YGWV
> From: Lightcastle <lightcastle_at_3web.com>
and Simon Phipp continue their insightful love fest from
> Subject: [Glorantha] Re: Glorantha Digest, Vol 12, Issue 212
and I wanna join in.
> But clan isn't necessarily an interesting or
> important category for the Esvulari.
Without being dogmatic (keeping in mind the exceptions that define the general
rule) I suggest that clans--or extended families, etc--are important almost
everywhere. The natural bonds of family among humans seems to be universal, at
least where no alternative exists. Thus, I believe that extended families ARE
important among the Esvulari. That is, Esvulari farmers.
That said, when alternative loyalties exist and provide strong
conflicting loyalties exist. So that among most people we will generally find
some who are more loyal to their temple than their family, because their
particular spiritual obligation takes them that way. Hence, we find the
severed
Humakti, for instance.
Furthermore, a strong and viable government provides other alternatives to
family and clan. Thus even among the strongly clannish Orlanthi we find
individuals who have pledged primary loyalty to a king, to serve as his
huscarl
bodyguard.
Cities can provide yet another alternative. But cities have another factor in that they can house and protect individuals, strangers and foreigners who have special skills or roles. These people come to the city without previous (or at least, without local) attachments. And even those clan loving fellows may choose to ignore clan ties when country folk come seeking citified advantages, weakening the clan ties.
That said, I can see that a farmer clan that lives in the city might
well retain
their earthly clan ties over the city that gives foreigners and other
"twist-tongues" equality with them.
>> The Holy Country has the obvious extra complication of the Pharaoh, who
>> has changed things. Once again, I would think he changed the cities, making
>> them less clan aligned and more aligned to the different portions of the
>> Holy Country.
One of Belintar's main changes was to create a superior level of alliance between diverse peoples. Previous to his force there had never been a strong force to create political or permanent economic links between fiery Caladralanders and trolls, between bosomy Esrolians and phallic Orlanthi, or between the monotheistic/atheistic urbanites of Leftarm and the totally mixed practitioners of the village-based Rightarm. The cities formed the nexus of that interaction, and so Belintar the man-god fostered the urban mixing in Kethaela. His magical Great Bridge(s) even created direct links across the Choralinthor which, while insufficient for much actual traffic, at least fostered the mental idea of direct linkage.
>> Are there any other similarities between Sartar and Belintar,
>> I wonder?
>
> Well *there's* an interesting kettle of fish. I know some in the past have
> suggested Sartar as Belintar's agent, although I'm not big on that idea.
I know of no formal connection between the two. Sartar's motivation was
in large
part to form an integrated political force to the north. In fact, it
helped to
protect the Holy Country, but I do not believe it was an intentional effort by
Belintar.
> Nonetheless, there is no doubt that giving people a larger national identity
> does involve challenging their essentially local, clan-based, identity, so in
> that way at the very least they are similar.
Sartar's task was to reawaken the overriding national identity, while
Belintar's
was to forge one.
>> I would guess that the Council has a number of places filled by specific
>> people, some from the Guilds, some from the Tribes, some from the City,
>> some from cults. In that respect, it is similar to a Ring, but it is
>> definitely not a tribal ring.
>
> But what I wonder about is the running of the city vs the role as place of
> negotiation for the tribes. I'm not sure those roles are handled by the same
> council or ring.
It's the king's job to provide the intertribal justice, not the cities. The cities provide an economic reason to find nonviolent solutions.
>> And also conflicts of interest between city, family, external clan/tribe
>> and cult.
>
> Absolutley. The moment a character puts down more than one allegiance
> on their sheet, I have a story point. :)
Yes, absolutely. I know many consider the list of loyalties to be
nothing but a
bonus bucket, but in truth, it is a can of conflict.
> And in that nature that says "all proper living supports the
> gods, and the gods keep Chaos out, so any improper living weakens the gods
> and therefore might let chaos in" I agree. But I adamantly refuse a hard and
> fast rule, "do this thing, cause chaos" outside of acts that are "I will now
> summon a chaos power and offer it a way in".
I would support that with what I have said just recently. Some people can get away with doing many evil things over and over, others can not even think it without getting itchy.
>> How you make things work is a function of how you like games to be played
>> and how your players like playing their games.
>
> Indeed. Well said.
First rule: MGF.
Issaries, Inc.
2140 Shattuck Ave., PMB #2030
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA
Received on Sun 23 Apr 2006 - 15:40:04 EEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed 18 Jul 2007 - 23:37:52 EEST