metcalph

According to History of the Heortling Peoples, Nysalor didn't have or use adamantine claws. How this is reconciled with the Trollpak version, I have no idea.

Google Image search gives this page https://www.casus-no.net/viewtopic.php?p=1817612 Which ascribes it to Jeff.

I didn't tell you to shut up and go away. If, for example, you had merely mentioned that you had an MRQ campaign and wanted suggestions then it would have been fine. But that's not what you were doing. You were: a) complaining that people didn't like MRQ's stuff (so what? There's nothing you can do and whining isn't going to help) b) claiming that MRQ was brilliant stuff because it had invented the acolyte which mean nasty Jeff stole for RQG and refused to give thanks and praise. c) slagging of chaosium for not having ETAs on their products (in response to the factual statement that MRQ's material was poor because they had short deadlines). In short, you were becoming worked up and aggressive about the fact that you had a minority opinion about MRQ (that's okay - if some people think the Phantom Menace is a good film thenit's surely legitimate to think that MRQ's material was good) . My statement that you should learn to accept the state of affairs and move on nipped your impending tantrum in the bud and for that I make no apologies. I did not miss your point because you did not even make it. Now begone and do not @ me in the future.

I actually looked at the same material and found most of it quite poor. Not because of its canonity or lack thereof but mostly that it was just names thrown pollock-like upon a blank space. It ranked up there with a lot of the HW/HQ1.0 stuff, which unlike MRQ's stuff did claim to be canon at one point. Get over yourself. I was not censoring anything nor treating anyone as an apostate. I was merely pointing out that complaining about people not liking MRQ's material is unlikely to change anything. Merely accept that your own taste is different and move on. If you think that is bowdlerization, then I suggest that you consult a dictionary.before making a further nusiance of yourself.

Rather than waste people's time trying to change their minds or falsely claiming specific ideas as being brilliant concepts invented by MRQ, just accept that the majority of people don't like it and move on.

Acolytes as a name appeared in Gods of Glorantha. In RQ2, they were known as associate priests.

If you're going to redefine terms into meaningnessless so that you can pretend your original statement was not in error, don't bother responding to others. Just take it as given that they will agree with your definition and everybody will be happier. Argan Argar is depicted as a Dark Troll, which is not the same thing as being a Dark Troll. Being a God means that his children would be Mistress Race IMO.

Nope. Tis Argan Argar who's depicted as such; Nothing about Heroquesters.

Elder Secrets Book p33 Baranwolf, a Lhankor Mhy scholar, proved that the amount of precious metal in the world indicated the fatality rate of the various tribes of gods in olden times. Baranwolf was executed by Frithorf the Magnificent, an astonishingly superstitous king who could not accept the resultant conclusion: that the storm gods died the most. Baranwolf's student, who continued his papers (and began using Baranwolf's name) subsequently proved that bronze is also the product of mixed sky and earth, showing where Orlanth's parents once loved eached other before the illutsrious son was born, preparing the way by making places where future weapons would be sown to glorify Orlanth.

So they can be cast with no problem in meetings, no? But that's a stupid use of a lie spell because the effect wears off in 15 minutes. What you need to do is to tell a lie that is plausible and crafted in such a way that makes it difficult to check up on. Saying that X got into trouble for studying atyari magics in his apprenticeship therefore he shouldn't be trusted with positions of responsibility is a good use of the Lie spell if used outside X's hearing. It can also be sealed with the statement that you should avoid mentioning this to X because it might trigger a relapse. Why would I want to hide the fact that I'm casting a Charisma spell to affect people? I'm drawning upon the power of the goddess to show her strength in my arguments, no?

Look at how the spell operates. Lie, Clever Tongue and Charisma do not require overcoming magic points or POW to work. Dominate does. A clear bright line that you for some reason don't use. Why would it be appropriate? They're are not going to be too happy about it if their mind or emotions were influenced by fast talk or bargain. "Eh, I bought these beans that Gold-gotti assured me were magic". But nobody adopts a policy of no talking during negotiations as a result. Others may try and work counterspells.

Other people have given ample reasoning for where the line lies. What's not to like? Possession is still hostile combat with spirits and the Kolati would be in a world of hurt if he did that to a fellow member of his tribe.

Yup. No different from bribery and blackmail that many humans indulge in in similar circumstances. Others may deplore his choice but so long as he does it secret Possessing involves spirit combat and is not something that can be done undetected. However getting a lock of the King's hair and using it to whisper advice into the King's ear via whispers and sympathetic magic is completely legit. There's a great deal of difference between ordering the killing of a political rival and using a charisma spell. Your problem is that you don't distinguish the two.

Interestingly Ronance is mentioned as one of the Namers in the Eleven Lights (p129), suggesting that he's not a mere spirit but a Greater God now small (like the Twin Stars).

Yes, two Ernaldan priestesses arguing with each other using magic does present certain theological problems. Now in arguing against each other, they are not arguing against the Goddesses' interests. The Goddess is vast and encompasses multitudes even to the extent of a tiff here and there. In having the disagreement, they are still acting as Ernaldans do and thus there is no sin against Ernalda. Ernalda does not have a Great Checklist of what is right and what is wrong for every particular circumstance, She has a wide variety of answers, available to her worshippers through myth and magic, but because of the Compromise her worshippers need to work out which of Ernalda's answers is right for a given circumstance. And since a common myth of Ernalda in the God Time is arguing with her Sister-Goddesses, in having the argument and using charmisma spells etc, both are being Ernalda. Most gloranthans being simple folks have long accepted the rule that whoever wins is in the right. A few are rightly concerned with the conundrums posed - how can both Ernaldans be Right? What is Right? What is Ernalda? The names for these people are God Learners, Philosophers and Illuminates.

Simplest solution to the squabbling Ernaldan priestesses problem: Whoever wins is the superior manifestation of Ernalda and the one in the Right.

I said and meant worshipped. They are free to follow a gods advice in other matters - if a God went to the Brithini and told them something bad is going to happen, they would not dismiss him out off hand. I have no idea what this is about.

All Malkioni know that Gods exist hence their manifestation does not cause them to lose faith,. Where they differ is on the question of whether the Gods should be worshipped.

I think it reasoned that because Sorcery was the magic of the Invisible God, it was also invisible in effect. But given that RQG sorcery uses the Runes, I don't think this reasoning persuasive.

You are now making into highly specific statements about what a god does and does not know, some of which has been contradicted by past writings while others is surely a matter of taste for any campaign. If I swear by my ancestors not to harm a particular person but being duplicitous, I do so in the knowledge that my ancestors want that person dead, have I broken faith with my ancestors if I kill that person? The question wasn't all oaths but perilous oaths (ie oaths that have a magical effect if you break them). I would appreciate it if you distinguished between the two consistently.

May be because we're not talking about werguild but ransom. Since you are persist with unsupported assertions and inability to stay on topic (cults, wereguild), I don't see any value in debating matters further with you.

But in Glorantha, the only effective perilous oath is a runespell (For example Oath, 2pts RQG p336). I find it difficult to believe that any oath sworn without the presence of such kind of magic will be effective. One could argue that swearing by one's god and breaking it will incur divine displeasure but what if the captors were sworn enemies of your God? What if the God's worshippers had a tradition that such oaths given under duress are null and void?

Who said anything about Cults? I didn't know Cults were credit lending institutions. Ransom for most gloranthans who have one is their own wealth stored with some friendlies to be paid out in the event of capture. That's how it is depicted in RQ2. Look at it from the captor's point of view. We caught him once before and got his ransom. We just caught him again. Why should we believe our captive's promises that more money will be forthcoming?

If they are sufficiently powerful enough to escape despite being locked up in chains then they wouldn't have been caught in the first place? I'm not seeing the issue you have and the lack of detail really doesn't help.

I don't think parole applies in the case of gloranthan ransom. The captors keep the captive until the ransom has been paid. Then the captive is free to do as he likes, even to the extent of attacking his former captors again. If caught again, he has no ransom so they may kill him quickly or for long as they like.