Re: Kralorela

From: Nils Weinander (
Date: Sun 01 Feb 1998 - 20:13:00 EET

First of all, I plead guilty of the sin of bringing
stress and other stuff from my work with me when I sit
myself down to post to the GD. Thus I have contributed
to an increasingly testy tone in the debate. I apologize
for that and I wil try to do better.

Stephen about my Daruda theory:

> Last time I brought it up, Greg shot down by 99% identical theory (I
> didn't make the Vithela/Solar Empire connection), but that doesn't mean
> that you and I can't convince him now that we both know the other knows
> the truth.

I'll support your next try if I can!


>Or is there a secret
>code that makes some source quotes sacrosanct and
>others dismissable?


>I suppose it goes something like:
> My source quotations address the issues.
> Your source quotations miss the point.
> His source quotations are completely irrelevant and untrue.

If you decide unilaterally that your quotes are valid
while mine and others' are off the point there is no
way to have a real debate. From the way you summarily
dismiss quotes and arguments this seems to be the

case. I apologize for the implied arrogance if I have
misunderstood your position, through denseness, or
substandard understanding of the english language or
whatever. If so, I'll be back with more quotes.

Right now, the debate seems to be heading breakneck
speed into nowhere. However, even if it may not seem
so, when I post in the heat of the moment, I do read
arguments for their content, not just to pick at
details. Thus I rephrase and reevaluate my own position
when something good and weighty comes up.

The only thing we can say for certain is that the
published information about Kralorela is very scant.
Until Greg or Peter or Sandy or Stephen or I or someone
else writes the official version, all wide-reaching
conclusions are conjecture and personal ideas. In case
I have been unclear on that point, I will just say
that I have no intention of passing my theories off
as "canon", or of saying that anyone else's theories
are wrong.

I do like to discuss the subject, because interesting
stuff always comes up, but I can't do that when I'm
talking to a wall.

To sum up my current position, I have realized after
reading Peter's and Sandy's arguments that what I
want for Kralorela is not as much non-change as
continuity and unbroken tradition. I must accept
that the amount of time which has passed and the
periods with foreign rulers have caused changes, but
I think the changes are gradual and within the basic

While Kralorela has been under foreign rule, there
has not been any large scale invasions, where entirely
new peoples have populated the land, that I am aware
of. Thus I don't think that the entire culture need
to have changed radically during those periods.

In effect, in my Kralorela there is cultural continuity
and some customs really do date back to the golden age.
Not all do though, and in all fairness I can only
admit that the Kralorelans themselves may not always
know which things are really ancient and which are not,
because the ancient ways and the newer ones share a
common framework.

I don't want to bicker endlessly. I want to spend my
Gloranthan time writing and inventing stuff about the
east instead. Thus, over to the ideas of the Kralorelan
afterlife. I really like Peter's idea that it used to
be possible to go to the lands of the dead. I prefer
it to always have been a heroquest activity, a path
which is now closed, but that's just a difference in
degree. (I see barges with heroquester officers and
zombie oarsmen, the latter being already dead should
be the perfect crew).

Last night I had the idea that this gives us the real
purpose of Godunya's grand bridges. The seven bridges
are preparations and "exercise" for the building of
an eighth, metaphysical, bridge which reaches into the
land of the dead and once more makes it accessible.

Nils Weinander | Everything is dust in the wind |


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:06:06 EEST