From: Ashley Crill (agojedi@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri 12 Jun 1998 - 05:20:37 EEST
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:36:17 GMT
>From: owner-glorantha-digest@chaosium.com (The Glorantha Digest)
>To: glorantha-digest@chaosium.com
>Subject: The Glorantha Digest V5 #656
>Reply-To: glorantha@chaosium.com
>
>
>The Glorantha Digest Thursday, June 11 1998 Volume 05 :
Number 656
>
>
>
>TABLE OF CONTENTS
>
> Ian Thomson the Life Rune
> Michael Schwartz Re: Red Hair
> Ian Thomson final word on Deezola
> David Dunham Re: paradigms, Wind Children
> Bill Thompson Wind children
> Simon Hibbs Re: HW & paradigm shift
> Peter Metcalfe Gregging and HoG
> Peter Metcalfe HoG and Antirius
> Simon Bray Red Hair and Wind Children.
> Paul Wegner Re: Orlanthi Coming Of Age
> TTrotsky@aol.com Re: newbie Gloranthans
>
>RULES OF THE ROAD
>
>1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially
> not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated.
> If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show"
> please do. But don't include the whole message you praise.
>2. Use an appropriate Subject line.
>3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a
> point-by-point basis.
>4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're
ready
> to stand by it.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:48:35 +0000
>From: "Ian Thomson" <ithomson@swin.edu.au>
>Subject: the Life Rune
>
>Hello
>
>Anyone know where I can get a gif or jpg of the Life Rune
>
>or even where I can find a hard copy in some publication
>
>thanks
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 98 19:05:04 -0500
>From: Michael Schwartz <mschwartz@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Red Hair
>
>In my own words:
>
>>To anyone who has met Suzanne Courteau, Greg's wife, this should be
>>significantly less puzzling than it is to Jane.
>
>Oh and, before I receive endless rebukes from persons protesting what
>they feel is a sexist remark on my part, I'll mention that Suzanne is
>intelligent, articulate, charming and quite witty... Greg was obviously
>smitten enough by her to marry a second time. More than reason enough
for
>him to take a bit of license, by way of homage, concerning cultural
views
>toward red hair, don't you think?
>
>Or perhaps the myths colored (pun intended) his real-world
perspective...
>:)
>
>
>
>
>Michael Schwartz mschwartz@mindspring.com Ann Arbor, MI USA
>====================================================================
>"I've always said you can get more with a kind word and a two-by-four
>than with a kind word alone." -- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:04:35 +0000
>From: "Ian Thomson" <ithomson@swin.edu.au>
>Subject: final word on Deezola
>
>thanks very much again to everyone
>
>especially in this final assessment
>
>to Nick Effingham and Simon Hibbs
>
>thanks especially to Simon for presenting a critical analysis in a
>very unantagonistic way
>
>whilst I doubt I have made the cult write-up anything approaching
>official standard
>
>its gone thru another re-write
>
>As promised I won't post it again for a while in case there are more
>changes
>
>but its here at
>
>http:\\www.geocities.com\Area51\Dimension\5507\deezola.html
>
>and once again
>
>who knows how to Zip documents up to put them on a site for easy
>downloading?
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:10:25 -0800
>From: David Dunham <dunham@pensee.com>
>Subject: Re: paradigms, Wind Children
>
>I won't argue terminology (though I'm aware of the overuse of
"paradigm").
>
>Hero Wars takes a different approach to combat than games like
RuneQuest,
>Pendragon, or Star Wars. In these three, each dice roll maps more or
less
>to some real world event. I make a dice roll which represents shooting
my
>blaster, and depending on the results, the enemy is vaporized. (Whether
>this is a automatic weapons roll or a series of thrusts and feints
doesn't
>really matter, that's an abstraction of detail.) Hero Wars combat
doesn't
>do this. You cannot point to a particular die roll and say that it
>represents your sword swing, and that because you rolled well the enemy
>took a wound. It doesn't attempt to simulate, however abstractly, the
>processes of the modelled world. You are encouraged to map the game's
>internal states back to the simulated world, but this isn't necessary
(or
>always easy). In traditional games, the game's state does map pretty
well
>to the simulated world (you're down 3 HP in your left arm -> you have
been
>wounded in your left arm). In the current Hero Wars draft, knowing that
I
>have 40 AP and you have 30 does suggest that I have an advantage, but
>that's all it says. (And we both have an advantage over where we
started!)
>
>Every game attempts to simulate a world and a flavor, and are
considered
>more accurate depending on the results. (When they fail to have
reasonable
>outcomes, they end up in Murphy's Rules.) Most games do this by
abstracting
>the processes by which the world works. Hero Wars does not. This takes
some
>getting used to, but I believe it does work.
>
>> I just don't see the value or purpose of characterising its
differences
>> from RQ, Pendragon (etc) in such jargonified, and apparently
considerably
>> overstated, terms.
>
>I won't argue terminology, but in the hands of a GM it's a rather
different
>tool than previous games. The distinction is sometimes important -- and
>most noticable when it comes to combat.
>
>I think this discussion shows the lack of merit of talking about the
game
>system before it's widely available, and will cease with this attempt
at a
>clarification.
>
>
>Nils Weinander wondered
>
>> Has anyone does any work fleshing out the Wind Children?
>
>I assume you have RQ Vikings (an odd source, I admit!) and that issue
of
>Different Worlds?
>
>David Dunham <mailto:dunham@pensee.com>
>Glorantha/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html>
>Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:43:15 +0100
>From: Bill Thompson <interlit@pacificcoast.net>
>Subject: Wind children
>
>>> Nils Weinander
>
>>>Has anyone does any work fleshing out the Wind Children?
>>>They are among the most fascinating inhabitants of
>>>Glorantha IMO, but I find very little information
>>>about them.
>
>I think that nobody has fleshed out a wind child better than David
Cheng
>and I have the photo's to prove it.....
>
>"Ask me a riddle and I reply:
>"Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie.""
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:50:09 +0100
>From: Simon Hibbs <simonh@msi-uk.com>
>Subject: Re: HW & paradigm shift
>
>Richard Develyn :
>
>>If you take it a stage further, one approach is to almost remove the
>>distinction between players and GM, emphasising instead collective
>>story-telling.
>
>Surely the collective input is what distinguishes roleplaying from
>acting?
>
>>This, to my mind, is not role playing. You're not _having_ adventures,
>>you're _writing_ them.
>
>You are still playign a role, and you are still playing a game, so I
>can't see how you can claim it's nolonger roleplaying. The collective
>storytelling approach is an extreme case. Games such as Amber can tend
>towards that extreme sometimes. Personaly I think the ideal is to find
a
>ballance between the two.
>
>To take an example from fiction, some episodes of Babylon 5 involve
>interactions between the command crew (the players) and external
>threats. These are comparable to strongly refereed game sessions. Other
>episodes involve personal interactions and conflicts between the main
>characters. These episodes are comparable to lightly refereed games
>where most of the running is made by the players. I could imagine
>runnign a B5 game in which Jakaar and Londo were both players for
>example. In game sessions where Jakaar and Londo are plotting against
>each other and trying to win over other players to their cause, the
>referee takes a back seat.
>
>In what sense is this nolonger roleplaying?
>
>
>Simon Hibbs
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:36:44 +1200 (NZST)
>From: metcalph@voyager.co.nz (Peter Metcalfe)
>Subject: Gregging and HoG
>
>Alex Ferguson:
>
>>Well, apart from the inherent painfulness of said agreement, in
>>this case the other answers were argued from in-print sources, and
>>my initial reaction was that Peter's answer was correct. I feel like
>>an Accessory to Gregging...
>
>Why would you feel bad about gregging me or being an accessory to
>a gregging on me? Surely the bigger they are, the more satisfying
>the 'thump' when they fall?
>
>David Cake:
>
>>>The raison d'etre of the quest in Dara Happan eyes was to get the
>>>Orb. They never made the conceptual leap that Harmast did to get
>>>use the quest for something else.
>
>> At this point, the next step is something like 'Sez who?' to which
>>Peter can reply 'Sez me', at which point everyone knows where they
stand.
>>Or Peter can quite some obscure source to prove his point, probably
>>ultimately without success as using sources to prove that something
doesn't
>>happen is very difficult unless at some point it is unambiguously
stated.
>
>Instead of describing what a big sadistic bully I am, you could have
>cottoned onto the words 'Harmast' and 'conceptual leap' and realized
>that I was talking about experimental heroquesting. It is stated in
>any number of sources that the Dara Happans did not experimentally
>heroquest after the first age.
>
>This does leave the issue of the quest in the years between Khordavu's
>Enthronement and Nysalor's Death. But in the absence of questing
>after Nysalor's death and the return of the Goddess, and the general
>downsizing of the Antirian cult after Nysalor's death, the issue is
>largely academic IMO. Should new evidence or brilliant theories come
>to light, I will quite happily revise this opinion.
>
>> Personally, I think that over the centuries Dara Happan thought has
>>taken enough strange turns that its very likely that at some point the
Dara
>>Happans did make that conceptual leap, though it possibly didn't make
it
>>into the mainstream. Talking about 'the Dara Happans' as we are here,
when
>>they have 1600 years of religious revisionism, is a dangerous
>>generalisation.
>
>FWIW we know the strange turns made by the Dara Happans. The closest
>to experimental heroquesting that the Dara Happans got is Karvanyar's
>'Every Man a Sun' which appears to be mystical and quite difficult.
>
>- --Peter Metcalfe
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:36:47 +1200 (NZST)
>From: metcalph@voyager.co.nz (Peter Metcalfe)
>Subject: HoG and Antirius
>
>David Cake:
>
>> I do, however, heartily applaud the idea of creating a quite
>>separate forum to the digest, so that newbies are not traumatised when
>>their interesting myth idea is brutally cut down by Peter on the
grounds
>>that it is contradicted by Glorious Reascent, and in any case totally
>>inconsistent with real Roman agricultural techniques.
>
>And perhaps also for people who get tired of David 'Revisionist' Cake
>sprouting cheap shots from the blue...
>
>>>> I think the Dara Happans may have recreated parts of the quest (ie
>>>>the part where 'Antirius the Undeceivable is not fooled by his
invisible
>>>>Other'), but not known the whole story of the version where Antirius
wins.
>
>>>How can they know the story where Antirius wins when they know that
>>>such a thing has never happened?
>
>> First, did they know the story of how Antirius is the Undeceivable
>>(which occurs at the Hill of Gold) before the successful quest for the
Orb?
>>I think they did, but I see no firm evidence either way.
>
>Well considering that Antirius has returned from the Hill of Gold
>during the Great Darkness at least once, my opinion is yes. But
>'not being deceived by his Other' is a completely different thing
>to 'winning the orb of the eye'.
>
>> Secondly - The Orb is the source of Justice, and Antirius is the
>>source of Justice.
>
>The Orb is not the source of Justice, but Authority. It is part of
>the Imperial Regalia. It is demonstrably not intrinsic to Antirius
>because myth records it originally was held by Yelm and then
Murharzarm.
>It passed unrecorded in myth to Antirius (aklthough Plentonius records
>him receiving the Cloak). Antirius then lost the Orb when the Roof
>was built and never held it again. It is demonstrably not necessary to
>his wellbeing because he came back to life (at the Dawn or at 111 ST -
>depending on whom you believe) without the Hill of Gold quest being
>successfully completed. Ergo on an examination of Dara Happan lore,
the
>Orb and Antirius are distinct entities.
>
>>OF Course Antirius must eventually win, even if they do not know how
>
>Why must Antirius win at the Hill of Gold? The Prince who succeeded
>in the quest does not invoke him.
>
>>Antirius never fails, but when we attempt the quest in
>>his place, sometimes we imperfectly understand his suggestions, and by
>>failing wound him.
>
>I note the Fifth Wounding Error occured when Antirius displayed
>Justice and found it to be less than it had been. Thus to say
>'Antirius never fails' is at odds with what the Dara Happans know
>about their religion.
>
>>>Going up the Footstool is part of the Ten Tests. The HoG quest
>>>is not part of the Ten Tests and is far more recent than the
>>>Ten Tests.
>
>>The Orb should be at the top of the Footstool, and if it isn't you
have to
>>resort to the Hill of Gold, a debased version for when the Orb is not
where
>>it should be. But the two quests are related.
>
>Given that all the other regalia are also supposed to be found at
>the top of the Footstool in the Ten Tests makes this reasoning faulty
>considering the HoG quest was not used to retrieve any of the other
>missing regalia (some of which had been lost when the Ice came
>according to the myth).
>
>>> What does a myth of Antirius have to do with becoming Emperor of
>>> Dara Happa?
>
>> Now, ask yourself which is the first mention of gaining the Orb? Is
>>it the Hill of Gold? No. Its Yelm receiving the Orb. Then Murharzarm
>>receives the Orb. The original quest for gaining the Orb of Authority
is
>>about ascending the Footstool, and is part of a series of quests where
you
>>are tested by spirits.
>
>So why do people have to repeat the Hill of Gold quest and not the
>Ten Tests? And how do you reconcile this with the omission of the
>Orb of Authority from the modern Lunar Regalia?
>
>> Now, suddenly the Orb is stolen by evil beings. Do you invent a
>>totally new quest, unrelated to the first one? No, you try and use the
one
>>you have, except you know the regalia isn't at the top of the
Footstool
>>anymore, and you know the bad guys have it. So you adapt the quest a
>>little, so that you are ascending a hill, and you face the bad guys
along
>>the way.
>
>To postulate that Antirius was experimentally heroquesting in a
>response to the loss of the Orb is quite frankly awful. He quested
>for the Orb because the enemies had it on top of the Hill of Gold.
>Likewise I do not believe that questing at the Hill of Gold now is
>going to find the Orb as it is no longer there.
>
>>The Hill of Gold quest for the Dara Happans is about trying to see the
true
>>path (the path Antirius would take, because Antirius is undeceivable),
>
>But Antirius himself _tried_ that path and was unsuccessful _despite_
>being undeceivable!
>
>>The Hill of Gold proper (the one in Vanch) was never ascended by
Antirius
>>in a purely mythic sense
>
>And you are wrong as a cursory examination of the GRAY shows. Antirius
>tried it twice and failed to attain the Orb. And in order to forestall
>cries of irresponsible nitpicking, I should point out the GRAY
describes
>the worldview in which the Ten Princes would have understood the HoG
>quest. So rather than propose Antirius=Authority and speculate on the
>meaing of the HoG from there, you would be on far firmer ground if you
>tried to understand it the way the Ten Princes did.
>
>>>Not all quests are meaningful on a smaller scale. Otherwise Frodo
would
>>>have simply melted down a gold ring in a fire whenever he was in
trouble.
>
>>Would this example be somewhat overgeneralised to make a rhetorical
>>point perhaps?
>
>No.
>
>>Similarly, the Antirius Hill of Gold quest probably works pretty
>>well if what you want to do is recover an Orb of Authority.
>
>*An* Orb?!?
>
>- --Peter Metcalfe
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:05:40 -0400
>From: Simon Bray <101635.32@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Red Hair and Wind Children.
>
>Hi All,
>
> RE: Red Headed women in Glorantha.
>
> I definately believe that Suzanne Corteau may be one of the sources
for
>red hairs Gloranthan imortance.
>On the same wave length those that know Greg's friend Kerry Campbell
will
>see similar reasoning. I once came face to face with Kerry during 'Home
of
>the Bold' she is a true valkyrie and scared the hell outta me.
>
> Their are historical references to red hair. Boudicca was supposed to
have
>had red hair, as did her daughters. The population of the U.K was once
made
>up of 33% red heads before the Roman invasion. Red hair was deemed
unlucky
>by the Romans, probably due to Boudicca. (IMO) If I remember correctly
the
>medieval warrioress Agnes the Black had red hair. I think that it also
has
>a lot to do with cliche eg red heads being fiery tempered (which during
>several relationships with red headed women has not been disproved).
>
> I think Griselda from Oliver Dickinsons stories also influenced Gregs
>attitude to red headed women. The description of Pikat Yaraboom in
Troll
>Pak and the story 'A Tasty Morsel' will elaborate on this. I am not
sure if
>the 'Collected Griselda' is still in print from the Megacorp but it is
a
>worthy purchase.
>
> RE: Wind Children.
>
> The best resource that has been published about wind children must be
the
>scenario book from the Vikings box set. This reads so much like a
>Gloranthan article that it is no problem to convert. I have heard that
the
>background was originally Gloranthan any way. I think that all as needs
>doing is an expansion of their mythology. This article covers Habitat,
the
>Aery, Behavior, Food and Drink, Method of Living, Family and Life
History,
>Trade and Technology, Warfare, Natural Enemies, Preferred Magic,
Language
>and RQ3 Character Creation. The article doesn't feel Viking, talking
about
>'Elf Woods' and 'Storm Gods'.
>
> What I wanted to know about are the Storm Walkers. Has anybody tried
to
>write them up?
>
>Cheers Simon.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:17:47 -0400
>From: Paul Wegner <wegner@mail.fpg.unc.edu>
>Subject: Re: Orlanthi Coming Of Age
>
>Bruce,
>
>Go to Loren Miller's webpage
>
>http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/Fabulous/glib.html.
>
> Under scenario materials you will find the "Orlanthi Quest for
>Adulthood" by Brian Curley. This HeroQuest for adulthood tests the six
>orlanthi virtues. It seems like a nice way to get the characters
>adventuring right away and teach them about what is important to
>Orlanthi.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Paul
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:01:52 EDT
>From: <TTrotsky@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: newbie Gloranthans
>
>One of the Davids:
>
><< I do, however, heartily applaud the idea of creating a quite
separate
>forum to the digest, so that newbies are not traumatised when their
>interesting myth idea is brutally cut down by Peter on the grounds that
it is
>contradicted by Glorious Reascent, and in any case totally inconsistent
with
>real Roman agricultural techniques. >>
>
> While I agree that creating a separate forum is a good idea, my
>understanding is that it is intended for Hero Wars gaming/rules issues,
rather
>than Gloranthan background. So it wouldn't be the ideal place to post
new myth
>ideas, and even if it were, what are you going to do... ban Peter (or
anyone
>else you don't like) from joining the list? Ban mention of Glorious
ReAscent
>or other specific documents? Forbid people from criticising new myth
ideas (or
>whatever)? None of these options seem practicable, nor even desirable,
to me.
>
>Forward the glorious Red Army!
> Trotsky
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #656
>***********************************
>
>To unsubscribe from the Glorantha Digest, send an "unsubscribe"
>command to glorantha-digest-request@chaosium.com. Glorantha is a
>Trademark of Issaries Inc. 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.
>
>Official WWW at http://www.glorantha.com
>Archives at http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #657
***********************************
To unsubscribe from the Glorantha Digest, send an "unsubscribe"
command to glorantha-digest-request@chaosium.com. Glorantha is a
Trademark of Issaries Inc. 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.
Official WWW at http://www.glorantha.com
Archives at http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:18:13 EEST