[none]

From: Stephen P Martin (ilium@juno.com)
Date: Thu 23 Jan 1997 - 00:36:51 EET


Nick Brooke <100270.337@compuserve.com>
Mercenary Totems
>
Someone>>> The EWF planned for the entire population of Dara Happa to be
>>> split among five cults. Any idea of what those cults are?
>
Me>> When this was _originally_ written (i.e., around 1986?), I assume
>> the meaning was of the five expected Dara Happan cults.
>
Nick>That seems odd: I'd have assumed it was five weird EWF dragon-cults.
Else
>what's the point?
>
My thought process was that this is supposed to be the dragon's
_intellect_, not the entire dragon. Plus, it is specifically Pelorian.
So, no need for Rockwood Mountain Wings -- those are its wings, not its
mind. Why pollute something as shining as the intellect of the Great
Dragon with earth, water, air, or (horrors!) darkness? From Glorantha
Book, page 22:

"The goal of the EWF was to resurrect the Great Dragon...At its largest
extent, its spine was intended to be the Oslir, and its wings the
Rockwood Mountains. Its intellect was to require the entire populace of
Peloria divided among five cults, and its breath was to be the erupting
volcanoes of the Holy Country [sic]."

This goes back, in my mind, to the Dragonewt article in WF14 -- five of
the six ancestral dragons can be loosely equated with the five elements,
with the last equivalent to Spirit (Orlanthi) or Moon (Lunars trying to
put their own philosophy on it). The fifth dragon, Guardian of Thought,
seems very much in my mind to be linked to the creation of the Element of
Fire from the head and eyes of the Grand Ancestral Dragon.

>Steve is worried by creativity:
>
No more worried than you. Just because I don't like or agree with
something, doesn't mean I am against it, or against the creative effort
that went into it.

>Why, whatever you *say* is "official", is official, of course! Let's not
>tie ourselves up in absurd semantic knots about this trivial non-issue.
If
>enough of us like something, we'll all use it. That's how Glorantha
moves
>forwards, now that there's no mass-market commercial/"official"
published
>material coming out any more.
>
I was more concerned about people being confused over where something
comes from. For example, if it by Greg or Sandy, people are more willing
to ignore their doubts about it. If it is not, the knowledge of that
gives them the proper info to decide what they do and don't like about
it. What is wrong with my asking that people 1) credit their sources and
2) claim credit for themselves for something that they have created?

It sounds more like _you_ are worried about being gregged. To me, that's
just my impression of course, and I don't seriously think it is true. But
it could come across that way. And someone on the Digest stating
something as "fact", by not stating that it is their material, when
people have already complained to me in private about lacking older
sources mentioned, could be misleading.

Maybe other people should comment on this -- do people prefer that people
claim their own work as theirs, and quote published sources when they
repeat information from them, or would they prefer it all be meshed
together, who really cares what Greg or Sandy says about Glorantha?

Paolo Guccione <teigupa@tss.tei.ericsson.se>
Re: Yanafal Tarnils, Law Rune
>
>If I can recollect the original description in Prosopaedia (how much of
>it has been Gregged?),

Probably most of it dealing with Dara Happa or the Lunars, given what we
have seen in GRoY, FS, Entekosiad, and various other "Lunar Book"
fragments.

>it stated that Yanafal Tarnils "bested his
>master, Humakt". It may well have been Carmanos, in fact, and the
>current identification with Humakt may be an imperial addition to show
>evidence of the superiority of the Seven Mothers versus the Storm Gods,

This is my belief.

>but the connection with the Truth rune suggests that it was Humakt, most
>likely.
>
Why couldn't Carmanos, as an honorable god, possess the Truth Rune? His
identification with Humakt is made easier if he is a cognate god, with
the same runes and many of the same spells and practices.

>Be it Humakt or Carmanos, I do not think YT has _inherited_ the practice
>of resurrecting the dead from a pre-dating cult. I prefer the
>interpretation whereas he, as a mortal, HeroQuested to gain access to
>it. Maybe he discovered a very warped version of the Lightbringer, which
>he later used in the ritual that recreated the Goddess. The comment
>about YT defeating Humakt may well refer to his achievement in reversing
>the usual "once dead, you stay with Humakt" geas of the Humakti, rather
>than his being victorious in a contest of arms.
>
Although it is not my current belief, it could well be, and in fact fits
the currently available material better. But redefinition of the Seven
Mothers is probably ongoing with Greg nowadays, so I will bide my time to
see what _he_ comes up with to justify all these past statements.

>> Now there is a nice idea. Though it does beg the question of who
>makes up
>> the corners of the Law rune -- there are Four castes (plus the
>women) in
>> Malkioni culture. Is one of them inside the Triangle, or what?
>
>Nice idea indeed! But have the castes _always_ been three?

>Nick Brooke's History of Malkionism (quasi-official) states that
>the class of Knights was introduced by Hrestol _after_ the Dawning. If
>this is correct, the three vertices of the Law rune are Talar (mind),
>Dromal (body) and Zzabur (soul).

My understanding of this line about knights was that the Knights replaced
the Warrior class, still falling under the caste started by Horal (was
that his name?), the martial son of Malkion. But as I have little clue
about Malkioni history, and little interest at this point, I won't stand
by this interpretation.

>
David Cake <davidc@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Carmanian Humakti
>
> Beware, I think you have meddled with the nature of the universe
>too much, and will soon feel the wrath of the spirits of thousands of
>retconned* Humakti and Yanafali, who will hunt you to the ends of the
>earth.
>
Yeah, Marvel Comics really suck in this regard. Makes you wonder if
_anyone_ has ever died!

> Seriously, the relationship between Humakt and Yanafals is FAR
too
>well established to get away with dramatically changing without really
>upsetting most of the Gloranthan community (make the Elmal controversy
seem
>like nothing). Its in the history of the Lunar Empire, in G:COTHW, the
cult
>writeups, half the Humakti or Yanafali characters ever written, and the
>best sources of Carmanian info available on the net

Has something like this stopped Greg before? I don't know if this is
_his_ belief, as I have never discussed it with him, but it seems
unlikely to me that a Carmanian or Dara Happan noble would have worshiped

Humakt. Unless he joined the cult at some point _specifically_ to betray
him. I could buy that scenario.

> Now, Yanafals almost certainly did not worship 'Humakt'. But he
>almost certainly worshipped a Carmanian god that a Manirian (or
Provincial
>Yanafali) would recognise as being a lot like Humakt, and that a God
>Learner would almost certainly think was the same guy.

This is my entire premise, that he worships a similar deity. If you were
a Carmanian Seven Mothers Scimitar in Dragon Pass, and you were
describing your god to the prospective initiates among the Orlanthi,
wouldn't _you_ say that Humakt was the deity Yanafal Ta'arnils beat? And,
if you didn't, and you described him, I suggest that the _locals_ would
call him Humakt. Look at how the Romans went all across Europe, renaming
the local gods as Mars and Mercury and some such. And now, 1000 or more
years later, some of those merged beliefs are still to be found in local
stories, folklore, etc.

Peter Metcalfe <P.Metcalfe@student.canterbury.ac.nz>
giants
>
>Put it this way. Something must have occured to make the humans
>believe that the first metaphysical confrontation was between
>Giants and Dragons. Since humans don't interact with either
>side very much nor have a chance to analyse their myths, it seems
>to me that they had observed this conflict from a bystander's
>point of view. 'All was peaceful until the Giants and the Dragons
>started fighting each other'.
>
I agree to disagree with you on this point.

>Ah. But the Elder Races (Elves, Clay Mostali and Trolls) arose
>with the advent of humans and are related to humans. Surely you
>don't expect them to have a much clearer understanding of the first
>metaphysical conflict than humans?
>
Good point for me too. The lesser giants arose at the same time as
humans, and like the elves, clay mostali, and trolls, have a humanoid
form. But, the majority of aldryami are not humanoid, I have never really
thought that the Ancestral Mostali were humanoid in shape, and many
ancient denizens of darkness are not humans. Why must we assume the Elder
Giants were, either?

>

Stephen Martin
ilium@juno.com
- -----------------------------------------------
The Book of Drastic Resolutions
drastic@juno.com

------------------------------

End of Glorantha Digest V4 #116
*******************************

RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark
of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material,
unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the
author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to
excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for
electronic retrieval.

Send electronic mail to Majordomo@erzo.org with "help" in the body of
the message for subscription information on this and other mailing
lists.

WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:56:33 EEST