From: Sandy Petersen (sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com)
Date: Wed 04 May 1994 - 09:13:44 EEST
Alex says:
>Do any primates practice polyandry? Thought not.
Sure, (some) humans do. For that matter, I can't think of any primates off the top of my head that practice polygamy. Chimps and gorillas certainly don't keep harems. I don't have my books readily available, but I recall that when a female chimp or gorilla becomes fertile, all the males strive to mate with her. The boss sometimes tries to keep his not-friends from mating, but that's hardly polygamy.
I also can't think of any primates that practice mating for life except humans (I'm sure there are one or two -- though not among the great apes). The aberrant human sexual behavior of monogamy (i.e., aberrant for a primate) is doubtless the result of our having evolved as cooperative group predators.
>>To summarize my belief: polygamy is cultural, based on a male
>> dominance. Monogamy is biological. Polyandry is biological, unless
>> it's culturally based on a female dominance.
>If this were true, there would surely be many examples of higher
>animals exhibiting polyandry, and none that are polygynic. The
>reverse appears to be true.
I was speaking only of humans. Polygamy is obviously a feature of a number of animals, but the classic polygamous animals are pinnipeds and herd ungulates. Note that the animal practice of polygamy has almost NOTHING in common with the human one -- human polygamists mate for life. Seals and antelope only mate for the duration of one (1) season. Human polygamists are expected to tend their children. Mormon polygamists, for instance, were required to be financially able to build a separate house for each wife. The animal polygamist father contributes little or nothing to the upkeep of the young. Lions even murder their young (not their own -- the cubs from the previous father).
And there are cases of polyandrous-like animals -- cases in which a younger sibling will help tend his nieces and nephews. I wish I had my damn books to give you chapter and verse, but it's true for both some birds and some carnivores.
Anyway, I've wasted way too much time on this subject. I'd better try to apply it to Glorantha.
DWARFS: the whole dwarf society cares for its "young" (in whatever form these take). I don't think that the father and mother of a particular offspring stay together any longer than is absolutely necessary. This pattern may change somewhat for dwarfs that are no longer part of the Decamony. The dwarfs in Pavis, for instance, I think are likely to remain paired at least until any offspring is able to fend for his- or her-self.
TROLLS: females rule the roost. Males are rather like rogues, that wander more or less free, but return home to bring food and receive the benefits of that stable home. I think that trolls commonly practice two "marriage" styles. First, very powerful females may have multiple husbands. Second, sisters often live together, sharing husband(s). Really, the first type is just a subtype of the second. Third, many women probably live more or less alone, depending on occasional liasons to produce offspring, and depending on brothers, adult children, or cousins to provide what food they cannot get for themselves.
In troll towns, troll children are raised in creches with multiple guardians, but they also know who their mother is and spend plenty of time with her. Lone trolls bearing children must raise them by themselves. They probably go feral after a while.
ELVES: because I picture elves as slow to change their opinions and feelings, I think of them as having long-lasting relationships, monogamous for Brown and Green elves. For Yellow elves, mating is probably a religious ceremony (yellow elves are all male -- they mate with dryads to continue the species). Offspring are raised by the community, I suspect.
BROOS: no parental care.
>> Each combination of two lineages has one result that comes from
>>it, often modified by the exact sex of the parents and location
>>born into. For instance, if your Dad was Bluewood, and Mom was
>>Puffberry, you are also Puffberry. etc.
>Is there a general pattern to these rules, or are they just
>hap-hazard, being made up by the local Geneological Frustrated
>Symbolic Logician Elder when he's stoned?
More the latter. Though no doubt the Elders would point out that they're based on (irrational) Natural Principles. I bet the Six-Legged Empire tried to make up general rules and follow them.
>Do [dwarfs] possess the man rune?
I would say they do. If plants and mermen can, why not dwarfs? I submit that when Grandfather Mortal/Wild Man (whatever you want to call him) was being used as a mold for all sorts of critters, that not only Aldrya and Kyger Litor, but also Mostal used him to "cast" his Mostali in. The usefulness of Grandfather Mortal I believe to be in the fact that he wasn't associated with any elemental or power runes, so _everybody_ could use him. Maybe he was the first-ever Form Rune?
John Hughes, in the middle of a very impressive work on Levels of RolePlaying, mentions:
>GLORANTHA AS A LITERARY CREATION (LITERARY REALITY)
>This is where Glorantha began. Most rpgs don't have this level to
>deal with - even the companies that print game-derived 'novels'
>produce linear little adolescent fantasies where you can usually
>tell when the dice are being rolled. The major exception is Middle
>Earth, and like Glorantha it pre-existed the game.
Although it's no longer a "major" exception, I feel inexplicably compelled to add that the world of Tekumel is (IMO) the only other commercial gaming world worth playing in (i.e., as opposed to making up your own), and it, too, existed before the game.
>I would see a clan trickster's main role as being part of major
>pantheon ceremonies, almost a cult 'hero' (pet? valuable captive?)
>of the ruling deity rather than a separate cult. An Eurmali on a
>leash during Orlanth temple ceremonies?
I seem to recall that during the holiest most solemn Navajo ceremonies, guys in clown suits would make rude noises, throw things at the participants, and generally make Official Nuisances of themselves. No doubt the periodic belches, drunken songs, and hiccups from the chained Trickster serve a similar function for the Orlanthi.
Lewis claims:
>Even now, [the Blue Vadeli's] spirit is fighting its way back to the
>world to be >reborn so that the Vadeli can once more unite to
>finally crush the >EVIL AMMORAL Brithini.
>a) The Blue Vadeli will be reborn to another Vadeli so that it can
>be taught how to be a Vadeli and what its caste restrictions are.
You'll never hear me arguing about the evil nature of the Brithini. However, your suggestion here has caused me to take off on a wild tangent. What if the Blue Vadeli was NOT reborn to a Vadeli, but to someone else. What a great campaign idea! The Vadeli, warned of the kid's birth by Portents in the Heavens, are after the child, so they can raise it as their King. The Brithini, warned by the same portents, are after the child, so they can ritually destroy it. The PCs are caught in the middle. Now, how can I adapt this to my campaign? My players spend most of their time in Seshnela, so both Vadeli and Brithini are readily available. Hmmm.
Paul R. sez:
>I do think that adult Irondwarfs will have iron skeletons, etc.,
>even if these are installed later as you say. Perhaps when they
>reach full size their bones are replaced? I think the old Mostali
>certainly had metal skeletons of the appropriate type.
I seem to recall a case of a dwarf (the founder of Octamonism) whose skeleton turned into something unusual as a result of his "piety." I agree that the old Mostali had metal skeletons (or stone).
>>I believe that the dwarf castes are NOT hereditary. Instead,
>>the Gold Dwarfs do career testing, and assign the young dwarf into
>>that caste to which he or she is best suited.
>This makes sense IF the reproduction process has become tainted with
>Disorder and produces essentially uncontrolled offspring, with
>randomly distributed talents.
I imagine the dwarfs explain it otherwise -- as the result of all dwarfs being interchangable when first produced, so children simply should be assigned to whatever caste needs new recruits at the moment. Of course, this doesn't explain why different children might or might not have proclivities for a particular caste.
>[ducks] don't need teeth to grin. Bills are funny just
>as they are, anyway.
Aw c'mon. You _know_ that Daffy, Donald, and Howard have toothy grins. Why not Yurek Chodak's Storm Duck (mebbe the only duck in Glorantha with a damage bonus, and a good Uroxi)? You take on yourself so many handicaps with a duck character, at least let us have teeth.
Bryan says re: Dwarfs
>every Dwarf was given one of two "manufacturing functions". The
>Vesselers each have a small copy of the Vessel of Clay in their
>bodies. The Stirrers have a device that works that Vessel until a
>new Dwarf is made. That's right, Dwarven "sex" and "gestation" are
>the same thing. No wonder Dwarves don't like it too much.
Wow. I like this idea so much it hurts. *snort* Wait'll I tell my dwarf PCs.
Alex responds in horror to my barefaced claim that Mastakos is important in Pelora:
Oops, sorry. I meant Lokarnos, not Mastakos. Bad, bad Sandy.
>That's quite a small number of Yelmites (5-20% in Dara Happa
>cities): you basically think everyone worshipping Yelm is "noble",
>ruling or not, then?
Firstly, my numbers are open to argument. They're my gut feeling, but I'm perfectly willing to alter them upon being presented with good evidence otherwise.
Second, yea, I think that the Yelm worshipers are "noble", at least in Dara Happa and Peloria.
Third, this "nobility" may not be too impressive. With up to 20% of the population being "noble", there are doubtless thousands of impoverished slum-dwelling Yelm-worshipers, proud of their heritage and right to worship Yelm, but basically ordinary peasants. Like the family of "_Tess of the D'Urbervilles_" or in "Persuasion", by Jane Austen. Po' folks, but stuck-up. Even with a 5% Yelm population, that's way too many for them to ALL be "real" property-holding nobles, though certainly ALL the nobles could be Yelm worshipers (and probably were, before the Lunar Empire).
>Your numbers imply lots of "other" [Pelorian] worshippers: what are
>the rest, Lunar worshippers?
Yep. I feel that the Lunar Way has made significant inroads on the traditional Dara Happan religions, especially in the case of Yelm, who is a fairly rigorous cult to worship. I'm positive that lots of Yelm-nobles find their children abandoning the old ways for the new. And of course, once your kids are no longer Yelm, that means your grandkids can't be (since your father must be Yelm for you to qualify), so the line stops there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:08 EEST