From: Sandy Petersen (sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com)
Date: Thu 14 Apr 1994 - 14:05:14 EEST
Guy Robinson responds to my defence of the corrupt and sinister
Western culture.
>I am ... claiming that the lifestyle of the Western Wizard is
>dangerous because of the "corrupt" nature of that society,
This is a defensible position. My point was that if life is SO dangerous for a wizard that he doesn't dare spend MPs on beneficent magic, then a theistic priest living in the same territory would be unlikely to worship a beneficent god. Instead, he would be a Storm Khan or some other such parasite ;)
>Due to the social and non-magical ecologicial forces at work I am
>not convinced that in a more violent world the war Cults would
>soak up most of the initiates.
Why wouldn't the same apply to the Westerners? If reducing the Bless Crops means famine for theists, reducing the benign sorcery would do the same for Malkioni. I think that exactly the same economic forces apply to both societies, though the way they are responded to may be different.
>I think the there are softer options than trying to convert from
>Zorak Zoran to Flamal, although this is a very impressive extreme
>I must admit. I would suggest that people would more tend to
>subscribe to Orlanth in times of war with a mind to convert to
>member of his pantheon when the conflict is over.
Nonetheless, it's clear that wizards present a more flexible option than a theistic pantheon, even among the Lunars, in which switching from cult to cult is probably more common than anywhere else in Glorantha (not only are the cults close friends, but none of them have spirits of retribution!).
In my way of thinking, the advantage the wizards present over the theists is short-term ability to react to changing circumstances. They are flexible generalists. On the other hand, the theists generally have MUCH better magic applying to their own specialties. That is THEIR advantage. To some extent, it's six of one, half-dozen of the other.
>Points of POW invested in self-protection do not yield this kind of
>tribute from society so they are discouraged, again by social means.
Once more you make a point that applies equally to theists and to wizards. Are not wizards vulnerable to social pressure as much as any priest?
>I could argue that society bound together by social interactions can
>be far more flexible than one which allots people their role through
>a distant, or inflexible, authority.
Who's arguing? I don't think the Westerners have any fewer "social interactions" than the Theyalans. Just because their society has more hierarchal levels (because their nations are bigger) doesn't mean they're all little robot slaves to High King Sanford the Unwieldy. It just means that in addition to the village headman, the vicar, the knight, and the local nobleman, you must also consider the needs of your nobleman's master, who lives fifty miles off. On the other hand, you don't have to worry about the enemy tribe next door -- most of your conflicts are intramural. Feuds and stuff, instead of mini-wars, like the Orlanthi often fight.
>I know that as Cult can grow in power from an inauspicious start of
>an alledged encounter with a powerfull spirit by a soltairy shaman
>therefore it also follows that a cult can also be fabricated.The
>point that the God Learners choose cults shows that this approach
>must have advantages over sorcery.
I think there's no doubt that imaginary cults can be created with greater facility among theists than new Invisible God heresies can be formed. Though imaginary Saints are a possibility.
I think that it is possible to worship any god in a "false" spiritist manner, and that this has been done ever since the Dawn. I have no doubt that Kyger Litor has oft been tapped by human shamans as Mother of Dark or something, and they've worshiped her via the Horned Man method. I think that this is how Waha, Eiritha, and Storm Bull were worshiped by the Praxians before the PHP showed them a more efficient technique. Some deities may not have any potential for greater worship than mere spirit-cult status. Certain Waha did, as has been proven by the development of a fairly substantial cult from an inauspicious beginning. Arachne Solara only knows how many other gods languish in obscurity that could be active and vital religions, solving big problems.
>If the Cult strengthens the God it is focused on then I suspect that
>the Malikoni religion strengthens only the ... Sorcerer.
This point applies with even more force to the Kralori religion, which directly channels POW and MPs to the Exarchs and through them to the Emperor. On the other hand, they're open and aboveboard about it, so I guess it's not a scam. Except inasmuch as the individual Kralori is convinced that doing this benefits him in some way.
>Priests are commonly invested only after a rigourous, magic-assisted
>grooming process while in some Western cultures you can be born a
>Wizard.
Not exactly -- you're born into the Wizard caste, but you still have to meet certain qualifications to become an Adept or whatever. I'm sure the westerners have "special" jobs open to talentless wizardling caste members. Maybe they work in the back room or something.
>After some retraining a rebel core of Wizards could attempt to
>destabilise a Sorcerous society
Yup. So could a rebel core of Knights. And let's not forget Zzabur's two attempts to appropriate the duties (and thus destroy) other castes of his own (Brithini) culture.
Jeff Johnson mentions:
>The more pertinent factoid is that such female hyenas have huge
>clitorises that cannot be distinguished except at very close range
>from penises.
I would like to continue some comments on this thread. Not only is what Jeff says true, but the female hyena clitorises are erectile(!) and often much bigger than the males (I'm talking long red tubes that can hang down to the ground when relaxed).
However, I don't think the broos simply have masculinized females. For one thing, it's well known that the broos generally breed with non-broos. This fact would make enormous differences in their society and evolution. Think how much effort is spent by humans, wild horses, seals, sea-birds etc. on mate selection, rival-suitor-combat, harem-guarding, and similar sexual activities. There are animals who spend their entire adult lives devoted to this in preference to eating. All this is suddenly discarded by broos, with the possible exception of rivalry over a particularly desirable female (though I suspect in such cases they engage in a group rape). I'm sure that the broos replace these activities with others of their own -- for instance, instead of traditional mate selection, they engage in a predatory activity, hunting down the hapless "mates".
No wonder these monsters are impossible for humans really to understand.
Martin says:
>I see the Paps residents as descended from common ancestors with the
>Oasis people
I think that the Paps population was originally Oasis folk, but that that primal stock has been largely diluted. I don't think Eiritha was one of the original Oasis deities, for instance, though the Good Shepherd undoubtedly was. Because the Beast Rider priestesses (and some priests) kept settling down there, and more tribes visited the Paps and stayed longer than anywhere else, I suspect the original trace of Oasis blood has been almost entirely filtered out, or else is now spread throughout all the clans. I also think that the Oasis folks at the Paps, whatever their current status, showed more spirit and spunk than at the other oases, because of the greater magical significance of the Paps and the nearness of the gods. Even at the start, when the Paps folk were still racially separable from the Beast Riders, I suspect the Beast Riders didn't think of them in the same way as they do the Oasis Folk.
Ed Wallman states:
>In general, I find the western civilizations to be much more
>difficult to use for a game setting than good old barbarian
>settings.
I find this to be a very interesting comment, especially since AD&D(TM), Pendragon, and most trash fantasy books almost exclusively use this type of setting. Not that I disagree with Ed's comment, but look at Safelster -- it's the classic Fantasy Setting, right out of de Camp or Vance. You have a whole buncha little personalized squabbling duchies and principalities. The whole has sorcerers, priests, heresies, and cults. On one side are the savage and grisly Barbarians (the Orlanthi, of course). On the other is the ruthless, monolithic, and encroaching Empire (Tanisor).
It seems to me that nothing would be easier than putting a campaign right there. Except of course for the common Gloranthan curse that many GMs fear to make up stuff in the world for fear of later contradiction. *sigh*
>We had two Malkioni soldiers playing once and no one could tell them
>apart
As you say, a failure in roleplaying. I'd like to point out that anyone who can tell two different Orlanthi warriors apart should be able to make two different Malkioni soldiers without much trouble. Think Pendragon -- how similar are Gawaine, Lancelot, Agravaine, Dinadan, and Sir Bruce Sans Pitie?
>In earth's middle ages Europe wealthy merchants would purchase
>nobility and priesthoods. Does this happen in Glorantha's west?
I can't imagine it doesn't. Hmm. Confusing double negative there. Let's rephrase that. Of course!
>does a growing wealthy middle class threaten the nobility in
>Glorantha?
Why not? A shortage of wizards, or excess of soldiers, or roving bands of freebooters can all cause problems in Malkioni lands. A noble can be just as impoverished in Loskalm as in Burgundy. If the crafters' guilds gain in money and wealth, the cities can become just as independent of the old-timey nobles as they did in Europe. Or you could have organizations formed like the Hanseatic League. Or the Teutonic Knights. I'm sure similar types of groups form in every Western land.
>In most of Glorantha conflicts between good and evil mostly are
>conflicts between X worshippers and Y worshippers... If everyone in
>the land worships the same thing, then good and evil reduces down to
>believers and unbelievers.
Hmm. Apparently we run RuneQuest quite differently. In my own campaigns, the conflicts between good and evil mostly are conflicts between good guys and evil guys, both of whom may be worshiping the same god. In Prax, for instance, everyone worships Waha, but the Bison guys are still your enemies, because you're a Sable Rider. When I've run in Dragon Pass, you get Lunar-sympathizing Orlanthi vs. the Lunar-hating Orlanthi. Plus the fact that the Invisible God cult is less monolithic than, say, Orlanth, so other guys worshiping it can be quite bad (remember, there's no Spirits of Retribution to whip you into shape) -- we get tons of Evil Knights, Wicked Wizards, Tyrant Kings, etc. to deal with if you want 'em.
In addition, if you absolutely insist on having X and Y worshipers to distinguish between white and black hats, you get keen Heresies to add to a list of Bad Guys among the Westerners. And the heretics can be rotten to the core, like my own portrayal of the Galvosti and Borists (whom I run as baddies -- the chaos-fostering Galvosti and zealot witch-hunting Borists). And let's not forget the occasional conscienceless Brithini or Vadeli. Plus you have the Usual Suspects to use as baddies -- trolls, dwarfs, broos, bandits, dragonewts, etc. They're as nasty to the Malkioni as anyone. You also get the scary Hsunchen and were-things up in the hinterlands.
>Since there's no Inhuman King in Ormsland (in Ralios), does this
>mean that Ormsland dragonewts don't resurrect?
In my campaign, the Ormsland dragonewt tribes boast very minor versions of the Inhuman King (but permit some degree ofresurrection). Some of the more barbaric tribes do not, in fact resurrect, except after ritual suicides for the purpose of progression; these held deep within the dragonewt nest. Some tribes don't even progress past the third level of dragonewt-dom. I think that these degenerate groups mostly turn into dinosaurs before they get too far along the advancement chart. I'm not sure where these dragon spawn come from. Maybe recent hatchings, like after the Dragonkill War. So far as I know, there are only two true Inhuman Kings: one in Dragon Pass and one in Kralorela. Kralorela also has some less-advanced groups that have the same sort of minor inhuman kings as in Ormsland.
David "we love Mastakos" Dunham sez:
>He owns the Motion rune, that's why he's "Major. Remember that if
>Mastakos only has shrines, there can't be more >spells.
Mastakos, to me, is a prime candidate for possible cult development (like was done to Waha and Storm Bull). I suspect that if a hundred thousand folks got together and began worshiping Mastakos on a regular basis, the cult would rapidly develop, sprouting previously-unguessed associates, subcults, new spells, etc. Maybe even Rune Lords and such.
Gary Games opines:
>If a [Humakt] candidate showed aptitude but lacked skill, they would
>be taken on as lay members and given the opportunity to develop
>their sword fighting prowess.
>The point I am trying to make is I don't think it would be difficult
>to join a cult within one's own community provided the candidate is
>acceptable to the cult.
I strenuously agree. The only reason that a cult should have difficult tests to pass to become initiate/runemaster/whatever is so that the player will have a feeling of accomplishment when he finally qualifies. If joining a cult is frustrating rather than an honor, the process should be simplified for that character. I know the guy running a troll in my campaign looks forward to the day when his Mace skill finally achieves that lofty magic number of 75%, so he can become a full initiate of Zorak Zoran. He'll feel like he's really made something of himself. On the other hand, if everyone else in the game got into Orlanth easily, and Bad-Dice-Rolling Jim can't make a Jump to save his soul, a sponsor or similar fudging device should probably be applied so that he isn't irked, rather than being honored, by the initiation requirements.
>Can a broo parasitize itself?
I'm not sure I want to think about this. Maybe, if their anatomy was enough chaotically screwed up. Wow, then you could invite a broo to do something anatomically impossible, and it COULD!
Gary also points out that there must be female broos because the darn things are chaotic. I think this is entirely probable. But it doesn't change the fact that the norm is still male.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:33:40 EEST