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, Sun, 30 Oct 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.
X-RQ-ID: index
6777: 100270.337 = (Nick Brooke)
- RunePower and Priests
6778: watson = (Colin Watson)
- Re: stuff
6779: vladt = (Kevin Rose)
- more random Esrolian comments
6780: henkl = (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland)
- Re: Priestly requirements
6781: CHEN190 = (Peter Metcalfe, CAPE Canty)
- An important anouncement...
6782: CHEN190 = (Peter Metcalfe, CAPE Canty)
- Alchemy, Spells, Familiars and Shamans.
6783: Mike.Dickison = Mike.Dickison@vuw.ac.nz
- Lots on Esrolia
6784: elias_kadri1 = (Elias Kadri)
- Giant Cradles
6785: MATTHEW8112 = MATTHEW8112@delphi.com
- Tower of Lead -RiskLand
---------------------
From: 100270.337@compuserve.com (Nick Brooke)
Subject: RunePower and Priests
Message-ID: <941029102018_100270.337_BHL41-2@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 29 Oct 94 10:20:19 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6777
_____________
David Dunham:
> Nobody in my campaign can become a Priest or Acolyte without at least
> having Worship, Sanctify, and probably Spellteaching. (Which, BTW, I
> consider an argument against RunePower...)
If using fixed spell lists, I'd be tempted to add a point of Divination and
either the cult's shrine Rune Spell or the Initiation ritual spell suggested by
the RQ4 crowd: priests getting to choose *half* of their magic doesn't sound bad
to me.
The argument *for* RunePower would be that you can fix this only-just- perceived
problem in a number of ways (i.e. "Priests have to cast much of their RunePower
for the benefit of the flock, thus will seldom have all the points shown on
their character sheet: at any time, the Priest will have cast and not recovered
1D6 points of RunePower"?), and that it cuts down on tedious Admin work. When I
write up a Death Lord, I don't really want to waste time computing his pastoral
duties. With RunePower, you can simply assume he'll be able to carry them out.
If I were using an annual Economics table (like the Pendragon and PDP ones), the
amount of Priests' RunePower spent for the benefit of the community would be a
modifier to annual prosperity. Certainly for the Orlanth and Ernalda types. In
fact, I'd set it up so having *no* Rune magic cast to benefit the people in
normal ways (Cloud Calling, Earth Singing, etc.) was perceived as a *penalty*,
not a "normal" position.
_____
Henk:
White albino cannibals: tee hee! Actually, we know from WF #2 p.27 that the
Furthest sewers are a great place to set Dungeon adventures! That's all we know
about them; but I wanted a third example.
__________________
Nicholas Marcelja:
> In the old RQ2 rules the Lhankor Myh initiates or something like them,
> can brew potions. Healing, Farsee... whatever spirit magic.
> How does this work in RQ3 ? is this a skill = Brew Potion ?
It could be done that way. Everybody I game with has given up on the RQ2 Alchemy
system with its Blade Venoms and Scorpion Antidotes all over the place. There
was a hint that RQ4 might sneak it back in, treating each skill as a separate
Craft, but I tried to talk them out of it. If someone in my game needed (as a
plot device) an "Alchemical" effect, I'd give it to them through a magic herb or
some such construct. The concept of an alchemical route to magic doesn't feel
very Gloranthan to me -- maybe it could be part of Sorcery, but Sorcery per se
ain't so Gloranthan either.
I don't know any Lhankor Mhy potion-sellers, and my Gloranthan mindset is now
such that I wouldn't expect to find Alchemy anywhere outside the West (or a
Thieves' Guild anywhere, for that matter). Perhaps Alchemy could be *redefined*
as a subschool of Sorcery: the various equivalencies between skill employed and
Potency (Intensity) of result might fit better than a "straight" conversion from
RQ2.
The problem is, Alchemists are boring folk with too much power (if it works) or
bugger all power (if it doesn't). Playing a campaign with a PC Alchemist in it
would be like having part of the game centred around a research scientist's
fascinating discoveries: "Everyone else go off and yawn for five minutes while I
fulminate the cruciblator". Evil Alchemists as NPC antagonists don't need
defined rules and are indistinguishable (to the untrained eye) from Evil
Sorcerers. Good Alchemical Patrons likewise. If you want Alchemy in your game,
first work out why you need it. Is it a way of upgunning PCs? A dirty trick the
opposition use on you? A vital resource when fighting against Scorpion Folk? An
alternative to Healing magic? A Plot Device?
Unless it's going to be the core of a character's being ("Hello, I am Edwin the
Poisoner"), you need only define those aspects of Alchemy with which the players
will come into contact. A character who, in RQ2, would have known how to "Brew
Blade Venom 5" could be told instead to keep an eye out for ripe Mangelberries:
if he crushes those along the edge of his sword, it'll do some extra damage,
once, to an opponent. Makes it more resource-driven (and more GM-controlled)
than "Oh, we've got a week off. I'll get the old alembic out, then..." And if
your game gets out of hand, you don't have to repent of handing out this skill:
you can simply smite the land with Mangelberry Blight, or have Summer come to an
end and the remaining berries rot on the bushes. (See why I like herbs?)
Witches' cauldrons, Sorcerers' apparatus, Shamans' brews, Lunar drugs: unless a
set of Alchemy rules can cover and define all of these in an interesting way, we
arguably don't need a separate rules system for it. Keep on winging it, like you
normally would.
That's my tuppence-worth, anyway. If you can get at the archived Rune- Quest
Digests, some Alchemy systems were posted in its early volumes. Vol.1 No.2 has a
rule set by Elliot Wilen, and Vol.5 No.10 has one by Christopher W. Johnson. I
confess I have not read them closely.
====
Nick
====
---------------------
From: watson@csd.abdn.ac.uk (Colin Watson)
Subject: Re: stuff
Message-ID: <199410291645.QAA08292@pelican.csd.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Oct 94 16:45:49 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6778
_____
Sandy:
> > I'm willing to go along with the idea that a Ghost is just a Magic
> > Spirit with attitude
>
> They differ in the crucial point that a Magic Spirit cannot
>initiate spirit combat.
I know, but I don't think this is necessarily a difference big enough to
merit a separate type of binding enchantment. What I meant was: if I was
of a mind to relax the rules on binding spirits (which I'm not) I'd allow
Ghosts to be bound in the same way as Magic Spirits; whereas I would never
allow sylphs to be bound in the same way as salamanders (for example).
> > I consider Intellect spirits to be the ghosts of animals; and Power
> > spirits to be the ghosts of plants (which lack INT)
>
> But you can use the INT but not the MPs of an intellect
> spirit, and you can use the MPs of a power spirit. Yet you can't use
> either in a Magic spirit.
Yes, but I thought these were just features of the different binding
enchantments rather than differences in the way the spirits worked. You
can't use the MP of a bound Intellect Spirit because that's not what
Bind Intellect Spirit is meant to do. I imagine it is magically possible to
discover a new method of binding Intellect Spirits so you can use their MP
instead of their INT; it has just not been done because Power Spirits are
cheaper to bind if all you want is MP.
What I was getting at in my original post is that spirits should be
bound differently; not just because of what they do, but because of what
they *are*. You can't bind an Intellect spirit in the same way as you bind
a Ghost because the former is (I imagine) a Beast-spirit whereas the latter
is a Man-spirit.
Anyway, Sandy, I value your opinion in this matter: what do you consider
Power and Intellect spirits to be? Are they spirits of things which were
once alive? Or are they indigenous denizens of the spirit world?
___
CW.
---------------------
From: vladt@interaccess.com (Kevin Rose)
Subject: more random Esrolian comments
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Oct 94 08:41:04 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6779
Sandy:
The comment about the female junior leadership needing to be
fairly robust physically was not to prevent the troops from mutining, it
was to allow them to survive contact with the enemy. Keeping troops in
line doesn't require that you be bigger, stronger, or able to beat them in
a fight. The troops need to respect their leaders, which can be achived
in a number of ways. The troops can consider the Battalion comander to be
a cowardly toad, but will still respect and follow the junior leaders.
Of course, they can also consider all of their leaders to be a
joke and not respect any of them. This will generally demonstrate it's
weakness in combat, when the troops decide, after they army starts losing,
that they have a better chance of surviving by running, becoming disabled,
or surendering.
---------------------
From: henkl@aft-ms (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland)
Subject: Re: Priestly requirements
Message-ID: <9410292151.AA01917@yelm.Holland.Sun.COM>
Date: 29 Oct 94 21:51:42 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6780
ddunham (David Dunham):
>Nick Brooke asked
>>An aside: anyone else think it's odd that while Rune Priests have to spend
>>90% of their time and give 90% of their income to the cult, but there's no
>>requirement to cast 90% of their Rune Magic for it, or indeed (in a non-
>>RunePower game) to sacrifice 90% of their POW for useful rune spells like
>>Worship and Sanctify and Divination and Cloud Call and the like...
>Nobody in my campaign can become a Priest or Acolyte without at least
>having Worship, Sanctify, and probably Spellteaching. (Which, BTW, I
>consider an argument against RunePower...)
What about restricted RunePower, which splits the sacrifice
for Divine Magic in POW sacrifice for RunePower and spell-learning
as a separate procedure/ritual? It still requires people
to acquire knowledge of a spell before they can spend their
RunePower on it...
--
Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun.
oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM
---------------------
From: CHEN190@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Peter Metcalfe, CAPE Canty)
Subject: An important anouncement...
Message-ID: <01HIV7CBM20YA0XDN2@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
Date: 30 Oct 94 12:30:54 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6781
An announcement concerning the GRAY.
====================================
Many moons ago Joerg said (while discussing the GRAY)
'I believe in the existance of Multiple Suns'
Implying that the Yelm of Dara Happan was not the Sun God and Emperor
upon the Spike.
To which I replied (clearly thinking he was off the rails)
'A devil's advocate, huh?'
And to which Henk pleaded
'Hey guys, please take this debate offline for a few days and
post us the results'
Well, that few days has lasted into two months and at last the dust
has settled on this issue.
Joerg won.
The main points of the agreement are follows:
1) Yelm is the Sun. He lives on the Spike.
2) He appointed many placeholders and lieutenants around the World.
3) In the Zero Wane Chronicles, after the Liberation of Dara Happa, the
Triple Spheres are spoken of as being raised over Dara happa again. In
the DHBE, a further piece of information is added in that they cast 'day
and night' over the cities. It is clear that these spheres are actually
Minor Suns that shine over the respective cities of Alkoth, Raibanth and
Yuthuppa. They are not very bright now, but would have been so in the
Golden Age.
4) The Sun of Dara Happa, we have agreed to call Yu. Afterall the first
city was called Yuthubars. This Sun shines over Raibanth and is in the
GRAY on the plate called the Last Stable Sky. The Sun shown here is
that of Yu and not Yelm. It should be noted that the plate only shows
a part of the sky. If Yelm was in the plate, Yu would be to the North.
5) Orlanth was not _necessarily_ responsible for the slaying of Murharzarm.
He did however kill Yelm. The Doom Conjunction is a record of this event.
The identity of Murharzarm's murderer is unknown (although certain gods
are helping us with our inquiries). The murder of Murharzarm did not take
place at the same time as the disintegration of Yelm. Yelm was probably
killed some time after this event and the disintegration of Yelm myth IMO
is a parable referring to the breakup of Dara happa after Murharzarm's
death.
6) Plentonius in writing his history thought that Yu and Yelm must be the
same god and so where the myth said Yu, he wrote Yelm instead. The
Samaritans have done this sort of rewriting with their pentateuch (ie
substitue Elohim for Yahweh) so it's plausible.
If you express shock and disbelief at these findings, I'm quite happy to
discuss them over Email (CHEN190@csc.canterbury.ac.nz) as I don't think
Henk would take to kindly to rekindly a fiery debate over an obscure topic.
Merry Goldfish Bowl to you all.
--Peter Metcalfe
---------------------
From: CHEN190@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Peter Metcalfe, CAPE Canty)
Subject: Alchemy, Spells, Familiars and Shamans.
Message-ID: <01HIV6RYEC2QA0YA79@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
Date: 30 Oct 94 12:14:58 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6782
Simon:
======
>>* What exactly a fetch is I'll leave for another message:
>I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. I would say it is an
>awakened part of the shaman. Although I believe there is a case
>for saying that about allied spirits and familiars too.
I believe that to be the case for the shaman, but an allied spirit as
far as I'm aware is a spirit sent down and a Familar is really the
sorcerer's will imposed on a piece of nature. I'm unsure about the
mythological rationalization for the familiar in Glorantha.
The Invisible God IMO owes more to Islam and Greek philosophiocal
(gnostic, pythagorean) concepts than to medieval ones. Think about
it 'To enable your soul to ascend to the Solace beyond the Material
World, you must take one small cute furry creature and enslave it to
your will.' The familiar concept sees to have been stolen from Ompalami
Fonrit and spread elsewhere across the world by the God Learners IMO.
David Dunham:
=============
>Nobody in my campaign can become a Priest or Acolyte without at least
>having Worship, Sanctify, and probably Spellteaching. (Which, BTW, I
>consider an argument against RunePower...)
I must really say that I think the Spell Teaching spell to be a bit
too Shamanic in concept for all religions. For example, I don't think
Haigographies are full of Christian Saints wrestling with angels and
dislocating their hipbones to arrive at Sainthood. It's okay for Trolls
and Pamalt but I would expect some of the more sophisticated religions
(like, say, Issaries and Yelm) to have evolved another method based
to emphasize the divorce/gulf between them and a shaman's point of view.
An easy way could be in the Worship God ceremonies when someone reenacts
a part and upon completion gets a point of spirit magic. This would be
fine for most members of the community but it's not enough for the hot-
shot adventurers and others who want some of the gods magic real soon now.
I thought of swapping time and prayer in a sanctified region of the Temple
instead of spirit combat. This need not be traditional solitude, I have
the vision of Humakti initiates praying for bladesharp holding their sword
in their hands and lying in bed reciting 'this is my sword..' along the
lines of Full Metal Jacket). I'll try and develop this idea if anybody is
interested.
Scotty:
=======
> To hold a spirit, does a RQIII fetch need to
> maintain a sufficient number of MAGIC POINTS
> or PERMANENT POW to hold all of the spirits?
Magic Points are all that are really required IMO. Of course if you're
planning to hold the spirit long term, Permanenet Pow is a useful rule
of the thumb.
Nicholas:
=========
> In the old RQ2 rules the Lhankor Myh initiates or something
> like them, can brew potions. Healing, Farsee... whatever
> spirit magic.
> How does this work in RQ3 ? is this a skill = Brew Potion ?
Reason for this is that Greg didn't like the munchies with the Blade
Venom 20 on the Arbalest so he had the alchemy rules taken out of RQIII.
Since then what we have a vague hints. Alchemical lore is a skill that
exists but given my chemistry days, I feel this covers knowledge of
minerals, slugs and other gunk we used to put in medicines in the
Good Old Days.
IMO, Brew Potion should be another skill in the manipulation class.
This is the skill that you use when pouring the nitrogyclerine
(CAREFULLY). This accounts for the REALISTIC divison between theorists
(who couldn't hold a test tube the right way up) and experimentalists.
Alchemical lore should be distinct IMO from the recipes. The recipe
should be like a scrap of information that you come across. The lore skill
is really to understand the point behind the various steps of the recipes.
Like say to make the potion of immortality, one requires potatoes boiled in
water. The recipe says salt should be added. The Alchemical lore should be
to understand if the salt is merely to add taste or to raise the boiling temp
of water and if so, is it safe to omit it?
The recipe is merely a list of things to do in achieving the required
product. To make posion is fairly easy but to mix it with something
so it sticks on your blade and retains its toxicity is another step (ie
Blade Venom). In historical times and most probably in Glorantha the
really effective recipes are a secret to be kept. As far as I can tell
the Alchemists Guild in Glorantha has been replaced by/is really the
Quicksilver Cult which is worshipped to some extent by humans. I doubt
they get any mostali magics out of it (ie no stabilize potion) but they
will control the alchemy by forcing all other competitors out of business.
--Peter Metcalfe
---------------------
From: elias_kadri1@cl_63smtp_gw.chinalake.navy.mil (Elias Kadri)
Subject: Giant Cradles
Message-ID: <9410292358.AA24866@Sun.COM>
Date: 29 Oct 94 08:56:38 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6784
Subject:Giant Cradles
Hello All!
I was just reading in KoS (I know, I'm behind in my
reading...), where Argrath and friends protect the giant
cradle from capture by the Lunars, and a couple of questions
that I had wondered about before came back to mind:
First: Does anybody know why giants send (or sent, anyway)
their babies down the river in cradles? It doesn't seem like
a very good policy - I would expect most of the cradles to go
more or less straight down Magasta's Pool. (Is that why
there aren't more giants in Genertela? ;))
Second: What kind of wonderful things do these apparently
technically and magically unsophisticated people put in these
cradles that made it worthwhile to set up two separate
outposts just to capture them? Where do they get them from?
Is there a powerful and advanced giant civilization somewhere
that we have never heard about?
Does anybody out there have any info or ideas on this?
Elias
---------------------
From: MATTHEW8112@delphi.com
Subject: Tower of Lead -RiskLand
Message-ID: <01HIUPTJDHJM93B14U@delphi.com>
Date: 29 Oct 94 11:13:21 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6785
I using the "Dorastor Land of Doom" supplement and was wondering if there is
any more information published or on the net about the Tower of Lead, and
Dorastor artifacts.
Matt