From: Carl Fink (carlf@panix.com)
Date: Fri 10 Sep 1993 - 20:17:02 EEST
address.removed@nowhere.tld (G. Fried) writes in part:
>Tim:
>I agree largely with what Henk said in the last Daily about
>shamans (yes, that is the correct plural, Henk! ;) ). Note
>however that gods more powerful than those who are the source of
>spirit cults do recruit shamans too, though -- gods like Daka
>Fal and Thed and Malia. These shaman-cults do not allow
>rune-lords however, and this fits. In my campaign, I have
>allowed a shaman to become a priest to a local mminor god she
>discovered. In general, the relation of shamans to gods should
>be mutual distrust and/or indifference, with rare exceptions
>role-played out by you. NEVER allow them to become rune
>lords!
Note that some of the most powerful gods have shamans as priests. Kyger Litor and Aldrya have both rune lords and shamans, although one person cannot be both at the same time.
C442196@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (Newton Hughes) writes:
>1. The subject of Vinga brings to mind Babeestor Gor and Gorgorma -
> What is the defining difference between those 2 anyway? (The
> cult write-up of Babeestor Gor at the soda site seemed to
> endow her with attributes more appropriate to Gorgorma.)
Gorgorma is the defender of peasants and rape victims. Babeester Gor defends Earth temples, mothers, and children.
>2. Considering that Glorantha is flat, how far can someone see
> on the ocean? Since the ban on sea travel that Dormal's ritual
> negates takes effect when the vessel is out of sight of land,
> the obvious question is, how far is this? How far can someone
> standing on the top of Vent in Caladraland see?
>
According to Sandy Petersen, with a good enough Farsee you can see from the Rockwood Mountains to Pamaltela. Good question about the Ban destroying ships that are "out of sight" of land -- I don't think anyone else has ever caught this! That'll have to be reworded.
76360.1173@CompuServe.COM (Charlie Domino 76360,1173) writes:
> Regarding the riding and herding of their totemic beasts: This
>is a point on which I disagree with the published lore (I think it's
>from WF and Genertela). Supposedly, the nomadic tribes do NOT eat
>their own beast, they raise the herds for riding animals, milk, etc.
>Their staple of meat comes from hunting and the raiding of OTHER
>tribes herd animals. I can't see this, as it means a choice between a
>constant state of warfare between the tribes, or starvation. Granted,
>some food they eat is not meat, but grain, etc. exacted as tribute
>from locations like Horn Gate, plus roots, berries, etc. I *can* see
>them constantly raiding each other's herds for additional meat, or
>more heavily during times of hardship; I just can't see other tribes
>as their sole meat source. If that were the case, social controls
>would soon dissolve, and all out warfare to someone's extinction would
>quickly take place. Then population would start building back towards
>the limit the area could support and the cycle would repeat.
You're assuming that eating meat is necessary or positive. It isn't. Real animal-herding nomads, from the Mongols to the Ancient Hebrews (both my ancestors) lived mainly on milk and cheese from their animals together with gathered plant products, and only slaughtered animals on special occasions. Since the animals don't breed fast, it would be impossible to live on meat from one's herds exclusively.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:31:36 EEST