Re: The Glorantha Digest V5 #376

From: Lee R. Insley (
Date: Fri 30 Jan 1998 - 15:04:50 EET

Peter Metcalf:
>On the off-chance that it wasn't a joke, to even think that an
>Eurmali could contemplate being an anti-lunar partisan misses
>the whole point of being a trickster. Besides the Eurmali are
>so disorderly that the Lunars would have to mutate into the
>Keystone Cops for the eurmali to have some chance of success.

Why? Don't Eurmali try to disrupt the establishment and cause chaos and
aren't the Lunars the current establishment in Sartar? Wouldn't Eurmali be

useful in misdirecting Lunar patrols and Lunar investigations? I tend to
view the common Eurmali as much more than a mad man, with his or her own
agenda (which change often) than perhaps the all-out trickster.

David Weihe:
From: "Lee R. Insley" <>
>> People don't generally wage war on others without the
>> *permission* or knowledge of the clan leaders.
>You are forgetting that most "resistance" activities are far below the
>level of war. You don't need your clan chieftain's OK to pass on a rumor,
>or tell a slanted version of the situation to your children (thus raising
>the next generation of partisans), or inform (or not inform) the Lunars
>when you see signs of the more organized resistance, or talk too much to
>the known Free sympathizers, etc.

I would tend to disagree with the point that clan members are working in
contradiction to their clan chief/councils positions. Orlanthi are just
too upfront to go against the views of their established leadership. If
they believe that strongly against their leadership, they will change that

>> People or groups just don't work independently of the clans and the
>> clan leadership - at least not in my view of the Gloranthan clan societies.
>Of course they do. Most activities are always personal or family-based.
>*Organized* activity is difficult without the clan leaders, of course.
>OTOH, the leadership is effective inversely to the degree that they lead,
>as opposed to getting in front of the clan once it starts moving one way.
>If your chieftain is a Lunie-symp and your clan is mostly rabid Frees, that
>chieftain either acts like a Free, or he doesn't last long. Even if the
>leader has Dominate Human, he can only control so many who decide to disobey.
>Remember the Orlanthi axioms: Nobody can *make* you do anything. Violence
>(in this case, if the chiefs disgree with you) is always an option. There is
>always another way (to handle the chiefs, if violence is out).

True. But then you have a clan that is openly hostile to the Lunars, in
which case the Lunars can retaliate. I think the point was that clans work
as a unit in almost everything in life. You just wouldn't have half the
clan supporting guerilla warfare, and the other half standing idly by. The
Lunars use this to their advantage and retaliate against the whole clan.

>> Another problem is that a clans attitude about the Lunars will vary from
>> clan to clan. Some will be supportive, some hostile, and some neutral.
>Same as any guerrilla war. Hell, at the start of the American revolution,
>John Adams estimated that there was at best 1/3 for independence and 1/3
>against. There were Soviet supporters in Afghanistan even after they had
>pulled out. There are also always groups that are firmly in their own camp,
>and work with whoever is fighting their enemies, switching sides nilly-willy
>(the Shiites were notorious for this in Afghanistan, frex).

Yeah, but you generally had a mixture of supporters in any particular area
- - that's why this type of warfare works. It wasn't like what I would view
Sartar like where you have semi-independent countries - some of which are
pro-lunar and some anti-lunar. I just don't see a mixture of pro and anti
lunar eliments in a particular clan. People may feel that way, but I don't
believe their clan obligations would allow them to act out in contradictory
ways when it comes to something like this.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:05:44 EEST