davecake

Yes. RQG treats short swords as things used only by notably small or weaker peoples. While in the actual Bronze Age and Iron Age, they were much more common.

True, but the longest still seem to be a lot shorter than the Gloranthan version. The Macedonian kopis was about half the length.

I’ve just written up, for a JC book, the kampilan - a sword that gets used mostly two handed, but could be used one handed by a strong wielder. It’s not a European bastard sword at all - it’s only single edged, and the kampilan is from the Phillipines - but it’s longer than a broadsword, but not a greatsword or a rhomphaia. It seems natural that it’s stats are similar to a bastard sword from earlier RQ editions to me. And I wrote it up for purely Gloranthan reasons - it’s the weapon of the Haragalan elite, according to the guide. Not all of Glorantha is based on the Bronze Age in Europe and the Middle East. I tend not to pay a lot of attention to arguments about weapons based metallurgy or smithing technology - Gloranthan bronze isn’t earthly bronze, some smithing techniques learnt from Mostali could be more advanced than the terrestrial Bronze Age, and always, of course, magic can be a factor. And while Bronze Age is the term used, even the core cultures are not really - in Greek history that term gets used for cultures up to 1200 BCE or so, but we have things like the Sun Dome Phalangites using pikes/sarissa as phalangites that didn’t happen until after 400 BCE, for example. And which Bronze Age? Crossbows came into use centuries earlier in China, for example. The main point is pre-medieval, but even that not consistent, the Mostali being the most glaring example, but there are many others. Gloranthan arms and technology generally did not develop consistently along any terrestrial timeline, and that’s just fine, but trys to keep to a pre-medieval feel. And the iron vs bronze comparison is very different in Glorantha, as the various factors behind why one is in wider use than the other are very different. But cultural ones are important. There are a whole range of different reasons why Gloranthans will have cultural preferences for different weapons, some of which will match up with terrestrial cultures, some of which will not. Gloranthans have magical and religious factors, and also may be sometimes concerned with fighting various non-human opponents. And cultural preferences are a big deal, and can cause some preferences that are anachronistic to make sense. Cross-bladed hilts are a late medieval thing, but I can accept that Humakti do it because it’s important for swords to obviously look like a Death Rune. I’m happy if the official word is that bastard swords are not a common cultural weapon in any Dragon Pass or adjacent culture. Maybe they have the ability to make them if someone really wanted to, maybe not, but there are presumably good reasons that make sense to them why they don’t. Maybe some other cultures use them for some reason, maybe not, but that can be handled when those cultures get added to the game materials. maybe one might be encountered of dwarf manufacture or something. They wouldn’t be just a longer version of the standard Orlanthi leaf shaped blade, and so Orlanthi sword smiths would find their manufacture challenging and odd. There are several other odd things about the weapon options in RQG, even if you take it as being based on Bronze Age to classical Mediterranean cultures. Why is the Gloranthan kopis a lot bigger than a terrestrial kopis? Why are short swords so mediocre and unpopular (literally only the pygmy Impala riders have them as a cultural weapon, while broadsword is common), when they were a very standard weapons in the Bronze Age (and after, with the gladius)? Why is the standard 2+ meter doru spear of Ancient Greece, surely the single most significant weapon in the period RQG emulates, the weapon of Homeric epics etc, missing from the RQG weapon lists (short spears are 1.5m, long spears 3m), leaving a ‘gap’ that makes most hoplites etc inferior to sword armed troops when they should not be? or if those are considered long spears (as Martin does in Armies and Enemies) why can’t they be used one handed? All these could have explanations that could explain them, sometimes even fairly obvious ones (the Gloranthan idea of a kopis that has been made as large as a broadsword is obviously rooted in Lunar vs Storm religious factors), but they aren’t all obvious, and some baffle me (my house rules include a military doru like spear (a medium spear in RQG terminology), and they can be thrown and are the primary weapon of many Lunar soldiers). I hope some of this will be addressed in the future.

All depends what you mean by wrong, really. Not fulfilling its ostensible purpose seems a fair reading, by that doesn't imply it is unexpected, or some sort of calamity.

If the money is given to sustain the temple, and the temple is not being sustained, then it’s gone wrong. if the money is not being given for any specific purpose, then it being collected in the first place would seem to be a problem.

Or he chose to accept those consequences, despite being capable of avoiding them if he wished. He may have had a good reason to do so.

The 90% income reflects mostly that the money earned by the priest is money earned while they are supposed to be working full time for the temple, and so is the temples - but it doesn’t mean the priest lives in poverty, because it can be used for the support of the priest. I sounds like an accounting nightmare, but only to modern players who treat it like a tax return, but is as simple as you want it to be - mostly, the priests are those who decide what that 90% (and any other temple income) is used for, and of course it can be used to support the priests in many ways. Just generally not inherited or otherwise treated as the priests personal property if they aren’t using it, and of course priests that are obviously using it for personal luxury will have to answer to the cult. And if you want it to be, it can be an issue with the temple giving it to others. Just assume that all the ways this arrangement can go wrong (corruption, cronyism, nepotism, politicization, factionalism, etc) have mechanisms in place to try to prevent them (such as spirits of reprisal, the Ban spell, Divination, etc), and those mechanisms can fail if you want it to be a part of your story, or it can all work fine and your characters can simply assume as a priest/Lord that money is now simple because they simply have most of what they want. You can handle it in your game as a simple thing if you want it to be, or a complex thing if you want it to be. Just don’t let players ignore it or treat it as a purely accounting obligation. Which means that at the same time the players start having to hand over that 90% tithe to the temple, they also can take steps into becoming the leaders who determine what the temple does with it, if that is the direction you want your game to go in. For example, in one of my games the PCs have just completed the Cradle scenario, and now have an absurd amount of wealth, but several are rune lords or priests of Orlanth who must give 90% of it to the temple. Does that mean the money just disappears from the game? No, it means they have given it to a temple, and their high priest invites the local lords and priests, including the PCs, to help decide what to do with. If they say “Let’s spend it a lake of Lunar wine we can swim about in” or “I want a gold dressing gown” that will get vetoed, but if they say “let’s buy better arms and armour for our rebel war band” or “the temple should buy somewhere for us to hide out in now we are wanted by the empire” or even “the temple should buy some truestone from the Storm Bulls at the Block so we can have a way to back up heroquesting types like us with good magic when on difficult missions”, then those ideas will get listened to (though other rune priests and lords may have alternative ideas). Another PC is a Sword of Humakt. He does not want to give it to the Pavis temple - and as a Sword himself, essentially wielding full cult authority, the god isn’t going to bother him about it as long as he uses it for appropriate purposes (like probably outfitting a small mercenary unit, or building a temple, but Humakt probably wouldn’t be upset if he spent it all on iron plate armour to wear). But he might need to cope with challenges to duels, maybe threats of Ban spells, and challenges to his reputation, if he doesn’t hand it over to the Pavis temple, as temple politics for the Humakt cult is often not subtle. Another PC is a Lhankor Mhy Sage probably is obliged to hand it over to the temple, and has little control over what they do with it - but will rise greatly in prestige within the temple, and may have some ability to control which temple or faction within the temple has most access to it, so is likely to be drawn into (notoriously byzantine) temple politics. Make it a simple way of just removing wealth as both a reward, and a need, from your PCs and refocusing them on religion and their relationship with the temple if you want. Or take it as an opportunity to draw your PCs into the role of becoming the people who are becoming important members of society, and the leaders of the organisations that run the world. Either is better than just treating it like doing your taxes!

There is the divine office, and the normal cult expectations of what is given to, and expected of, the office and can be supported. They are of course linked and hard to separate, and many generalisations fail as regard to particular cults, and can change in particular circumstances. Just keep in mind the two offices as separate, one a magical relationship with the god, and one a mundane question of support and responsibilities, even though at many times they are confused or entwined or overlap, and it will all be relatively easy to work out. In general, the difference between a priest and a god-talker is a matter of the expectations of the cult only. To the god, they are essentially the same. But a priest is associated with a large temple with the resources to support them full time, and usually expects them to serve the cult full time (though with generous 10% leave provisions) in return. A god-talker is a priest associated with a temple that does not have the resources to support them, often because it is a small shrine, or sometimes because the have more people who qualify to priests than they can support. An associate priest is simply someone who qualifies to be a priest of a closely associated cult, to the extent the cults share many ritual responsibilities and don’t keep the two cults fully separate in terms of tracking responsibilities of both time and finances. It’s not practical to be a full priest in two cults, but in the same way it is not practical to have two full time jobs. But if you are qualified for both, you could have two part time jobs, or be seconded by your main employer to fill in as needed for an associated one - but you still need to worry about conflict of interest. If the two cults aren’t clearly friendly or associated (including cases where it seems they should be mythically, but one is new), there will be lots of tensions and potential conflicts that the character will have to manage, which again is as much story as you want it to be. And there will be lots of special cases, because not all cults work on that scheme all the time. Issaries has two separate schemes for two different types of priest. For one, they keep most of their income, but devote time to the cult, mostly to keep the sacred markets in which their businesses operate, making them profit) maintained and thriving. For the other, they retain control over their time, but support the cult with 50% of their income. For both, Issaries regards trading and other commercial activities as something the cult encourages, not controls. Orlanth Rex only exists as a subcult, and makes demands of its members beyond that of their position separate to that required of their position (as than, or chief, or king), but a chief or thane leads some ceremonies like a priest. Barntar has only god-talkers, and makes few demands on the time of those. A Foundchild great hunter has no explicit demands on their time or income as a percentage, but obligations on them (including supplying a prey animal per week, attending the Great Hunt) that are mostly best satisfied by spending their time hunting. And so on. Sometime they will explicitly conflict with other responsibilities, sometimes not.

This is an actual FAQ, I’ve answered it at least half a dozen times myself. The answer is you probably want both, there is a small amount of overlap (essentially the elder races section of the Sourcebook), and the Sourcebook is probably the one you should get first, and it will definitely give you a lot of useful background for campaigns set in the default Dragon Pass setting especially. Also the Sourcebook has a lot of useful information about the gods and summarizing mythology all in one place. The Guide is less essential for most, as it spends a lot of its time detailing the entire world, which may be less useful for the majority of games that are set in Dragon Pass or Prax. But it does have a lot of information that will be useful for any game (such as information about the Sky), and a lot of big picture information about the world. As Nick says, definitely recommended for those wanting to write in Glorantha, and essential for anyone who wants to do almost anything outside Dragon Pass and Prax currently. Summary, if you are asking the question, you should probably get the Sourcebook first, but probably plan on getting the Guide as well.

When you bring something back from a heroquest, only rarely are you literally bringing something physical back from the other side, normally you are taking an object, maybe even an already magical one, with you, and when you come back it has now become magically a version of, a physical presence of, that mythic object. (note: not a copy of. The objects wielded by gods are not simple physical objects, any more than gods are just magically powerful physical beings). The more powerful and appropriate an item is, and the more effective the HeroQuest, the more effectively it transmits/represents the mythic power so perhaps Arkat starts with a sword, a mighty sword - perhaps even that astonishing thing, an adamantine sword. Or perhaps it is just a mighty sword at first (an anchanted iron sword of master workmanship, say) and some later quest it transforms to adamantine. Or perhaps he wins it on an early heroquest, a Brithini horal quest, showing that he has the right to wield the sword given to him by Humakt (the Brithini would not describe it in quite those terms, or encourage their Horali to do such quests, but it fits their myths). Later, he heroquests and is able to prove that it’s not just an amazing sword, it is Humakts sword. And that he is Humakt. Perhaps he must later quest to show that he, as Zorak Zoran the troll, is able to wield it, ultimately taking it from his earlier self. But later, it becomes necessary, for mythic and mystic reasons, to rewind that identity. He must do something unjust, or otherwise deny his divine identity. The sword is no longer the true sword. (there is probably an intervening quest in which he repeats the Hrestoli man of all quest to demonstrate his mastery of the horal caste, and making his sword a Sword of Justice, too). A more prosaic version of this might be that the adamantine blade of the Unbreakable Sword doesn’t break, only the grip, the pommel, the scabbard, leaving the blade an unwieldy adamant slicer impractical for combat, but that seems a bit mythically lacking. Anyway, we know that while adamant will never break in normal use, being the hardest thing in Glorantha, it can be worked (by Mostali magic, and perhaps others - I still think Zzabur would have some idea, as would some of the great mystic powers), so breaking the Unbreakable seems plausible to me, just as known consequence of a deliberate magical act, not an accident. The basic idea here, that the weapon of a true god in myth can exist simultaneously with a physical weapon that embodies that power (ie that wielding Humakts sword means you have proved the sword can channel the power of Humakts sword, not that you have taken the sword from Humakt, who exists in the abstract and eternal Godtime) also explains why the physical Red Sword of Tolat does not imply that the original god weapon is removed from its owner, confusing explained in some old documents as there being two different Red Swords, one of which is the child of the other.

Of course, for the hsunchen all over Fronela especially, but also Ralios, who are already hunter-gatherers, and who generally hated agriculture clearing the forests, this will be awesome. The serpent-beasts rise again! (which potentially revives all sorts of exciting First Age conflicts, with ancient hsunchen spirits and super shamans back for their Millenia old vengeance on the people who drove them from their forest homes, etc)

I wish people would read the rules before making statements about them. Ghosts write up in the Glorantha Bestiary says: Ghosts can become visible at will and engage intruders in spirit combat. So they don’t need the Visibility spell, it’s intrinsic to being a ghost. There is more there about the forms they may take.

The most common example must surely be the Create Ghost/Bind Ghost spells? We know this is voluntary, and even fairly common, for the Humakti version.

Oh, it would penetrate all right. The trick is getting something that is both visible (eg kangaroos will often lie flat in cover when resting) and not moving. I don’t know what is a realistic range for a hunter to attempt a killing throw - I’m sure it varies by individual skill, no idea how much.

RQG only has atl-atls as spear throwers which were used as with light javelins/darts generally, but Australian indigenous traditions used spear throwers (generally referred to as woomera, one of the names for them in one of the hundreds of indigenous languages) with spears from 2.5 to 3 meters, and fairly heavy. They were used for both hunting of large game (such as kangaroo or emu), and combat. With a woomera they could throw large distances, or throw with great force at shorter distances - while they can propel spears well over 100m, 35m is a realistic range for accuracy useful in hunting. The same style of spear was used for throwing with a woomera, and for hand to hand use. The woomera came in a variety of styles, often shaped a bit like a very long thin bowl. It was often somewhat of a multitool, usable for holding liquids, mixing ochre, wide ones used as shields, sometimes with a quartz cutting blade near the handle.

It is an explicit rule in Feng Shui, Robin Laws’ genre mashup action movie game, that high explosives, such as rocket launchers, can’t kill anyone with a name. Any number of nameless mooks, but anyone with a name will somehow survive, jumping to safety at the last minute if the vehicle they are in explodes etc. it is one of a number of action movie genre rule preserving rules. Weapons can kill someone with a name, but are unlikely to do so unless wielded by someone with a name.

WARNING this product contains humour?

For statuses other than magical ones, they really aren’t needed. If you have the equipment and the skills, then you can work at that profession and get professional experience in it. If your main skills are low, you will likely have a bad year. We’ve been running a ‘saga’ style game like this. My character was a professional warrior - but the community was too poor to have professional warriors, and she had a track skill (for religious reasons), so she tried to be a hunter (though she was not a great one). Later, we all hired out as mercenaries, and were professional warriors that season (and won fame in the Building Wall battle). Then we were made thanes, and the community was rich enough to support us, so that became our profession - but most of us are poor thanes, just learning the skills we need. No rules for changing profession are needed - if you change profession, gradually you are bad at it, but four free experience rolls a season can let you acquire the skills over time without player effort. And if you want to help the player along, give them opportunities to use those skills in play as well (eg a new thane gets opportunities to orate).

Eurmal too - who they meet during the Westfaring. On some reads, Orlanth is the only one of the seven who is Theyalan, and the majority are Western.

I'm sure they are correct as well. The Arkat they saw was not. I just think Arkat contains multitudes. But I'm sure there are many other theories. Someone at least will be sure that Arkat no longer being a troll is positive proof that it was not Arkat, but Gbaji, who emerged and took his place. Makes sense, and how do you prove them wrong?

A soul with multiple natures seems to be very common for mystic heroes - Red Emperor, Belintar, etc. I think they are still there, just Arkat has limited use for those aspects of himself in retirement. I suspect the Uz would not agree that he was no longer a troll, though.

Arkat was, according to the Xeotam Dialogues, a kaelith - a person who had become a type of god, by their soul battling its way out of the underworld (in his, probably referring to his rescue from the Underworld by Lightbringer Quest). The typical abilities of such a being include being able to change his physical form, and also be a formless spirit. The rebirth as a troll was necessary to give him a trollish soul. I strongly suspect Arkat was able to change back and forth between his trollish and human forms all along (which the Kitori do as well) , and felt less desire to be a troll (a war form for him) afterwards, and wanted to return to an earlier, more peaceful, phase of life. He didn't forget his trollish friends, though, of course.

Rather, endless numbers of Eastern mystics, not to mention the entire race of dragonnewts, preach that involvement in the affairs of the world retards spiritual progresss - and this idea of an Illuminate casting a shadow/bringing forth a reaction, is perhaps a demonstration of why. It is not every Illuminate that is inevitably entangled in the world and falls into spiritual and magical conflict - but we don't hear much about the ones that manage to avoid using their mystic powers in conflict and quietly get on with their spiritual work. No, Occams Razor suggests it - it just doesn't demand it. We know the elves in general were part of the Osentalka project, we know they embraced Nysalor (and know nothing about them embracing any other mystic philosophy), and it seems even less likely that the elves of Brithos were embracing Eastern doctrines, or draconic ones. So it could be an entirely different mystic approach, but it does seem rather over complicating the likely implications of a single sentence to me.

I find it really odd that you consistently declare Tada to the equivalent to Pamalt, rather than the obvious Genert.

No, providing all the necessities of life is still very much an Earth thing, Earth is still very much the foundation of life. But the role of Water in procreation is emphasised in Pamaltela. Without Water, Earth can sustain life but not create new life. Magically, though in practice Jolar does not have huge amounts of water, and Tarien is quite dry. The odd thing is that Tamukderu is supposed to be the ocean deity and a major deity, but very little of the Doraddi grasslands contacts the oceans in modern Pamaltela. Not quite sure how that is resolved.