From: Theo Posselt (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 03 Mar 2000 - 06:31:44 EET
Ok, this reply is a bit late. Hopefully it's not too terribly out of date.
Going back to the Lunar discussion:
<< Ok, take two at answering my own questions... everyone please
> Initial skirmish would be a comment that your point of view has a 'too
> modern' feel to it.
Definitely true. I have to admit, I have a real weakness for using my
modern viewpoint when viewing Glorantha. You might notice how much I refer
to RW analogs... sorry for the paucity of imagination.
John Hughes said:
<< For Lunars, sex is both sacred and profane. What Pelorian noble
would journey without a fellatrix in his personal retinue? >>
> < Keith criticizes >
I should note that all the remarks within <<>>, like the comment
above, were from John Hughes' orginal description. Sorry for any
confusion I created.
<< LUNAR SEXUALITY>>
> I do not believe that their is a 'Lunar' culture anywhere in Peloria
> that's values are represented in the society as you describe it.
> Therefore while:
> "Only a person who has balance is truly healthy. Androgyny is
> may be a valid Lunar POV for an individual, I do not believe that
> this POV would exist in a generally accepted and culturally dominant
> form. I do not think there is a city in Peloria where an outsider
> would say "oh yes, these people think encourage androgyny " but
> rather "in some cities of Peloria some people believe that androgyny is
Again, the remark that you're responding to in quotes above was
John's... however, for me it makes sense, so I'll defend it. My basic
view would be that Lunar/Solar cultures I've described represent
extremes of views within the empire, or at least within Dara Happa -
essentially the liberal/conservative split. It's a continuum, of
course, and perhaps the labels are wrong, but to me it makes sense
that the impact of the Lunar way on the patriarchal, repressive system
of traditional Dara Happa would be to produce this sort of relatively
On the other hand, as someone else said, it makes sense that there
aren't clearly distinguished geographic separations. But there might
be areas that are seen as more Lunar - Glamour, for instance - or more
Dara Happan (Alkoth?), just as within any country there are
conservative and progressive regions.
> I also do not think the Lunars are into restricting anything. They
> are inclusive afterall. Thus the 'Lunars' would not restrict kissing
> or public groping but (subgroups such as Dara happan, carmanians, yanafal
> tarnilsites) would
Yes, I agree... but I think the Lunar way would be to enforce, or at least
recognize, the restrictions that the subgroups put on their members. So
for example Lunar law would delegate authority on certain matters to the
subgroups. Clearly the YT's would be bound by military law; in the same
way a carmanian would be judged by the viziers (?) and the dara happan by
the city judges. So the Lunars in themselves aren't very restrictive, but
they do allow and support a lot of restriction.
As far as I can tell, this is how all the multi-national ancient empires
worked - excuse the RW analog again. Jews in first century Roman-ruled
Judea were governed by the Sanhedrin; Christians in the Turkish empire had
their own laws in force; etc.
At the same time, though, I believe that there's an oligarchy or an
aristocracy that mostly floats above such subgroup restrictions. For them
(the major merchants, powerful bureaucrats, etc), they are only bound by
the core Imperial laws - obediance to the Emperor, respecting the rights of
equals - but not much else. This group would be the most 'Lunarized', in
the way that I put forward in my original message.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:07:30 EEST