From gadbois@mcc.com Sat Jul 29 16:00:57 1995
Received: from cash.wharton.upenn.edu (CASH.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU [130.91.160.43]) by hops.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA02279 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 16:00:57 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cash.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id QAA27849 for loren@hops.wharton.upenn.edu; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 16:00:57 -0400
Received: from turtle.mcc.com (turtle.mcc.com [128.62.1.215]) by cash.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA27811 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 15:59:54 -0400
Received: from hippo.mcc.com (hippo.mcc.com [128.62.11.50]) by turtle.mcc.com (8.6.10/mcc.8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA10356 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 14:58:13 -0500
Received: from zorak-zoran.mcc.com by hippo.mcc.com (5.65/isd-other_921116_15:19)
id AA26865; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 14:58:04 -0500
Received: from Sun.COM (Sun.COM [192.9.9.1]) by news.cs.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA28504 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 1994 02:24:43 -0500
Received: from snail.Sun.COM (snail.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM)
id AA25565; Wed, 13 Jul 94 00:20:05 PDT
Received: from Holland.Sun.COM (isunnl) by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA16502; Wed, 13 Jul 94 00:19:28 PDT
Received: from glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM by Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1e)
id AA15025; Wed, 13 Jul 94 09:19:23 +0200
Received: by glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA24261; Wed, 13 Jul 94 09:16:24 +0200
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 94 09:16:24 +0200
Message-Id: <9407130716.AA24261@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM>
X-PH: V4.2@cash.wharton.upenn.edu
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, Wed, 13 Jul 1994, part 3
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@holland.sun.com
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
Resent-To: Loren Miller
Resent-From: David Gadbois
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 14:57-0500
Resent-Message-Id: <19950729195754.9.GADBOIS@ZORAK-ZORAN.MCC.COM>
X-UIDL: 807050821.020
Status: RO
---------------------
From: sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com (Sandy Petersen)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Tue, 12 Jul 1994
Message-ID: <9407121756.AA27293@idcube.idsoftware.com>
Date: 12 Jul 94 05:56:27 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5125
Mark Foster wonders:
>Do female Grey Sages have to wear the beard all the time?
I play that it's only Required during ceremonies and when
presiding in official tasks, but it's considered devout to wear it
more often, especially when in the library.
Alex wonders re: my Dayzatar cult
>> Folk who die in the worship of Dayzatar go to dwell forever in
>> heaven.
>Who ever said it was a sure thing, eh, Sandy?
Well, the Dayzatar monks SAY that if they keep their
doctrines it's sure.
>> Some monasteries are complete little communities and support
>>themselves.
>How, exactly? It's not likely Monks do physical labor
Though I did not point this out in the text, I assumed in the
writing that initiates & acolytes from other cults are oft assigned
to the Dayzatar community. Also, nothing keeps the monks from
gardening, etc. Remember that their needs aren't too great -- they're
probably mostly vegetarian valetudinarians, so just sitting around
until they wither away is probably considered quite The Thing.
>> I should think a line of flying Shades would be an excellent
>>technique to break up a cavalry charge, seeing as 98% of the horses
>>charging you get Demoralized as they come, and 10% either drop dead
>>or collapse in their tracks.
>Now work out how many close-order infantry could could have nobbled
>for the same cubic metrage of Shade.
10% drop dead or collapse, 40% are demoralized, assuming they
have only average POW, and no defensive magic up. Of course, we're
assuming the same thing for the horses, too. My understanding is that
a breakup of a cavalry charge is utterly disastrous, whereas a slight
breakup of a disciplined close-order infantry unit is merely a
serious setback. Breaking up the shield wall is not a Good Thing, but
it doesn't keep you from pushing through an assault. Still, shades
are clearly a tremendous weapon on the battlefield, though relatively
puny, compared to other elementals, in small adventurer-style melees.
Kevin Rose:
> Familiars are a crutch. I have never had a PC want to create a
>familiar
You must interpret sorcery very differently from my
campaigns. Every single sorcerer PC in my campaigns has created a
familiar.
Back to Alex:
>I'm not sure CoP _does_ imply any particular reliability to
>religions: it says what the particular cult believes, and would like
>for its initiates to be like, not necessarily exactly how things
>must be, precisely.
I have always assumed that the descriptions of the initiates
are no more than goals. If all Storm Bulls were sternly brave in the
face of chaos, then the cult probably wouldn't even bother to praise
such bravery (nor would it have the irksome Face Chaos spell). While
a typical Storm Bull, by both personality and training, is no doubt
more courageous in the face of Chaos than an ordinary slob, I suspect
for most it's a relative thing, not an absolute. Though the cult
would like to project an image of being unflinchingly tough.
> In general, "artillery", or magic which affects a large area per
>go, or is nasty, but inaccurate, will be proportionately more
>effective against close-order infantry than cavalry.
Hmm. Real solid-shot artillery was, in fact, HIGHLY effective
against cavalry. The addition of explosive shells and canister
basically destroyed the cavalry charge as an assault technique and
relegated it to scouting and small-scale actions. But infantry was
still expected to make assaults against canister.
The much better target that a cavalryman makes may make
little difference to a shade, but for whatever reason, cavalry has
traditionally been much more vulnerable to destruction than infantry.
Take my close-order infantry vs. shades example -- when the
shades hit the troops, they impose fearshock on half of 'em, but are
almost instantly killed, as the bunched-up troops slam into the
shades with their axes/spears/what have you (shades are weak in the
ol' HP dept.) The soldiers who collapse on the ground or are killed
are immediately replaced by the guy behind them in line. The soldiers
who are demoralized either stand in place and are crappy fighters for
the next few minutes, or get Dispel Magic cast on them.
When a shade hits a horse and rider, the horse is KOed 10% of
the time, Since the loss of either destroys the unit, 19% of the
cavalry hit are eliminated by the fearshock. After that, basically
all the remaining horses are demoralized and presumably more
difficult to control. This is going to make any sort of charge or
countercharge nigh unto impossible. You can't "replace" the guy in
front of you in a cavalry charge, as can infantry.
>If elementals are the mass-combat wonder-weapon Sandy suggests, any
>cavalry in possession of a clue will train against them
You bet. I imagine the standard techniques include one or
more of the following: Not Charging vs. elementals, sending out a
wave of one's own elementals ahead of you to cancel them out, or
loosing missiles into the elementals as they approach to try to knock
them out. I'm sure Gloranthans can deal with elementals. For that
matter, cavalry have one highly useful technique they can use on
elementals, not open to infantry -- Run Away. A mounted man can
outrun any elemental but a sylph (and the sylph probably lacks the
strength to pick up a horse). I wager that Gloranthan horsemen who
think they'll be facing sylphs tie themselves to their horses, so
they won't be lifted off.
Note that the Impala Rider technique of running away at top
speed while firing arrows is the Tactic Of Choice in fighting
elementals.
>>The boar's tusks simply do not grow right, but instead grow back
>>along the jaw, through the jowls
>Would this make it impossible for him to open his jaw, as it'd
>effective bolt the lower mandible onto the skull?
Not if it was one of the upper tusks. Remember that boars
have 2 sets of tusks, one pair in the upper jaw, one in the lower.
How else could they can gnash them together?
Devin
>the wording in RQ3 needs to be changed to state that many diseases
>use Con rolls less than x5%
I quote: "This recovery die roll is typically CONx5, but may
be CONx4, CONx3, CONx2, or even CONx1, if the gamemaster judges that
the disease is particularly tenacious." The rules clearly infer that
only the "Conx1" roll is considered "tenacious." Probably the rules
example should have boasted a disease with a CONx3 roll or something.
I view RuneQuest disease as a terror comparable to the dread
that D&D Undead used to inspire in us -- remember your D&D days (if
you had any). Undead were the worst monster, because they destroyed
the whole point of your character -- experience points. In RuneQuest,
undead are not the same type of beastie, though fearsome enough. The
Ultimate Horrors are, rather, disease and Tap spells.
Paul, with interesting facts about medieval fighting women.
Hmm. fascinating. I wonder how many of these cases of
fighting women were unknown to the crusaders themselves. We all know
of women disguising themselves as men and fighting in wars. There's
lots of such cases in the Civil War (some of 'em were prostitutes
using this as a technique to get at the men, but by no means all),
which is the war I've read most on. But society at large and the army
was completely unaware of their unauthorized participation. I wonder
if the same was true for many of these crusader women.
I wonder if the fact that it was a religious war incited more
women to participate than in a normal war. Probably not. I know that
during the 30-years war the hordes of female camp followers
occasionally took up arms and fought. Not often, though.
Note that I never claimed women can't be war leaders,
excellent generals, etc. only that they are rare on the fighting
line. The "wealthy noblewoman from page 206" sounds like it's
possible she was a Joan of Arc type i.e., not actually fighting, but
wearing armor and going out near the battle front to inspire her men.
As near as I can make out, Joan never struck a blow in anger, and
this may have been the case for the wealthy noblewoman, either.
Still, she's clearly in the battle and is personally at risk.
>Sandy, sorry about my wounding comment. I am oversensitive ...
Apology accepted.
> I am sure you're not one of those people, but I have run into them
>in the SCA often enough that I expect to find them ... everywhere.
Say no more. If you've been trained in the arduous school of
SCA debate, you've led a hard life indeed. Nothing's worse than a
band of Experts Whose Word Cannot Be Contested. *sigh*
Mr. S. W. Jones:
>How are the armies of the Lunar Empire organized?
The organizations differs regionally, but in general my
belief is that 'tis as follows:
The basic unit of the Lunar Army is the Regiment, and in
general a regiment acts as a unit, though it can be split into troops
to occupy several different cities or to patrol a large region. Each
regiment has two captains, who are generally Rune Lords or the
equivalent. One of the captains is responsible for training, morale,
and supply, while the other is the "real" commander in battle. The
local governor-general is in charge of all the troops there, and if
forced to go to battle, delegates authority over the various wings of
the army to his staff.
All governors answer to the Lunar Emperor, who is the
ultimate commander of the army. In addition, each branch of the army
has its own staff who is responsible for bureaucratic matters
concerning it. For instance, the Imperial Bodyguard, Cavalry Corps,
and Heartland Corps each have their own commanding staff who approve
promotions, send replacements, provide supply in peacetime, etc. The
Provincial Armies also each have their own commanding staff.
>So what I'd like to know is just general dispositions of the Lunar
> Occupational forces in both Prax and Sartar
Hmm. This is a very different question than the foregoing. I
always play that the Lunar Occupying Army of Prax is based entirely
in and around Pavis, with a troop or two stationed permanently in
Corflu. Troops from Pavis also are used to escort troops to and from
Sartar along the King's Road.
In Sartar, the occupying forces are primarily in the cities,
though patrols make sure that lunar-friendly kings and chieftains get
all the support they deserve.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Devoutness, illumination, and the like.
Message-ID: <9407121659.AA07006@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Jul 94 16:59:51 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5126
Devin Cutler takes up my gauntlet:
> "You've yet to explain how, or why, this should be the case, though. What
> element of a ritual might be _impossible_ for the non-devout (however
> defined) to perform correctly?"
> In my view, when a ritual is being performed, the worshippers basically
> invite the god or a piece/avatar of that god to enter the mundane plane (or
> perhaps the ritual enters the god plan, or a bit of both) and to possess
> them. [...] It is at this time that a god can determine the devoutness of
> the worshippers. [...]
> How's that work as an explanation?
Doesn't seem to have much to do with Performing the Ritual, for one thing.
Essentially, you're arguing that gods do, and can know their worshippers
minds, but not invasively, it just happens to be compulsory. This is at
least against the spirit of what we've been told about about the general
lack of such knowledge. I can't actually think of a "mechanism" which
does this sort of thing, off the top of my head; Mindlink and possession
by spirits don't work on a subconcious level, at least.
I agree with (the part of) your statement about the ritual entering the
Godplane, but not that it'd constitute "possession" by the god in the sense
you imply.
> In any case, by inviting the god into intimate contact in order to gain the
> divine magic, one also allows the god to determine intentions and emotions
> and, thereby, devoutness. Illuminates are altered enough to mask or hide
> their true intentions.
And if the god is Personally Present during the ritual, in a sentient,
conscious way, in Real Time, how does he fail to notice all the people
thinking "Faltikus, the evilluminatedioussoundingbajiriddling bastard",
Krogar elbowing him of of the way in the middle of the ceremony, etc, even
if he's not able to sense his Naughtily Collaborating Thoughts directly?
Is this consistent with the "true" rumour that Illumination is not a Chaotic
deception, but a genuine revelation about the nature of Glorantha?
> Well, it seems rather ambiguous, since the short writeup from GoG doesn't
> really tell us much. Let's wait until Soldiers of the Red Moon or ask the
> person who is writing it.
I don't see what's ambiguous about it. It's not specific as to what the
"real" Deezola cult is like, though. (Nor was CoP, of course.)
> "Personally, I believe priests _do_ need a high POW, to effectively officiate
> at Worship services. I think I suggested a mechanism or two last time this
> came up. My personal Nightmare Scenario is a priest sitting in a back-room
> somewhere, with a POW of 2, getting 5 POW per year just from worship
> ceremonies..."
> Yes, I agree with your nightmare scenario. It is a problem. But it is also a
> problem when the rules (yes, I am talking rules now) penalize an 18 POW
> priest by restricting his access to Divine Magic.
But they always did, it just happens he _had_ to have a POW of at least 18
previously. (And had an easier POW gain roll.)
I think the problem is rather that there's no clear _incentive_ for him to
have a high POW. If it were, for example, necessary in order to officiate
at ceremonies, as vaguely implied by RQ2, problem solved. That this wouldn't
allow him quite the same rate of POW gain through adventuring as RQ2
doesn't bother me overmuch.
> I rather think that the
> real problem lies with POW gain rolls, which ought to be based on something
> other than Species Max (or Species Max +4 for Priests) minus current POW
> times 5%. That would really stop the problem cold.
RQ2ism. Everyone's chance in RQ3 is the same. ("That really sucks too",
says Devin.)
> "Not if their POW is 18, on which (stated) assumption I made the calculation.
> That's counting seasonal HDs. Note the POW gain "abstraction" for
> experience, which assumes 1 POW per year."
> Avergae chance of 18 POW priest to make his roll is 25-18=7 x5%=35%.
15%.
> (Has anyone else realized that those
> with HHD in Sacred Time gain an additional POW Gain roll each year?).
I certainly haven't. Why so? I'd have thought the reverse, since for
other cults the Sacred Time is then an additional worship ceremony.
> Even non Sacred Time priests gain 1.8 POW per year with an 18 POW.
5 x 0.15 = 0.75 POW per year.
> "It is? Where do you deduce this from? (The initiate/priest ratio, not the
> total number of priests.)"
> In Pavis there are 4 CA Rune levels. At 3%, this implies 120 Initaites of CA
> in Pavis. I don't think so.
Note that you should count not just those _in_ Pavis, but any initiates in
the "catchment area". That is, anyone who worships there on the Holy Days.
If there aren't about 100 CA initiates in the area of Pavis county and nearby
Prax, they're in rather bad shape. (Certainly by RQ3 temple size rules.)
> "The average number of points lost to a contracted stat-zapping disease is
> 1+100/(CON*N), where N is the "tenacity" fudge-factor."
> Is this system from RQAiG?
Nope, RQ3 player book.
> The average Con 10 character will
> lose 1-2 points of a stat to any disease. This means a season or two of down
> time to retrain it. Big deal.
Bigger deal if it's an untrainable stat, at least. (INT, SIZ. POW is going
to be unpleasant even if Restore Health is (otherwise) available.) And your
argument is specific to the CONx5% type of disease, and ignores more severe
strains, and spirits of disease.
Alex.
---------------------
From: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu (Loren J. Miller)
Subject: Devin's Theology
Message-ID: <01HEMEXAT1QG8ZED6P@wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: 12 Jul 94 09:47:40 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5127
Now that Devin has explained his reasoning I understand why he thinks
that there can be no disbelieving initiates. However, I still disagree
with it for my own Glorantha, and for the greater Glorantha as it is
published and distributed.
Here's why.
1. If the god of the cult puts a little piece of itself into *every*
initiate *every* time there's a worship ceremony and learns
*everything* that the initiate has thought and done, then what else
can the gods be doing? They aren't omnipresent and omniscient. That's
YHWH's trick.
2. Divination isn't free from error. Far from it. But if the gods
actually understood what people actually thought to the extent that
this implies then they'd never have any trouble making themselves
clear to their oracles... let alone make mistakes about worshippers.
3. Free Will is pretty important in our world, in the games we play in
Glorantha, and I think it's important in Glorantha too. If initiates
give up their ability to make mistakes, act evil, and keep secrets
then they lose their Free Will. According to Greg, the only entities
in Glorantha that have definitely lost their Free Will are the gods,
*not* their worshippers.
That's three reasons why you should reject Devin's theology for your
own Glorantha.
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
"Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Bzzzzzz.
Message-ID: <9407122144.AA08158@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 12 Jul 94 21:44:05 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5128
Sandy:
> I think that under normal circumstances, broos can only mate
> with mammals.
Insert my usual jibes about Sandy indulging his Flakey Pseudoterran
Taxonomy in Glorantha.
> I'm sure
> that insects are way too small for a broo to mate.
Apart from Giant Insects, natch.
> Or maybe
> not, since female insects don't really have a proper receptacle for
> the broo's tool.
I thought the rule-of-thumb here was that if a broo couldn't mate qua mate,
it mated cum paratisitised?
Just as well, really. Who wants mosquito-broos?
> Presumably, not even the broos.
Malia, one would think.
> I can't help but theorize that Waha's spirit of retribution
> might visit folks who rode horses and were his initiates.
On the one hand, a devout (non-PJ) Waha cultist would, with some heat, tell
you so. On the other, according to CoP, Borabo Nightmare only attacks
apostates, not violators of cult vows, and adherence to the covanent aren't
actually stated as cult restrictions. But then again, I hear you all cry,
CoP is where this noxious idea of PJ Wahaists first unearthed itself as a
heresy...
They may be up game-mechanical creek anyway, since the PJ aren't likely to
have a Waha temple of their own, and any of them daring to turn up at any
other temple to Waha (i.e., one controlled by a "normal" tribe) will meet
with Sandy-like attitudes.
> All I'm saying is that the Praxians recognize the Pol Joni as
> different (inferior) both quantitatively and qualitatively than the
> other tribes.
Apart from the Morocanth, of course. And the Gagarthi. And those buggers, too.
> I predict they rate the Pol Joni below the Zebra Riders
> on a scale of desirability. (Not that that's so bad.)
I wouldn't disagree with this. In fact, I hereby call for the immediate
publication of per-tribe Scales of Desirability. ;-) One imagines the
general pattern might be:
1st. Us.
(distant) 2nd.
...
[Other tribes, in this week's permutation.]
...
15th.
[Anything else that turns up.]
(n-5)th
(n-4)th Pentans
(n-3)th Sartarites and Heortlanders
(n-2)th Trolls
(n-1)th Those bloody Lunars.
nth. Chaos.
> In Glorantha, Illusion is reality. [...] This is
> one of the basic principles of Glorantha, and has many philosophic
> and cultural implications.
You Evil RQ2 Determinist, Sandy. I concur that Gloranthan illusions can't
be "disbelieved" or other such solipsistic DnDisms, and are at least
somewhat objective phenomena. But I snerk airily at the idea of Illusions
Are Real as a One True Gloranthan Fact. As has been demonstrated by Jonas
(I think?), you'll readily get innumerable different accounts from
Gloranthans as to the truth, or indeed meaningfullness, of such an assertion.
> >Back of the class for the implied conflation of "British" and
> >"England", Sandy.
> Sorry. *he whines piteously* I know the difference, honest.
> [...] Were you convinced?
Nearly. I just found it necessary to execute you for the lapse, as an
example to others. }B-)
> I predict Greg forgot about the word "Shanasse" when churning out GROY.
Or perhaps decided that the term would stick out like a linguistic sore
thumb, even at his usual operating level of blithe eclecticism. ;-)
> The "Shanasse" were at one time used to refer to most of the
> Heavenly Host in the Dara Happan culture. I'm sure the Pentans accept
> them, too, but whether the Shanasse originated with Pent or with Dara
> Happa I don't know.
The name "Shanasse" is obviously an Elven Plot. Either they, or humans
familiar with the aldryami name, decided to apply it to the denizens of
heaven. Strange identification to make, I concede, but there's nowt so
queer as folk. One that'd make the DHans cough and splutter, at any rate,
given Shanasse's mum. We need some glib, amoral sophist to give a
superficially convincing account of why anyone would confuse Trees and
Angels. Hrm. Nick?
Joerg asks of the the Long (time missing) Forms:
> >How many cults (and which) are still in cold storage?
Sandy's answer, filtered so that it actually addresses the question: ;-)
> Invisible God, Horned God, Ancestor Worship, Hykim & Mikyh, Flamal,
> Magasta, Red Goddess, Eurmal, Uleria, Bolongo, Mastakos.
Are these likely to be published, leaked, or at least whispered about in
dark crevices at Convulsion? I vote for the Her Redship and The Chunderer
to be first out the traps by any of the above routes.
Alex.