From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Date: Sat 11 Jun 1994 - 14:09:57 EEST
Sandy:
> Alex F. opines:
> >Since Hrestoli caste isn't fixed by birth, it must be defined by
> >one's occupation, social standing, and stuff. In fact, I'd not be
> >in the least surprised if Loskalmi society were even more hierarchic
> >than Seshnelan, since it has a meritocratic "justification".
> Yeah, that's what I said. But "more hierarchic" doesn't
> necessarily mean overtly evil.
Eh wot? You seemed to be making quite a differebt argument, that caste was a sort of "existentialist" thing. I am a Talar because, well, I'm a Talar. But anyway, I certainly didn't espouse the "hierarchy is evil" line.
> Of course not, at least not without the prior approval of the
> Lord, and proof that the new owner will be able to farm it in the
> style to which the Lord has become accustomed. I'm sure that a Lord
> can sell his ruling rights to a swatch of land though. In this way,
> each piece of land actually is "owned" twice -- once by the peasant
> himself, and once by the Lord.
The Lord having more rights to it than the peasant, in fact. Effectively, the guys you're describing sound like tenant farmers with some legal or customary protection. (Leasehold and freehold being the "two ownerships" you mention, I suppose.)
> Alex, the entire thrust of your reasoning on this subject seems aimed
> at demonstrating that the Loskalmi are _able_ to be villainous.
If I have an Entire Thrust, and I somewhat doubt it, it's that the main reason for supposing a Good Loskalm is wanting one, not that it shows irrefutable signs of being Utterly Wonderful.
> >Everyone seems to have it in for Jonatela these days, but I don't
> >see that much evidence that it's all that stratified or repressive.
> Cut me some slack, Alex. The only printed information on
> Jonatela is from the Genertela book, and I quote: "The ruling class
> has an iron grip upon the populace. No guild councils protest these
> lords' taxes, and when peasants revolt they are routinely
> slaughtered. Great castles are build spanning the walls of most
> cities: signs of terrible oppression."
> Now, tell me again your own Jonatela theory.
Eh, Orlanthi propaganda? ;-) (Okay, so managed to miss the only actually relevant section: kill me now.) Note that I don't renounce the mention of Jonatela in my Riverjoin thingy, since it tacitly agrees with the above picture, from "the other side".
> >I've no particular axe to grind about which Malkioni are really "bad
> >guys", and which are goodies, or if they're all one of the other,
> >but I question the hidden assumption here that we should decide this
> >all in advance
> What a very strange thing to say, Alex. What could possibly
> be wrong with deciding ahead of time which cultures are going to be
> "generally benign" or not?
Benign to whom? Is Dara Happa "benign", generally or otherwise? Lest Joerg and yourself come to the Contest of Weapons again, let's just note that these things are open to different views. My real gripe against this method is that if one determines who're the Good Guys before knowing much about them, it leads to the danger of having whatever otherwise sensible decisions one might make about them overly conditioned by their need to be excessively nicey-nicey. There are certainly elements of this in the Hrestoli vs. Rokari discussions that spring out here, for instance. Mind you, I suspect they're not too far wrong.
Admittedly, there's a good excuse for it in this case: someone asked, presumably having a need for such in his campaign, but to go decide on an Official Morality Level map of Glorantha would be going a bit far.
> Alex, on haloes, sez:
> >it seems likely for Carmanian and Loskalmi saints, at least.
> Carmanian, I agree, because of the solar influence. Why
> Loskalmi?
Because they are near enough to have got the idea from Carmania (the two have been practically adjacent in the past, the _last_ time Loskalm annexed most of Fronela...), are iconophiles, and crypto-henotheists. (Well, they worship Visible Saints, at least.)
> >Is a farmer husband "worthy" to have a noble
> >wife, if class corresponds to social worth?
> Consider: if a farmer weds a farmer, then rises to knightly
> rank, while her husband stays a farmer, is the wedding dissolved? I
> say no, because nobody would stand for it.
I agree, but I don't think the alternative scenario is likely other. This was a reductio ad absurdum argument against meritocratic females castes, not a call for Quickie Laskalmi Divorce...
> I'm not convinced that female classes are interpreted just
> the same as men ones. Suggestions are invited for what the alternate
> female class-justifications would be for. I suspect that the
> qualifications for being a Lord are the same as for a man, because
> women are manifestly as good at magic as any man, so they can be
> expected to master the Wizard class just fine. What about Knight?
The reason I suggested the classes being interpreted the same way was, of course, precisely because those Non Equal Oppurtinity Employers the Westerners would likely use this as a means of "blocking" female advancement. "Can't swing a 15lb Greatsword, dearie? No promotion to Wizard for _you_." I'd be surprised if the West had female clerics or rulers; it took the Church of England several centuries to manage the former.
> >>the [Jonating] "Farmer" castelings are actually Ernalda worshipers,
> >> who have nothing to do with the Invisible God.
> >What are all these "Farmer, civilised"s doing in the G:G 3 book,
> >den?
> Why can't an Ernalda worshiper be civilized? They are in
> Esrolia, y'know.
True. But what's with 25% sorcery users in _every_ occupation? (Well, apart from Sorceror and Priest, natch.)
> > If a [Rokari] woman wanted to marry into a higher caste, things
> >would get even uglier, I bet. (I wonder if the general rule would
> >be "both assume lower class", or "both assume husband's class".
> >Some Rokari regions may outlaw intermarriage outright. Or consider
> >it a "sin" against caste law.
> Even if intermarriage is outlawed or a sin, it will still
> happen, and I bet it's not annulled. Just do your penance, or pay
> your fine or whatever.
I'm not so convinced it will happen this readily; after all, a Wizard has to assent to marry them, and if he doesn't recognise the upper class members of his own flock, he's been using Tap INT on himself for fun. (On the other hand, if the prospective hubby is a Talar...) I can certainly envisage intermarriage between non-adjacent castes being annulled, if not more drastically terminated.
> I submit that if women are considered to
> be a "single" class, though notionally subdivided according to the
> father's class, then I suggest that the rule is "both assume
> husband's class". After all, technically the wife has no class of her
> own.
Indeed, the above question assumed women belonged to the four "normal" classes.
> But I'm still not convinced that the Rokari women have but a
Arguments that it's a moot point, as it essentially is with the Brithini?
> single class. Arguments one way or the other?
> Anyway, after these labors, we're sitting there stuck with
> the Movement/Change Rune. Who is that Rune's origin? I tried
> suggesting that Orlanth was the Origin, but I couldn't convince
> myself. So in the end Greg came up with Mastakos. If he seems to be a
> "minor" "not-real" god, mea culpa. And Grega culpa, too.
Hrmph. Despite this entertainly "RQ-designer-level" explanation, I still maintain: being a Source/"Greater" God is a highly overrated occupation. I don't think it fundamentally _means_ anything, beyond being an interesting exercise for bored God Learners. And aren't they all?
Alex.
From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Mon, 13 Jun 1994, part 2
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:03 EEST