars have emerged, they have been very hostile to
gaming-type material. I have witnessed such hostility on the net.
Can you explain why the useful material suddenly dried up? People once were
contributing this type of stuff...but no more.
"Without the rules Glorantha is still
a fantastic place to game in.."
and I am of the firm belief that without RQ, Glorantha never would have
gotten anywhere, and if you took RQ out of Glorantha now, it would die a
quicker death than it currently seems to be doing.
" If you don't like what is going
on get off yer arse and do something. Stop whingeing."
I am not whingeing-) I am bringing up what I feel is a valid concern amongst
a lot of RQers. Is there a problem with that?
"Avalon Hill run the show.
And they are about as scholarly and have about as much respect for Glorantha
as, as, ..., well I don't want to be *too* rude."
I'll be rude. Avalon Hill treats Glorantha AND RQ like SHIT.
" The "scholars" that you are
so maligning are the hard working RQ *&* Glorantha lovers who have together
created the RQ renaissance that we are both enjoying. TotRM *is* scholarly,
yup,
but in a gaming context. Everyone on this list treats Glorantha as a great
place
to vist - not just a place to read about. Try asking Nick, Sandy, MOB, David
Hall, David Dunham, Joerg, etc.. about their games. They will enthuse and
enlighten and exite. Try asking them for ideas for your game. Go on - try it.
I for
one am totaly endebted to these and the countless others who have helped me
out
with ideas, answers and just good old good vibes. This list is open to anyone
who can access the appropriate technology. If people aren't discussing what
you want then why not start a conversation to your liking and see who
replies.
"Nya!" to you all."
Well, Nya to you too. Is Nya a Scholarly exclamation of praise?-)
Frankly, this Scholar vs Gamers IS a discussion to my liking, and I have
started it, so there!
I don't consider TOTRM scholarly in the sense of the word that I am using.
TOTRM is GREAT!. The RQ Renaissance has been, for the most part, great
(although a little slow).
I have great respect for the designers of the game. But what I want is
exactly what you said...Scholarly in a GAMING context. Quotes like "F**k the
rules!" which have been part of people's posts and or replies to other
persons are blatantly hostile to those of us who are primarily Gamers.
Regards,
Devin Cutler
devinc@aol.com