metcalph

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.

From the Guide sidebar p202 (highlight mine) The highlighted passage suggests the Loskalmi have traditionally shunned with spells that affect the material world like Create Wall of Flame. There will have been philosophical differences about where exactly the border lies but as a result of their struggle against the Kingdom of War, the Loskalmi have cast aside these inhibitions. At first this would be minor stuff like weather control spells to hinder the passage of the troops of the Kingdom of War but it will soon involve the use of spells that smite enemy troops (and walls). So far so good. What they are doing is ordinary sorcery - something that other Malkioni wouldn't have a problem with (the other sects may have their own hangups about some kinds of sorcery but that's irrelevant right now). What I'm interested is how it will change their philosophy and any fireworks that result. According to the Guide, the Loskalmi see the material world as a emanation of the corrupt Demiurge. Spells that work on the material world are arguably participating in his work. But if casting such spells becames morally virtuous, how would that impact on their relationship with the Invisible God? Is the Demiurge redeemable? Should energies be focused on a new Creation to replace the rrors of the old? Or should material sorcerors be condemned as polluted souls who have taken one for the team? I'm kinda interested in avoiding the Carmanian and God Learner solutions and instead focused on factionized philosophical schools.

The trouble is I mentioned that several years later to Greg. He called it an "amusing theory" and apparently forgot that he had ever written it.

I know it's often agreed with but I'm not really seeing the Kingdom of War being an inversion of Loskalm and vice versa. May be the suggestion would be better expressed as Loskalm will end up like another Kingdom of War but I don't find that sustainable these days given the Guide's talk about the Great King of the West (The number one fact about him that Ethilrist thinks is noteworthy is that he has Brithini Sorcerors Guie p750) The Kingdom of War has its own philosophy (Glorantha Sourcebook p180) which is to have "burst all bonds and broken magical walls" It is a relentless drive that has freed them from the Ban and consumed their humanity in doing so. Hence I think the Kingdom of War was the author of its own evil and not caused by anybody else. Besides undiluted evils rarely make as interesting antagonists as more human ones (compare and contrast Ramsey Bolton, King Joffrey and the Night King with Cersei, the High Sparrow or Tywin Lannister). I know the Gate of Banir is said to be in Timms but there is an apparent chaotic hellhole in Charrg (in the Argan Argar maps, the Bleak Land can be made out in the shaded portion) and it's where the local Uroxi were earning their bread and butter (Entekosiad p42). This may be referred to in the Entekosiad as Burneledos p70. That looks like a far more convincing place to summon chaos from. The relevant sentence could be construed as suggesting that Arinsor's staff is to be found in Timms but that would have to be an extremely clunky reading. My current thinking is that the struggle against the Kingdom of War is important not because it causes Loskalm to become Evil but that in order to defeat the Kingdom, the Loskalmi have to jettison some of their cherished ideals and struggle with the consequences. Loskalm will be stricken by internal disunion as it strives to adapt to new threats. The King becomes more poweerful but at the same time, the respect decreases and politcal instability including assassinations becomes commonplace.

So how do the Loskalmi oppress the Arrolians in a way that makes the Red Emperor superior to them. It can't be the collection of tribute because the Red Emperor does precisely that to places that have never acknowledged him before. It's not the use of chaos. So what is it? Except that there's little suggestion about Loskalm's tragic fall in the text. . All you are doing is focusing on a single sentence and creating an elaborate psychodrama from it. There are other ways to create an intense narrative other then make Meriatan a moral bankrupt. Except that you spend all your time jumpijg on my suggestion. For no obvious point and very little gain. And where and when is this Losklami tragedy narrative set out?

The Orlanthi rob their neighbours all the time. Hence I really don't see the use of robbery as a moral failing. Meriatan ows nothing to them - the denizens he will rob are not part of his community. I've already mentioned Harrek in this thread - does extreme violence while relying others of their possessions less morally suspect? So rather than short off one liners in a bid for gotcha games, could you please come up with more substantive suggestions?

God Learnerism was far more than just heroquesting and taking stuff. Changing the Other Side being a primary one. Even if he is looting the myths of other cultures, that does not make his actions morally suspect. The myths are a description of the Other Side, they are not sancosanct. For example, Arkat used the Talastaring myths to make the Thunder Mountain Leap having never set foot in Talastar. The Lunars made good use of Pelorian mythology despite having initially been alien to it. Belintar was a complete stranger and so on. So the Loskalmi are going to march through Jonatela, are they? So the King of the West oppresses the Arrolians but TakenEgi sends the souls of his armies to the void and collects tribute from Sog City, the Rathori and the Arrolians? Who is more oppressive here? Glyph 15 - A Man carrying a sword, a woodsman’s axe, and casting sorcery couples with the Snake Goddess and receives the Serpent Crown from three kingdoms. Stone Men guard the scene The Man is a Hrestoli and the Three Kingdoms include Seshnela. One of the three wears an extremely tall hat indicating a Zzaburi which matches with Ethilrist's description of him as the Great Talar of the West with Brithini zzaburi at his command. The only other major Kingdom around is Loskalm. The trouble is it rests upon a lot of assumptions that don't seem well founded. The Loskalmi even have special rites to stop them from being God Learners. The unity of three kingdoms isn't enough?

A defense of Meriatan, People are calling him a God Learner and other horrible names because he enters the God Time and seeks to rob its denizens of magic and artifacts. It kind of depends on who these denizens are, doesn't it? Merely because they live in the God Time doesn't make their possessions any less lootable than that of wordly countries (ie any of the several dozen that Harrek has plundered). His intention of stealing their magics may be morally laudable in a Promethean way if the denizens unjustly withheld their secrets from the mortal world.. He might even be the Great King of the West. I'm not really seeing the Loskalm becomes corrupted by Chaos in that the Gate of Banir lies on the other side of the Kingdom of War, and that neither the TakenEgi Stelae or the Black Dragon Mountain pictographs show chaos on Loskalmi behalf.

I don't think modern theories about the prison work well in Glorantha considering they are fairly unsophisticated bronze age societies. They stick people in monasteries not to reform them but because a) they don't want said people at large causing trouble or getting on the nerves of the rulers and b) they don't want to have the said people executed with the insult offered to the kin. Ideas about reforming a prisoner's personality with an eye to his eventual release are irrelevant - the prisoners are sent to the monastery with a lifetime commitment to the gods and to escape would be a repudiation of that commitment. If you want people imprisoned for a shorter time, then the best solution is to hold them captive for a ransom and put them to work using their skills. If the jailor's particularly enterprising, he might let certain criminals ply their trade (robbery, prostitution) outside the prison so long as they return and share their proceeds.

Regardless of whether are or not, they would be highly unsuitable as prisons. You want to keep prisoners locked up, not taught powerful magics and the ability to break out!