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, Sat, 02 Jul 1994, part 4 Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM Content-Return: Prohibited Precedence: junk --------------------- From: jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se (Jonas Schiott) Subject: I believe! Message-ID: <9407011546.AA01388@vinga.hum.gu.se> Date: 1 Jul 94 17:51:54 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4971 I felt I had to reply to this one, even though I'm unsubscribing for a while, so you can't argue with me about it on the daily. Unless you're sneaky enough to talk about me behind my back of course:-). Martin in X-RQ-ID: 4904 says some mildly abusive things like: >Despite the apparent irrelevancy and general obscurity Which is a somewhat surprising response, considering that I'm not trying to accuse anyone of being _wrong_. In fact, if I'm arguing for or against anything, I'm arguing against name-calling and kibitzing. Anyway, he then gets more substantial: >Isn't it clear to you that there are differences, even >within your own experience, in what "believe" means? OK, this _is_ a valid point. I was using "belief" in a somewhat inprecise way, or perhaps just an _undefined_ way. If I said "mental activity ascribing some not immediately apparent (whatever that means) property to a perceived entity or event", would it make things any clearer? Not that I believe :-) this definition to cover the whole phenomena of belief, it's just an example. Your examples, on the other hand, are all in the form of (self-)conscious statements made by various people about their beliefs, which can hardly be taken at face value. >Haven't you >met someone different enough from yourself (from a non-Western >country, radical, or insane) who obviously thought differently >from you, and started from a different base of experiences?The old "make your opponent look like a blinkered theorist with no life experiences" ploy? Really, Martin... >The >modernist looks at the non-Westerner, the radical, and the crazy >person and say, "They're wrong, and I'm right." Well, yes, but what he _says_ is just a _clue_. And besides, he's just one person - unless you're indulging in extremely broad generalizations. >The pre- >modernist doesn't even realize that there are different world- >views. But the thrust of this argument (the "thought processes of historical agents are in some way comprehensible to us today" argument, which I'm defending without really knowing why...) is not what people _actually_ realize, but what they can _potentially_ realize. Anyway, to hopefully put an end to this thread: I have no intention of trying to stop historians (or people who think they're historians...) from going at each other's throats over this issue, since that would clearly be a suicidal effort. My only reason for getting involved was to protect the innocent bystanders: the people on this list who haven't had their noses hardened yet and are liable to be convinced by any strongly argued theory that comes along. But now they'll have to fend for themselves a while... See you all again in August. --------------------- From: sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com (Sandy Petersen) Subject: What a great game Message-ID: <9407011718.AA16852@idcube.idsoftware.com> Date: 1 Jul 94 05:19:01 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4972 >Well, I think all these things (freedom, barbarism) are true of all >three nations, differeing only in degree. Well, OF COURSE! (Hearty agreement) Yes, it differs only in degree. However, I don't concur that the UK's culture is "similar" to the US. You are misled by our common possession of different languages. My experience has been that Australians are quite similar to Americans (not so much Bostonian as Texan), but that British are less like Americans than are French or (modern) Germans. Doesn't mean I don't wish Americans were _more_ like British in some important ways. BTW, I was thrilled to read in a recent Neo-Nazi work an attack on Churchill in which it attempted to denigrate and degrade him by pointing out that he was half-American. I was proud that there were still Neo-Nazis who view Americans as the loathsome mongrel enemy, instead of as racist allies (which far too many of us are). I don't mean this in any sort of negative way, and obviously it's the roughest type of stereotyping, with numerous exceptions. Steve S. asks: >I'd like to get y'all's reaction to how the extra damage from magic >affects knockback. For example, is the (Spirit) Bladesharp, >(Divine) Strike, and (Sorcery) Damage Boosting damage figured in to >the knockback effect? That's how I play it. It's more exciting and interesting to have the glowing magic sword send opponents flying like a kick in a cheap karate movie. I always go for the superficially-neat cheap trick in my own games. Pam Carlson wonders: >The Ward protects against "enemies". How does it determine an >"enemy"? Depending on the source of the Warding, I sometimes play that any living thing activates the ward. If you put a Warding on a barndoor, it kills your cows and sheep as they leave. This makes things simple, and keeps players from minimaxing and doing stuff like knocking each other out with Sleep spells, then throwing sleeping party members through the Ward, then waking them up again. It also makes the Issaries Market spell, which _can_ distinguish between friend and foe, much more useful. Actually, to be perfectly honest, I vary my interpretation of Warding depending on the cult that is casting it -- most warlike cult Wardings activate only on beings which are wearing armor, for instance. >does a Ward have to be square? Not in any campaign I've heard of. Pam opines >Babeester Gor seems to be the Gloranthan exemplification of this, >but there could be protection subcults associated with other earth >dieties. (Maybe not quite so twisted?) Dendaran Daughters for >Defense? Praxian Mothers Against Marauding Morokanth? Sisters of >Sartar? The Grazers have the Feathered Horse Queen, whose >representatives teach "steak knife" skill.... Dendara has two protective deities -- Gorgorma (the "bad" one), and Lodril (but only when he gets excited -- note his special Rebellion rune spell). I think that Praxian women who want to act as defenders and warriors either stick with Eiritha (who can fight, after all), or join Storm Bull. >I think that women tend to be less confrontational than men Could be. Note that John Keegan in his excellent book History of Warfare (which I commend to all Daily readers, especially with regards to the excellent section on why pastoral cultures are cruel and effective in war) points out that, no matter what else can be said about war, it is clearly a male activity. While women can make inspiring war leaders, fine generals, and force their men into battle, with only "the most trifling exceptions", women don't go to war. Of course, this doesn't apply nearly as much to Glorantha, where we all know of plenty of women that go to war. If Loskalm was on Earth, not one female knight would exist. On Glorantha, there are probably thousands (still few, compared to the hundreds of thousands of male knights, but better than Earth). Joerg foolishly opines re: Lunar secret police >Gimgim the Grim, Halcyon Var Enkorth and several other Lunars have >successfully taken the role of Nazi bad guys in Indiana Jones >movies, so I'd say that we have some source evidence. What we know >about Danfive Xaron from official sources corroborates as well. I >think this is a Gloranthan hard fact. Mr. Baumgartner. the Danfive Xaron organization is _solely_ for rehabilitation purposes. Incidentally, Committees for Social Readjustment, Productive Happiness, and, of course Rehabilitation should be in contact with you soon. >Sandy, does Teshnos have a Grain Goddess/Goddess of the Land? I would have assumed the existence of a Teshna, or something, but if you have a more interesting idea than a dull old Land Goddess, let's hear it. >BTW, when did the Hsunchen mythology first enter Gloranthan info? They've been around a long time, originally probably as mere Beast-God worshipers (Basmoli, Rathori, Telmori, etc.). Note that the Hsunchen mythology doesn't fit so great into Theyalan philosophy, but it integrates just fine with Western. Also note that there are _extremely few_ Hsunchen in central Genertela, among the Theyalans. They were only really common in the West (where they are now much rarer) and the far East (where they are still pretty strong). --------------------- From: watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk (Colin Watson) Subject: Runepaths and sorcery Message-ID: <9407011631.AA07106@pelican.csd.abdn.ac.uk> Date: 1 Jul 94 17:31:57 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4973 _____ Elias: >I think that, as Barron suggests, beliefs _do_ have power in Glorantha. Unquestionably beliefs do have power, but whether they have anything to do with getting Divine Magic is another matter entirely. My view is that the power of belief is in preserving cultural integrity. Ultimately this serves a great purpose; but in the short term, as far as "getting magic" is concerned, it doesn't really matter. Alex recently summed-up the argument in favour of this with usual eloquence: "If one has to be a complete Goody Two Shoes in order to get effective magic, how do we account for all the arseholes in Glorantha, past and present, who patently _have_ had it?" Either you dream up endless "special cases" to explain the arsehole factor; or you generalise and say anyone can be an arsehole if they try hard. The latter seems emminently more plausible to me. >The fact that the >worshipers of a god believe that their deity is a person makes it so What if some worshippers don't believe that the deity is a person? Do they get to veto this communal belief? Is it based on a majority? (:-)) I can understand that many Gloranthans will believe their gods are "like people"; it makes them easier to relate to. I'm even prepared to believe that the gods *were* once people; that they were individuals performing acts of extraordinary magnitude. But I don't think they are individuals now, nor do I believe that they think and act like people. I'm sure many Gloranthans picture Humakt as some be-helmeted chap with steely-thews and a big sword striding grimly through a misty landscape killing the same things over and over again. This is what they think Godtime is like. This may even be how HeroQuests feel. But I don't think that be-helmeted chap is Humakt. That chappie is a Hero following the path of Humakt. Humakt is the path now. Many people can follow that path at the same time; hence the cult of Humakt. >I find it especially hard to believe that a living hero >is going to meekly turn into an abstract construct of rituals as >the price of apotheosis. (It does help if the hero is dead. :-) Maybe I didn't explain things too well. The point is that the Hero doesn't get a choice in the matter. Heros don't get to choose to be Gods. They are made into gods by their worshippers; by all the folks who follow their path after them. Any Hero who thinks that being a god is going to be "like being a Hero, only cooler" has got another thing coming IMHO. The Hero is only an individual (regardless of how powerful that individual might be); a God is much more than that. The Hero performs the act; the God *is* the act. Any Hero can inflict death; Humakt actually *is* Death. ____________ Barron Chugg: >Again, I apologize for quoting in total, but it is _very_ well put. Cheers. :-) > The idea of etching paths in the hero plane is a good one. As the path >gets worn, it is easier to walk (big cults have it easier). Also, a hero >would need to repeat a similar path a heck of a lot of times to come even >close to a gods abilities, even for the everyday stuff. It struck me that maybe (RQ3) sorcerers each forge their own path for every spell. This is why they have such a hard time starting new spells. They effectively derive the path from first principles. Sure, they can get some tutoring to help, but for the most part they learn magic from research and hard experience. Each sorcerer who learns Damage Boosting is effectively "re-inventing the wheel"; they forge their own individual path to achieve the desired result. This conrasts with Divine magic where the path is already layed down and is simple to follow. It goes to explain why sorcery is harder to master, but more flexible and individual than other magics. >>By repeating what has gone before you get the same results as the First Time. > >Another common theme in Gloratha is that the first time a path is tread >is the hardest. Yup, ain't that the truth! >As a side note, I think we have Arkat to >thank for our even being able to imagine HQing. Arkat teaches sorcery, yes? Forging your own path rather than treading another's. ___ CW. --------------------- From: eejuffs@swansea.ac.uk (Philip Juffs) Subject: More Killer Broo, Pavis and Mermen Cities Message-ID: <11755.9407011901@grace.swan.ac.uk> Date: 1 Jul 94 19:01:53 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4974 Hi All, Guy Hoyle :- > And to whomever gave Sandy the idea to put an Allosaurus broo into his current > campaign: I curse you, I curse you, I curse you. May the curse of Vlgrim > Bull-Answers-Thrice be upon your heads; on the other hand, with his 3 POW, you > shouldn't worry too much. :) Err... sorry, it seemed like a good idea at the time ;-}. While we're on the subject though, someone said that the product Allobroo might only be the size of a normal broo but with big teeth, well in that case can Broo mate with large(ish) insects? Then you could inflict broo with wings, stings and the ability to jump tall buildings. Bugs would be easy to catch and amte with too. Actually I don't think even a broo could rape/impregnate an insect. Well I hope not anyway. :-) The Allosaurus in my plot was being held in a pen for use in the areana when the shaman possed it, so getting hold of the thing wasn't that hard. Well not for the broo anyway. I don't know how the gladiator school got hold of it in the first place. Pavis. When my players have finished the scenario in River of Cradles, I'd like them to stick around in Pavis for a while. However I'm not very sure on how the city is run. I don't have a copy of the RQ2 Pavis Pack(but I am trying to get one). So does anyone have any thoughts or info on curfews and weapon bearing laws. Some stuff that MOB has written leads me to think that only 'Masters' are allowed to carry arms, besides the watch etc. Do you have to leave weapons at the gate? What are the entrance fees. Well you get the idea. I've read about Trollkin gangs in one of Oliver Johnsons Griselda stories. Do these gangs operate in New Pavis or just in the Rubble? I also note that the Lhankor Mhy and Ippri Ontor cults share one building. I would have thought that they didn't get on with each other that well, or has the LM high priest been got at by the Lunars like the Orlanth bunch. Mermen Cities. Most of the mermen breath air every hour or so, yet in River of Cradles it makes refrence to mermen cites off the cost of Corflu, out past the shallow shelf. How do the mermen get an air supply when there in there cities? Or am I getting the wrong end of the trident. TTFN, Phill Juffs P.S. What does a skullbush plant look like, and can you smoke one? --------------------- From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) Subject: Re: Note to Arkati Message-ID: <9407011809.AA05790@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu> Date: 1 Jul 94 18:09:20 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4975 Paul here. Nils W writes: > My interpretation of illumination is that it provides a reconciliation with chaos, while my interpretation of eastern mysticism is that, at the root of existence, there is no chaos or order, only the Void. < Hmm. I think Nils IS Illuminated but doesn't realize it, he thinks he's an Eastern Mystic. There is only the Void. - Paul --------------------- From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 01 Jul 1994, part 5 Message-ID: <9407011825.AA05890@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu> Date: 1 Jul 94 18:25:57 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4976 Paul Reilly here. Graeme writes: > Much of the material I've seen about Malkionism basically works from the >viewpoint that it's a version of Christianity that has Castes and Wizards. I think that it would be very very very difficult for us to invent hundreds of years of philosophical development and therefore that some cribbing is necessary from Earth. However I do my cribbing for Malkionism directly from the various Hellenistic schools of philosophy, which provide, IMO, a very good source for philosophical-religious ideas of a culture descended from the "Kingdom of Logic". I agree with Graeme that we should eschew using Christianity as a direct source. The Epicurean, Stoic, Platonic, Socratic, Neoplatonic, etc. philosophers have several good points to recommend them as Malkioni sources (of course I think we should modify but they can be used as inspiration). I will give four points in favor of using these guys as models: 1. They are (mostly) monotheist but their god is very abstract and impersonal, as we are given to understand the Malkioni Invisible God is. The Christian Personal Deity does not match the IG in this respect. 2. There are hundreds of years of development and backbiting with arguments raging, but it all starts in one land from a small base. Similar to Malkionism. These arguments rage back and forth but are very logical, which I think the KoLogic descended Malkioni are also. 3. Some schools CLEARLY match with Malkioni schools very well and can be cribbed wholesale. The atheist Epicurus and the atheist Brithini for example. 4. The source of our cribbing will not be so apparent to the general public. This is a serious point, no :-). Remember, I am suggesting using these guys (Zeno, Epicurus, Plotinus, Hypatia, Marcus Aurelius, Plato, etc.) as inspiration, not just trying to bring over whole schools wholesale but picking and choosing. I think having something else in mind BESIDES Xianity will help us get away from it. Some points will still seem similar to Xianity as the early Xian thinkers ALSO cribbed ideas from these schools on a wholesale basis. - Paul --------------------- From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) Subject: Re: Replies+Malkioni Stuff Message-ID: <9407011837.AA06008@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu> Date: 1 Jul 94 18:37:16 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4977 I will try to produce a rules summary, I have at least twenty pages of rules. No guarantees on when as I am very busy. On Hrestoli "goodness" and Rokari "badness" I think that Loskalm is probably a much better place to live in IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE LOSKALMI. However, I think that during the Ban they were able to stamp out the non-Hrestoli in their area. After all some parts of Loskalm wer cut off by the Ban (Junora). The Ban selected "bodies" of people, so the Central Loskalm part must have been culturally and religiously pretty unified to start with. And they "need no help from non-Malkioni" in their struggle with the Kingdom of War: i.e. they are apparently fanatically anti-pagan enough to turn down offers of MILITARY ALLIANCE against a common enemy. Pretty rare, exceeds medieval Catholicism. So I think that the Rokari and the Hrestoli may balance out on the good-bad (by modern Western Earth lights) scale. The Rokari are harsher to their own people but are, I think, far more tolerant of pagans. (E.g., in the Pink Book Knight writeup: "We go to the old women to have our sicknesses healed" or some such. SOunds like crypto-shamanism or healing goddess to me." The Loskalmi are good and wonderful as long as you are orthodox. I think they will give people in areas they roll over (starting with Junora) a choice: accept the One True Faith of Malkion and Hrestol As Promulgated by the Ecclesiarch at Southpoint ... or be destroyed. I think they have no tolerance for those old women who cure diseases. (Though they may have somehow absorbed them into a church Healing Saint order in Loskalm itself, maybe St. Xemela.) So I guess I can accept both the Enlightened Kingdom model AND the Nazi model. Hrestoli Knights with that burning light of fanaticism in their eyes, out on crusade. To me, this is a consistent mindset. And it could have been set up with the best of intentions, if the God Learner Social Engineer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Wise King Siglat believed that the Ban would be permanent - set everyone up to believe that Pagans Were Evil, But They Are Gone Now, So We Can All Be Nice To Each Other Without Their Evil Influence. -paul PS> I don't think Krarsht is Chaotic in the same way as Wakboth... --------------------- From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) Subject: Non-Christian Malkionism Message-ID: <9407012028.AA15089@sonata.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 1 Jul 94 10:28:52 GMT X-RQ-ID: 4978 Well, I think that a non-Christian model for Gloranthan monotheism and henotheism is a very good idea. It just so happens that I know of one reader of the daily (urox@aol.com) who would probably have a very good set of ideas to use. Well, Mark, want to give the folks a few ideas from a non-Christian, monotheistic ("truly monotheistic", he might quip) perspective?