> YGWV
>
> Quoting Michael Hitchens <michaelh_at_aKK0HFn-Qj4tzpsT0drDK-NWDiIRHrz2DgIBka1X8038Td3ij1YLTbr19wqj6XQ1oJJ7h2CYvvRIV4V9lprUXQ.yahoo.invalid>:
>
>> OK. Hmmm. I need another clarification then (sorry). Does "men in
>> women's bodies" (and the reverse for Nandans) imply (or almost
>> automatically imply) sexual tastes?
>
> No, or rather: not any more than ANY body implies sexuality. There is
> never any GUARANTEE. Play it as you wish.
Great, no problem from my point of view then.
>> Or is it just talking about preferred
>> occupations? That is, is it (change appropriately for Nandan)
>> "I want to be a warrior and/or a farmer so I am a man in a woman's body
>> but whether I bed men or women is something separate"
>> or
>> "I am a man in a woman's body so I want to be a farmer and/or warrior and
>> bed women"
>
> I will repeat something here: "want to" is not the same kind of choice
> to Gloranthans as it is to us--modern people raised in a permissive
> society that holds idealism and personal freedom as the most important
> vitue possible.
Fair enough. One of the things I like about Glorantha is it forces me out of that sort of mindset - a change is as good as a holiday and learning a different perspective is something I need to do more often. I don't claim to be awfully successful at making the change though - I keep slipping up. Would "I am called to be" have been a better usage than "I want" in the above?
>> "man in a woman's body" is interpreted either way you like for your
>> Glorantha or as something else if you don't like either of these two
>> definitions.
>
> That is what I urge everyone to embrace. I know a lot of (perhaps
> most) people are uncomfortable with ANY talk/discussion/game play of
> gender (which is why it's left out of the rule book). A lot of people
> are uncomfortable with NORMAL gender functions (i.e.-sex) and don't
> have it in their games (which is why that's left out of the rule book
> too).
Fair enough. Part of my work has started to involve consideration of gender roles and approaches, so such a disucssion is not a problem for me, but see what I said above about my problem with other perspectives...
>> Any of the above say that cross gender roles are possible amongst the
>> Orlanthi, which we know (I think), but the second of the three would imply
>> that there is a pretty hard and fast link between occupation and sexual
>> proclivities. That may be how it is amongst the Heortlings, but I don't
>> remember seeing it expressed that way anywhere, so I'd like to know.
>
> I do not know of any direct link between occupation and sexual
> preference. But then, I've never taken a Kinsey poll among
> Gloranthans, either.
I now have this image of a Buserian census taker wandering around Sartar taking a sexual preferences poll. On the other hand it wouldn't be a Dara Happan - too prudish. Some really daft Irripi Ontor perhaps? Somehow I don't think they'd survive past the first stead.
>>>> Becuase I think that most Vingans would be farmers (like most Orlanthi
>>>> men) not full time warriors.
>>>
>>> Maybe, but probably not.
>>
>> Ummm - can I ask for some more clarification here too? To me this is very
>> important in understanding how many Vingans there are and their place in
>> Orlanthi society. My logic is as follows, if any of it is wrong, please
>> let me know:
>
> You are thinking too hard here, Michael.
That's another of my problems, but anyway call me a Buserian.
>> Most clans would support no more than 30 full time warriors, probably in a
>> lot of clans this is an over-estimate.
>
> Right. I generally use 5% as the number of full time warriors that a
> clan can support.
Well, I got something right.
>> By full time warriors I mean those
>> who spend most of their time practicing, training, maintaining their
>> weapons, patrolling etc. This would include the warband, ranking members
>> of warrior cults, other specialist thanes, etc.
>
> The latter two being members of the warband as well, of course.
Yep, I was separating out "just members of the warband" and "members of the warband with other functions"
>> Allow 15% of the 30 to be
>> women, with most of the 15% Vingans.
>
> I would not make that assumption.
> It is certainly neat and polite to spread the 15% evenly across
> everything, but it generates problems that break the heads of:
> 1. people who overanalyse these things; and
> 2. people who play by the seat of their pants.
I know, I was positing a "typical" or "average" (which both mean never actually exists in reality) clan. I wasn't meaning that *every* (or even the vast majority) of actual clans had 4 Vingan warriors. I'm still thinking that if you multiplied the number of clans in Sartar by 3-4 you'd get close to the total number of Vingan warriors in Sartar (I know, I'm relying too hard on numbers and veering close to data but I like numbers). But even if you have that total the spread would be rather uneven. Has to be or it's almost as silly as "Sorry, we've got our quota of Vingans - maybe if you apply to the clan two valleys away? I hear they have a vacancy".
> That 15% variance doesn't follow set rules. It could be all over the
> place. It is meant as a generality, not a hard and fast rule.
Understood
> Of your options offered:
> Most of the 15% of non-Ernaldan women are not Vingan
>
> They can be in any of these published cults: Chalana Arroy, Eurmal,
> Heler, Humakt, Issaries, Lhankor Mhy, Odayla, Redalda, Skovara, Urox,
> Vinga or Yinkin.
>
> Furthermore, nonpublished cults include: Kolat, Serdradosa, other
> spirit cults, sorcerous organizations, introduced foreign cults, etc.
>
> And I'm sure I am forgetting some.
Works for me.
Thanks, and apologies for being slow on the uptake.
Michael
Powered by hypermail