From: Joerg Baumgartner (joe@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Fri 05 Nov 1993 - 23:44:24 EET
Nick Brooke in X-RQ-ID: 2180
>> Esrolia is a unique society, woman-dominated and earth-based. I guess
>> when I think of their Babeester Gor warriors I think either Egyptian
>> or Aztec. Egyptian does sound too easy.
>Like Celtic/Saxon/Scandinavian sounds too easy for the Orlanthi? When you
>have a densely populated agricultural region that runs things the Old Way
>and is ruled by someone they call Pharoah, it seems a convenience (or, to
>put it another way, why should we make trouble for ourselves explaining
>Aztec Pharoahs?). Chuck in bits of the old Mesopotamian religion run by
>women as pre-Pharoanic stuff (linked to the Esrola cult and the Year Sons),
>and you're away.
When we cross earth cultures divided by 1500 years (Bronze Age Celts and Vikings), why not cross Celts and Egyptians, too? Take Megalith graves for the Nekropolis, men wearing kilts and presenting bare breasts or chest-formed cuirbouilli cuirasses, employing early hoplite unit tactics armed with shield and hand-axe (the weapons of Earth), spears (the logical weapon for everyone employing unit tactics) and twohanded spearaxes (halberds), rather low morale were it not for the fierce Babeester Gor sergeants marching _behind_ the units (like in German thirty and seven years warfare) but masses of these, chariots for the nobility (Celts as well as Egyptians), and you get into the picture. There are a lot of things that are not Egyptian about the Esrolites: the River Valley which is regularly flooded doesn't exist, they don't worship the sun except as one of the subordinated husbands, their astronomy would be lousy (why look into sky when the rythms of Earth can be felt beneath your bare feet?), and their buildings would not be sundried mud bricks which would be washed away by the regular rains. Things not Celtic about them are harder to find, sacrificial kingship, the mother goddess of earth and land, warrior women, all this fits well with certain aspects of celtic myth. But the Germanic aspects of Orlanthi society certainly don't apply to the Esrolites.
>NB: in this theory, it could be that "Pharoah" is Belintar's Esrolite
>title, and the trolls, Heortlings etc. have a different name for him. As
>his people are mostly Esrolites and the architecture of the City of Wonders
>was once said to be Esrolian, this doesn't cause me any real trouble --
>except for having to work out what the Heortlanders call him. King of
>Kings? God-King? Who knows?
I like this theory. My suggestions for the Heortlending name would be one out of Pendragon, Ard Ri, Bretwalda, High King, Holy King, or local adaptions. The Shadow Plateau trolls might call him the Only New One.
>_____________
>Sam Phillips:
>> RE: Do you join Storm Bull at first initiation?
>Chatting with Steve Thomas, and we thought maybe the simple solution was
>that initiation into the god of your culture, people and religion (opposed
>to Cult) was free on reaching maturity. This gives an advantage to people
>who decide to go the way their culture points them. Generate any Sartarite
>character, and he'll become an initiate of Orlanth for no POW cost. Ditto
>Trolls and Kyger Litor, Praxians and Waha, etc.
>> Only Adults can do adult things - buy fags, drink beer, go with
>> Ulerians, join the moonies, become a beserk...
> ^^^^^^^
>NO! That's proof of feeblemindedness, which strips you of your adult
>rights. You do know that initiation into the Seven Mothers requires you to
>accept a permanent casting of several Madness runespells?
>(Greydog propaganda, given an Irrippi Ontor Truth Rating of 0: so what?)
>The rest of your discussion is good fun and probably right.
>____________
>David Cheng:
>> Most of the countryside of the Left Arm Islands probably just lacks
>> overall spiritual guidance.
>I've heard it theorised (by Jon Quaife among others) that the God Forgot
>people are a population of Brithini peasants -- just the Dronars/Dromals/
>whatever they're called are left. So whichever of them becomes leader for
>the duration of an emergency naturally becomes an "Elder". This would help
>explain why they have no inclination to do anything. It does, however, fly
>in the face of the various Brithini and Weird Mechanical Magic sources...
David Dunham in X-RQ-ID: 2181
>Subject: Gloranthan scripts; divine magic; temples; scenarios
>>PRHarmaty: I don't feel Stormspeech should be written. The
>> oral tradition thing.
>>Ekron: Sartarite can be a script. I just don't know about
>> Stormspeech. Sartarite is cool by me
>But why couldn't you write Stormspeech in Sartarite letters? Mongolian was
>originally written in Uighur. Lots of languages use the Roman script.
Anyone read Andre Norton's "Witch World" novels? Words of power spoken create fiery (or whatever) letters or runes in the air. Each written text is a licensed descration of minor versions of these.
>I always figured Glorantha has a lot more languages than scripts (writing
>systems). Most were probably spread by world-wide empires such as the
>Jrusteli. Which raises the question: is there written Tradetalk? It would
>seem appropriate for contracts on the one hand, but if it's a pidgin-type
>language, I wouldn't expect a written form. (I think in my campaign I once
>described it as being very pictographic.)
I've wrestled with Nick about the uses of Trade Talk in Aeolian society, and we came to peace with something along this lines: If we allow an earth parallel, it would be basest vulgar latin, maybe one would be speaking in the trucations mediaeval monks used to make in their copies. The real written form would be old Seshnegi, parallel to high latin, which would be understood partly by someone able to read Seshnegi script. Lots of space for small print clauses in ACI, Ablativus Absolutus and similar constructions. With general literacy being poor, one would take the document to a Lhankor Mhy (or other truth cult) scribe anyway.
>Nick & Sandy:
>Which leads me to a comment Nick made about Gaumata's Vision being one of
>the better scenarios. Sorry Mike, but I don't agree -- it seems to be an
>example of a somewhat disturbing trend in RQ Renaissance scenarios which
>probably stems from Ken Rolston's excellent abilities as a GM.
>Recent scenarios are heavily geared towards a particular sort of
character.
[several example deleted]
>Some GMs (Ken is one) are masters of getting disparate characters
>motivated. I'm not. Some GMs can get their players to create new
>characters. My players really like playing continuing characters (how
>else can they ever gain their Rune?).
The old campaigners' lament.
>I'd like to see more stuff like the old Pavis/Big Rubble (anyone could
>venture in, and the Cradles scenario was for all non-Lunars). Or Griffin
>Mountain (suitable for natives or visitors).
The language problem you mentioned limit the visitors scenarios to dungeon-style roleplaying - a problem I've recently encountered with my traveller campaign. And getting visitors involved without getting down on them heavily can be the most tricky part of such scenarios.
>A good scenario must be one I can not only admire, but use. That means I
>have to be able to use it in my campaign. I happen to run in 1611 -- don't
>tie your scenario to a particular year (a regrettable flaw in RQ Adventures
>fanzine). Ideally, a scenario wouldn't even be tied to a locale (e.g.
>feuding Orlanthi clans could be anywhere), though this is obviously
>excusable in a scenario that's part of a background book. Most importantly,
>keep the scenario open to the widest range of PCs. Writing a scenario for
>Orlanthi may seem like a safe bet, but it's not (I've never run an
>Orlanthi, and the only one in my campaign is a Windchild).
Well, some of the most interesting scenarios for RQ I've seen were tied to certain political events. Since the official material covers 1617 (RQ2 Pavis, Borderlands) to 1621, I think there's nothing wrong with doing so. If one wants to play in a different time, one has to make up contemporary scenarios of their own.
A good way to get a scenario started is to tie ONE character into the setup, who draws in the rest. Of course the scenario mustn't become pointless with the death/incapacitation of this character. Tricky.
Anyone out there with the patent solve-it-all intro to a scenario?
>---------------------
Lewis Jardine in X-RQ-ID: 2183
>Subject: Storm Kahns in Sartar
>In response to Nick's question about big bullies in Sartar (BTW Good Luck).
>Storm Kahns could be called any of the following (take your pick):
> Sturm Fuhrer (Have I spelt that right Joerg et al.)
Would be Führer, Fuehrer, or F"uhrer in LATeXese. Sophisticated, civilized languages have umlaut characters, you know, only pidgin lingos like tradetalk or 7-bit ASCII English don't.
#
# #
### #
# #
#
>OK so the first one is a horribly mixed metaphor and in bad taste too.
Right. I don't like it. Really can't see the fascist connection there.
> Storm Leader
is the same, only consistent in language.
> Storm Front
Actually quite nice!
> Berserker
> (remember that only rune lords can regularly go berserk.)
Still the regular initiates are called that. And with limited
reusability of divine magic for initiates, they'd cheerfully live up to
that name.
> Anyway *I'll be bock* when you have had a chance to recover from my
>awful puns (and your accountantcy exams Nick).
We feel pun-ished. (Old nethacker speaking.)
Anyway, why not continue the tradition of pars-pro-toto Rune Lord names (Swords of Humakt, Talons of Cacodemon, Jaws of Krarsht...) and call them Horns of Urox/Storm Bull/the Bull?
>---------------------
Geoff Gunner in X-RQ-ID: 2185
>Subject: Religion and D.I.
>Joerg says something about worshippers being pragmatists, only praying for what
>they can get out of it. Really ? How do you explain that the majority of
>human cultures have religion deeply ingrained in them ? And that's without any
>definite evidence (ducks in case any fundamentalists are reading).
I only wanted to point at some Earth example of munchkinism. And these guys were _certain_ that there were a lot of God guys around, one of those they chose as their (temporary?) patron.
They'd usually only switch within one pantheon and its associates, if they wanted to keep their kings (who held their claim by divine ancestry, and who'd revere a loser ancestor?).
>Humans, and presumably all the other intelligent races in Glorantha, have a
>deep-seated need to beleive in a higher being/s. Why isn't important. The
>person will choose, if they have the luxury of choice, the deity that fits
>their mental attitude.
I wanted to point out that the individual in earthly parallels had the choice between deities. Also the mediaeval Catholic Saint worshipper had the choice of saints to ask a miracle (aka DI) from.
--
-- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:32:07 EEST