davecake

Yes, and some consistency between game systems would be very useful too. I don’t think we are going to get it.

I think of the sects as described in earlier sources as being something less like a medieval Christian sect, and more like an Islamic madhhab (or schools of religious jurisprudence). They are intellectual traditions of argument, differentiated in large part by their meta-reasoning about which sources of insight are weighted in which way, that are inextricable from, but not the same as, the political divisions that accompany them. And they are intellectual traditions based on learning and study, but as they are core to social institutions like the courts they are political as well. To a large extent, as Peter says, they care a lot about the beliefs of the wizards (and nobles), far less about the commoners (and warriors). And when I talk about their meta-reasoning, I mean that the schools are distinguished, as a high level, by how they deal with the various sources of knowledge available to them. All schools interpret their texts literally, allegorically, mystically, and morally, but not all in the same way or with the same weight. They have rules for deciding which texts are to be relatively weighted (including works of Zzabur, different parts of the Abiding Book, witnesses, apocrypha, other Ascended Masters, precedents, commentaries, and mundane texts), and continually produce more such texts. They also have magical investigative techniques to use, as well as mundane techniques like how they rate witnesses and testimony or mundane legal codes, or even (gasp) empirical investigation in some cases. In practice, its all pretty complicated, as codes of practice that run an entire society often are, but we can ignore most of it luckily. The Rokari are dogmatic because of their history, and enforce a single rule of how to interpret and practice Malkioni Law. But the God Learners, by contrast, included multiple competing schools of thought within the one Empire. And Tanisor, lacking a political institution to enforce conformity, is very diverse as a result. I think the fightng orders are more than barely disguised, over a millennia later, but yes, they are a long way from being orthodox Rokari institutions. And as long as they are restricted to the warrior caste (which probably doesn't even have internal mechanisms for settling issues of theological orthodoxy the way the wizard caste does) no one pays much attention. I agree that the Golden Lance and the Humble Calligraphers may no longer exist, and I am fairly sure that any institution that has the name of a specific person in it no longer exists as a Rokari religious institution (though may exist as a sorcerous tradition), including any Order of Xemela or Gerlant, as the Rokari disdain for reverence of Ascended Masters is a core part of their belief system. I do think that confusing sorcery schools with schools of Malkionism doesn't help and should be avoided, its unfortunate (but understandable) that we seem to have settled on the same terminology for each. The Malkioni schools are broad intellectual traditions about both meta-knowledge and textual knowledge, and its application to settling issues of governance and theology, but the sorcery schools are communities/traditions of practice and practical knowledge distinguished more by subject and technique of sorcery. Most sorcery schools are not associated with a particular school of Malkionism - eg Debaldan schools teach Water magic, and is taught practically anywhere on the Neliomi sea coast, and has been used by Rokari, Hrestoli, Brithini and Waertagi. Some schools are associated with a particular sect (eg the Zendamalthan), but others much less so. And even the ones that associated with a particular school may not be rigidly so - a Rokari Zzaburi could consult a Zendamalthan book about geometry, just as long as he doesn't get any weird ideas about Joy. But in general, a school of sorcery is mostly important only to sorcerers, a school of Malkionism is also of great importance to nobles, and thus everyone.

The vicious Aldryami wars of the First age are still very much canon (mentioned in the Guide in multiple places). Aldryami have, at least in the first age, made savage war upon each other. and I'm sure axes were a large part of that. Though Aldryami wars are also much more complex slow (compared to human wars) ecological contests, and probably magical battles too. Elves as military combatants are very much stronger at defence than offence, IMO. Elf forests are relatively easy to defend against most military attack, but consolidating a conquered area is relatively slow. War trees are easier to grow than to move, dryads are very powerful but cannot travel, between Plant Spys, Camouflaged scouts and runners etc Aldryami can have almost total knowledge of movements within their territory, etc. I think elf wars often consist of holding and slowly expanding territory while changing its ecology to make it hostile to the other faction (factions being organised around types of tree/forest mostly), rather than big set piece battles etc. But consolidating territory by hacking down all the trees of the foreign type is part of it. Of course, modern Aldryami think all this is a terribly bad idea and that they should stick together against the other races. Its also notable that the biggest Aldryami Empire in history was largely peaceful, and conquered (at least other Aldryami) by magical/political means. But elves still remember that axes are death, and are designed to be used against their own kind.

I’ve long suspected that Ursula Le Guins Earthsea books have had some influence on Glorantha. But I was surprised to discover a reference to intoxicating hazia-root. I wasn’t able to discover any other references to hazia as an intoxicant, is this where we got it from? (And then of course there is Roke Domdanalash in the East Isles, but I take that to be more direct recent homage (noting also Domdaniel))

I’m with @Jeff. It makes sense that the West in general, and the God Learners in particular, would have a lot of Runes for things, and it makes sense that other cultures won’t rigorously stick to the God Learners core runic ontology and will create their own symbolism and iconography (much as human cultures do). But for game design, we are much better off with a restricted core set - and this should be understood as a game design artifactory not taken too seriously as a statement about Gloranthan use of Runes (though the core set will be familiar to everybody)

Yes to most of what people have said. The Pavis HeroQuest book is, from a RuneQuest point of view, a big book full of stuff that is almost game system independent. A large proportion of it is reprints or minimal updates for someone who already has Pavis, Big Rubble, and Borderlands, though. The adventures are easily translated to RuneQuest, and the cult writeups will at least give you some idea of how the background (particularly the cults) has changed. The RQ3 scenario packs (Sun County, River of Cradles, Shadows on the Borderlands, and Strangers in Prax) all contain a great deal of great playable material. If you can get them, you won't be disappointed.

Baron von Moose-Hsunchen!

Also, many Australian birds are not the same species as foreign counterparts, crows and ravens but especially magpies.

I'm glad you think so! I'm always worried that I'll say something that seem obviously wrong to Finns, but of course I genuinely love the Kalevala stories. I absolutely agree that it is good idea not to take the Kalevala as a whole too much as the authoritative version, but as a collection of good stories. Lönnrot did a great thing in collecting the stories, but scholarship now I think understands the ways in which Lönnrot assembled the stories into a whole reflects not just his academic bias, but a particular agenda (to create a national epic) and so some details reflect that agenda rather than then the most objective way to look at those stories. But the stories are wonderful, and very inspirational.

I thought we'd discussed, and concluded, that the homeland of the Third Eye Blue people being conveniently smack in the middle of the Fronelan Hsunchen homelands was an appropriate way to integrate those stories. I think that is a far better way to do it than via the Dronari near Sog City, who are very much weird outsiders to the Hsunchen - remind me more of eg dwarves in Viking stories. It's a tiny detail, but I recall that Piku in Apple Land (the only 3EB character in canon) knows a charm to sing iron into the shape of animal heads. Fits very nicely. You might be getting a bit confused with the Damali? I'm not implying you can't tell the deer apart from elk, just that the entry for the Kralorelan Damali mentions the Pralori several times, and the two peoples seem often associated. The Guide also shows Pralori around modern Pithdaros at the Dawn, which also might be what you are thinking of? And just because there isn't a sustainable Hsunchen population doesn't mean the animals are absent, or the spirits can not be magically contacted.

All the deep, serious talk about Glorantha that draws on history, anthropology, religion, etc might not be what everyone wants to do or enjoy. Its perfectly fine to just treat Glorantha as a setting to run D&D style hack and slash if you want. But the deep, serious, stuff is what makes it such a rich setting so that when you do play in it, its much easier to have games (with your mates and a dream) that lead to really interesting, complex, situations for roleplaying, often without you even having to work to set it up. I love that in Glorantha my players can see the multiple possible approaches to a situation, and actually have to roleplay through working out which one their character thinks is right, knowing that different PCs will have different answers to the same question. Its a more direct route to the juicy core of RPGs for my personal taste, and makes my creative work as a GM much more satisfying too. But tastes vary, and thats totally fine too.

There is an important, but subtle, difference between magical and physical connection to a Rune. This is most obvious with the Man rune - humans are strongly connected to the Man rune physically, but only a small minority have a strong magical connection to it. Or perhaps develop that magical connection would be a better terminology. The magical connection is what we generally track in games stats. A magical connection can manifest as a physical change, but more often only the mental/spiritual changes are far more pronounced. I think this applies to elves. They always have a physical connection to the Plant rune - they are plants. But a stronger magical connection to the Plant rune doesn't necessarily manifest physically. Rather, their Plant nature manifests as listening more and more to the Song of Aldrya, communicating plant wise via slow, pre-linguistic, subtle changes via elf-sense. I'm with Jeff in that I think they behave more plant, rather than necessarily physically become more plant. Elves that are not strongly connected to the Plant rune are still plants, and their runic connections manifest in plant ways. An elf with a strong connections to Fire/Light will want to photosynthesize. An elf with a strong Water rune may want to stand in water. An elf with the Harmony rune may care as much, or more, about harmony with other plants than other 'people'.

The similarities between Glorantha and Skyrim are not coincidental of course, Ken Rolston being the big link.

Yes Indeed. And I think its pretty clear that we are talking animism in Gloranthan magical terms as well as conventional anthropological ones. Now, I still don't think you are addressing the idea that your argument here might not be with me, but the Guide. You haven't mentioned at all that naming the greatest shaman of the Uncolings Vainemune *might not be a concidence*, for example, and there are a lot of smaller details along those lines. We also known Lalja Vainemune, literally the only Uncoling individual we have any specific information on, has a magical voice, and difficulty finding a wife. Do magical singing and having difficulty finding a wife sound like themes that might come up in the Kalevala perhaps? Also, lets jump back a few months - who, during the Guide to Glorantha Group read, said, in regard to the Uncoling shamans description in the Guide- "This appears to be a nod to the magical prowess ascribed to the magicians of the Finns (the Norse word for the Sami) in the Nordic Sagas (and in the Kalevala). " (I won't keep you in suspect - it was YOU). In general when I say 'this is a pertinent reference' here, what I'm saying is that I think the poetic descriptions of the acts of the great shaman-heroes of this arctic culture are relevant when coming up with inspiration for inspiration for this other group of sub-arctic people with shaman-heroes, and enough rather obvious hints are there to make it clear. What you seem to think I am saying, and are arguing vehemently against, is that I am implying that the Sami (of some era) are ethnographically identical to people who can turn into magical reindeer. I am not saying that, and I think your efforts to deride me for claiming that just confuse the issue. I'm saying more or less the same thing you said yourself in September. And you seem very hung up on the ethnic divisions between Finns, Sami, Karelia etc because you seem to be arguing from the idea of ethnographic equivalence, but I'm really not because I'm mostly just saying it is a really good source for ideas about heroic, poetic shamanism in an arctic/sub-arctic environment, and as such: I know we are going to move ideas around between cultures, because thats how we do it in Glorantha, and because Glorantha has a lot of very specific (and often odd) points about zoology to incorporate (among other things) if we are only talking specifically about shamanism, there is significant overlap between Finnish and Sami shamanic tradition (a lot of which is documented in the Kalevala). and I'm really not that hung up on the details because 19th century reconstructions of notional texts driven by nationalism and its subsequent re-assessment, give us a quite a complex debate that I really don't care about. [detailed description about lifestyles of Viking era Sami deleted] and that is all very interesting, and has very little to do with the reasons why I said the Kalevala is a useful source for the Uncolings, Do they have great shaman-heroes? Do those shaman stories talk about the snow, and bears, and fish? Then they can be useful inspiration for stories about the Uncolings, and other people of Northen Fronela t The Uncolings may have some similarities in how they herd to the Tanuku Fiwan, yes, But the Kalevala contains cool stories about fishing for magic salmon in arctic streams and such. I'm pretty sure those are cool stories that not only can I easily use for inspiration about cool Uncoling (or Rathori) stories, I'm also pretty sure that all those stories of fishing and swamps and stuff really aren't very relevant to the grasslands of Jolar and Tarien. Its as if you have not just got focussed on a whole bunch of lifestyle and economic detail to the exclusion of the myth and poetry and you are terribly upset that I won't do it too. I presume this is intended to be a slur of some kind, but luckily I don't speak Pratchett. And I can claim only an English translation, a few visits to Finnland, and a few reference books (particularly Kalevala Mythology by Juha Pentikäinen, which is probably terribly outdated - its not easy to get books in English). I don't think it matters - we are talking at cross purposes conceptually, not arguing over facts. Except the close identification of clichés based on cultures is your projection, not what I saying at all. The Pralori aren't arctic. The rest, yes, those too. Mix and match stories of Northern European arctic shaman-heroes for the hsunchen and not-quite-hsunchen for inspiration, But the Kalevala is the best known source, multiple points of identification with the Uncoling are noted in the Guide, And how did you get from 'the Kalevala is a pertinent source for the Uncolings' to 'the Uncolings are contemporary Sami'? Seriously, I have no idea, and I'm fairly sure you are getting triggered by something only you ever considered as a possibility. So we agree on some things. Great.

Of course - just I find there is a frustrating avoidance of conceptual consistency, so phrases like 'has the X rune', or uses the X rune, the two runes are opposed, even the meanings of the Runes themselves will become terminology that has up to four or more somewhat inconsistent meanings. There are some similar issues with other magical terminology. And then we might start to slip into situations where some explicit statements about Gloranthan reality are no longer consistent between game systems.

I think many of these cases are somewhat speculative or limited, and if you make your own big and somewhat speculative list of what has the Man rune, then reason about the Man rune from that list, you run the risk of a circular argument. Are you sure all of those races have the Man rune? Why? Do you have a specific source, or just feel that they do? (FWIW, I think Ogres absolutely have the Man rune in the same way that normal humans do, maybe a little more, but the Chaos Rune as well).

I assume this has an implicit RuneQuest Glorantha context, because clearly this isn't true at all for HeroQuest. (and personally a wish that HeroQuest Glorantha and RuneQuest Glorantha had more conceptual consistency, I worry the Glorantha they describe is going to diverge) I personally don't like the idea that Plant and Man are opposed for elves. It kind of makes the Aldrya cult opposed to Man, which has a lot of weird implications for elven society. But then, I don't like the idea that Beast and Man are opposed either, it doesn't mentally work for me with eg Uralda etc, cults that are about the union of Man and Beast in a social context.

Yes. Hey, did you notice the homelands of the Uncolings are very close to the homelands of the Third Eye Blue people? That seems a pretty obvious link to me. But 'plot revolves around' is not the same as 'entire setting is about'. The plot revolves around it because its unique and not easily replicated (like, say, something that was created with the assistance of a foreign culture). Whereas the protagonists like Väinämöinen, Lemminkainen, and some antagonists like Juhakainin Joerg, once again too literal. I said pertinent, not 'a literal description of', so if you are thinking 'hey, clearly the Kalevala isn't about people turning into reindeer so its irrelevant', I reject that reasoning along with 'the Orlanthi fly and shoot lightning, so the Viking sagas are not a relevant source', and other variations. It doesn't follow. Any Gloranthan culture will draw on a combination of multiple sources from terrestrial folklore, plus some entirely different things that arise from living in a genuinely magical world, plus additional elements that are purely creative. That does not mean that those multiple sources are 'in no way relevant'. I'm genuinely baffled at this peculiar attitude. I am well aware that that alliterative verse isn't exclusive to the Kalevala and Finno-Ugric sources, and I could go on and on about pointy leather hats and the relevance of snakes in both depictions of Fronelan Hsunchen shaman and tradition Finnish magic, and so on. Or how connecting the only traditional reindeer herding shamanic tradition on earth to the only reindeer herding tradition on Glorantha isn't exactly a wild stretch. Yep. And I definitely feel that linking Iron in to the Third Eye Blue people story and linking that into the myths of the people who live in their traditional homeland would make perfect sense. Then the ratio is wrong, or something unknown and magical happened during the Ban. Maybe they just all, or almost all, turned into reindeer for the duration of the ban, and returned to more conventional hsunchen life thereafter? But if your basic position is that you have a private theory based on that single detail, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the Guide or elsewhere, and for that reason think we should throw away everything else ever written about them — then you probably should have opened with that at the start, so I could have just shouted YGWV, and continued to think you'd gone off at rather an odd tangent there.

Form runes are not exclusive, and are not a taxonomy. You can combine more than one form rune in a single being. But the Man rune isn't the rune for upright mammals, or hairless monkeys. "This Rune represents the humanoid shape and is common among all humanoid races." says RuneQuest classic. "This Rune represents the humanoid shape, and is common among all intelligent humanoid races." says S:KoH. It is about the shape, the experience of being in a man-shaped mortal body. Being a mammal is not mentioned. Elves are intelligent, and man shaped, and so clearly associated with the Man rune (though also Plant). Some beast men might be associated with the Man rune somewhat, to differing degrees depending on intelligence and shape (obviously a manticore not at all, but a minotaur somewhat), but mostly are much more connected to Beast. I think mermen of all kinds are only somewhat hunanoid, and so only loosely connected to the Man rune. Adding the word 'intelligent' in SKoH takes care of the herd man case, and I think makes it clear why its associated with Grandfather Mortal not Grandfather Monkey. , Now, the majority of elves are members of the Aldrya cult and have a strong magical, conscious, connection to the Plant rune, though there is a tiny minority (Rootless elves) who do not. But the majority of humans don't have a strong magical connection to the Man rune, either.

I think of the Man Rune as representing being a conscious biped, and to some extent the experience of sapient mortality. RQ2 actually says the Man rune represents 'the humanoid shape'. In other words, I don't think elves being associated with Man makes them any less Plant, it just means they are humanoid and have a consciousness that is somewhat like a humans.

As long as we have had RuneQuest, its been clear there is some overlap, with Black Fang presented as a cult with shaman-priests, and shamans getting access to divine magic pretty freely in RQ3. In HeroQuest, it seems as if Affinities, that loosely correspond to RuneQuest Rune Spells, are relatively uncomplicated to combine with either sorcery spells or use of spirit charms. Its feats and becoming a devotee where it becomes difficult. Likewise, spirit Charms that loosely correspond to having bound spirits in RuneQuest don't seem a big problem, its becoming a full shaman with a fetch that is problematic to combine with other magic.

Joerg, you are being too literal. I didn't say 'the Uncolings correspond to the Kalevala Finns', I said it was pertinent. And so it is. The Kalevala is a shamanistic epic, and the shamanistic traditions of the Finns and Sami have a lot in common. Its true that as a national epic, the Kalevala can be understood as a story of where the Southern Finns/Karelians are the Kalevala heroes and the Sami correspond to Pohjola (if you ignore Lönnrot claiming that the people explicitly identified as Laplanders to the north must just be a different bunch of Finns), but the shamanic tradition detailed in the Kalevala is much more a shared one than that. And regardless of the terrestrial association with Finnish nationalism, in Glorantha the Kalevala stories seem to be linked to the Uncolings in particular - the most powerful shaman of the Uncolings is literally called Vanemuine, which is more or less the Estonian name for Väinämöinen (Though I guess if you wanted to be super-pedantic, you could take that as evidence only of the pertinence of the Kalevipoeg to the Uncolings). That said, if you wanted to make the case that in using the Kalevala as inspiration for Glorantha it would be more appropriate to consider the Rathori as corresponding to the Finnish and the Uncolings as corresponding to Lapplanders (more often antagonists, such as Juhakainen), that would make some sense. But you'd still want to mix it about and not take the division too literally — partly just as good creative practice to mix our inspiration up a bit and not have specific Gloranthan cultures correspond too closely to terrestrial ones, and partly because real world shamanism and myth does not divide itself along the neat lines that Gloranthan traditions often do E.g. Sami shamanism involved a lot of bear worship. I get a strong sense that the Uncolings are depicted drawing on the shamanic stories best known from the Kalevala, and the Rathori less so, but YMMV.

Yes, agreed. Greg's ideas have definitely changed over the years, but I don't think he has ever thought that all Gloranthan magic fitted neatly into one of the four categories, or that there weren't odd exceptions that broke a few of the rules.

The Kalevala is particularly pertinent to the Uncolings of northern Fronela.

I agree that the four fold division of magical practices is an over-simplification of the complexity of real world religious practices. IRL practices we see an amazing mixture of ideas within traditions, and diversity, and mixing it up. But it’s Greg Stafford’s creation, and Greg set the rules for how magic works. He did so from a strong perspective of personal magical practice, so it’s richer and deeper and more thoughtful than most other gaming approaches to magic. But it still reflects his personal ideas (though of course have changed as his ideas evolved). So we might disagree with how well some aspects of Gloranthan magic reflects real world magical or religious practice, for those of us that practice and/or study such things (I suspect I’d get classified as mostly henotheist?). But ultimately, some things it doesn’t matter about how much it reflects our personal understanding, in Glorantha it works a particular way. To an extent, Gloranthan magic is like Glorantha metallurgy - in some ways, is just different, and our personal knowledge and experience of terrestrial equivalents just doesn’t apply directly.