Morgan:
>It's not that I don't want to see that per se. But, I wanted more
>material (other than ther Ernaldan comment that triggered this) about
>the Light Bringers Quest. I'd rather see it than Vinkoth.
Personally I was very happy to see more about Vingkot, as were my Vingkotling players! LBQ is great, but in truth more playable cults is a must, especially ones that are both historic and fit in so importantly into the myth. However, what we are discussing is individual preference for details here.
>(In this case, at least I can try to dig up a KoS book)
Exactly. An LBQ is something that very, very, very few players will ever achieve or even remotely survive. So space for that in a book is a waste really, better to have more cults and cultural info that players and narrators can use.
>In your new Lunars books, you complain about "space limitations".
Any book has these. We aren't complaining, we are specifying the nature of writing.
>I'd rather see Tarnils and Gerra and Orogeria than Avarnia.
The ILH book one is the LUNAR book, which will have LUNAR gods only. I'll say it again, for empasis so we are clear. The LUNAR book has LUNAR cults in it. The Rinliddi book will have RINLIDDI cults and the Carmanian will have CARMANIA cults. Does this make sense?
>Cultural background is fine,
Essential, not fine, otherwise it is impossible to run a game there.
>but gods a PC might actually worship are more interesting to me.
Firstly players will worship all sorts of stuff. I'd never seen a player play a Chalana Arroy till I met Dave Pearton. Does that mean we shouldn't have had the cult in HW?
Secondly you need to include the cults of those who will be NPCs as well as players both to give the players reference and to assist the narrator.
>You want us to use the space of the ILH books to debate the nature
of
>Tarnils?
>Now I am confused - does ILH mean something I don't understand?
>Where else would you discuss the nature of Tarnils, the most
>significant Lunar military god, one many PCs will follow?
Okay, perhaps my problem here is the use of the word "discuss", which implies a polemical discourse of some kind, like a Socratic argument. To me anyway. Naturally and obviously there will be a cult of Tarnils in the ILH, we already said that. I find it strange that you didn't get that from my first posts the other day.
>>And several incarnations of the Goddess (e.g. Gerra, Orogeria) have
>basically no info.
>>Which, I have already stated, will be amended in the ILH.
>Excellent. Except Peter said that they were NOT to be in the new
>books, I had to find the out-of-print, "work-in-progress" (nice
>euphemism) Entekosiad. I hope you get the final word here...
I said they would be in ILH a couple of posts back. You were stating at that point that a "handful" (which means five or less) cults should be in the ILH. I was surprised and wanted to know which handful, especially given that there are 7 7mothers!
>Rejection vs. Acceptance
>Logically, objectively, Tao-istically, I completely agree with you.
>But whether a glass is "half-full" or "half-empty" is really the same
>thing too. And how you choose to view it does deeply reflect your
>inner nature. I believe the correct Lunar inner nature and thought
>process is acceptance.
Not so, it is acceptance of all within the cycle if life which includes, IN A BIG WAY, change and the breaking of tradition and new boundaries.
>That's what I mean by "thinking like a Lunar".
Then you aren't thinking like a lunar if you think that the Lunar way is only about acceptance. It is not. It is a lot more complex than that and multi-toned. Part of our challenge is to get that across in the book.
>Sorry about the "bias" comment, that was too strong.
Fair enough.
>Yanafal and straight blades
>Every RQ game, (about 6 different groups) I've played in the San
>Francisco Bay Area has prohibited Yanafali from using straight
>blades. Maybe this is wrong, but I assumed it ultimately came from
>Chaosium / Greg. It's a nice touch, and helps you split up loot in a
>mixed party. :-)
Well unless you can quote me an official source, then I think there is a flaw in that approach. I've never played in the Bay area, so I suppose I have different assumptions to you, as do my fellow authors, and Greg too.
>Goddess as chaos
>>The Rufelza cult write up says otherwise, have you read it?
>Your original use of "Goddess" is vague. I tend to use "Goddess" to
>mean Sedenya or Natha, not Rufelza. My misunderstanding.
The Red Goddes - Rufelza, is born of chaos. Sorry to be vague.
>In any case, your quote says nothing to me about whether Rufelsa is
>innately chaotic.
She is.
>She is the daughter of Wakboth, sure sounds
>suspicious,
I would say that having for your dad the greatest chaos deity to walk Glorantha was a pretty good sign of chaotic influence. :)
>but aren't other entities, like Time, the same? Is Time
>innately chaotic?
Entropy is part of chaos, yes. As is the universe, as it was formed of chaos.
>And it says she "conquered chaos". Storm Bull conquered the Devil, right?
Different methods of conquest. She conquered the chaos within to control it and make it one with her, as the universal truth that all in Glorantha is born of chaos would tell us. Storm Bull beat the shit out of it and squished it under a big rock. They are different things.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail