jeffjerwin

Nysalor was constructed using what some of the Council thought was a missing portion of Yelm. I think, more than anything else, is why we ended up with genocidal conflict against the trolls and an attack on Orlanth. This missing portion belonged not to the healed and resurrected Sun who made peace with his enemies, but to the same tyrant who had provoked his death by his imperious b*llsh*t.

This was moderated of course, but Osentalka was supposed to bring back the Golden Age... but he should have have represented the Green Age, which is what Illumination really is, but can't be understood by people from outside. In other words, the Council imagined a utopia that was a significant erosion of the joyous Green Age because they couldn't understand what the Green Age was. The Green Age is pre-patriarchal, pre-war, pre-death, pre-gods, pre-humans (there is no difference between spirits, humans, and animals then).

Instead we have Osentalka's parts determined by politics. He's the equivalent of the definition of Christ being voted on by the Councils of the late Roman Empire...

So the formula for Nysalor was mistaken. The Red Goddess/Rashorana is a bit better because she's made of up of gods with a stronger connection to the Green Age, but still trips up on the assumption that the Sun is her father, since the Sun is post-Green Age.

Beware of utopias... if the Orlanthi had made Osentalka we might have ended up with a worse world of tumult and theft. Ironically, no-one seems to figure out that the Green/Perfect Age is inaccessible because of Time, and because of irreparable consequences. The true illuminated impartial ruler of all is Arachna Solara/Glorantha herself... which is why she's the primary goddess of the Green Age Beasts of Beast Valley...

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

It is possible that he is part of the Mostali world repair plan, too.

 

If that were so, why did he attack the Mostali in Vanch...?

(The Moon is also said to be part of the Mostali repair plan, of course...)

Sacred Time is when Voria was born (and probably Voriof), as a token of the Dawn and the return of the Sun. People born then are usually blessed, I'd think.

As to the Moon, the rebirth of the Moon as Teelo Estara (but not Her ascension into the sky) was on the 27th week of the year, on Veriday. That's Godsday, Dark Season, Disorder Week... There are other days blessed by the Moon you could choose, however. Look at Seven Mothers holy days.

Edit: Welcome to Glorantha!

46 minutes ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

Is there any mutual contention on whether Arkat or Nysalor were Occluded rather than Enlightened?

In my opinion, Gbaji, whichever of them that was, is the personified embodiment of occlusion, methinks. The simple truth is that the Illuminated One is not perfect. They wobble between occlusion and enlightenment, and still have to find that way, every moment. They are both Gbaji.

Sheng (to use my own focus of interest) at every crucial moment, chose occlusion, in full knowledge of what he was doing, like an anti-god. Since he is also AgartuSay, this may mark him either as embodiment of Arkat's own capacity for willful self-deception, or even indicate that the only surviving part of Gbaji is the part that was not destroyed because it was already Arkat.

On a practical note, since I have to keep track of Lunar Cycles and the like for my game, when would have Sheng Seleris invaded the Moon in 1449? I presume it was either an auspicious date for himself or an inauspicious date for the Moon.

I am using the para-canonical Lunar Calendar from Under the Red Moon.

For inauspicious there is the final month of Moonset (Storm Season). For the majority of Sheng's host the act was a restoration of Yu-kargzant's domination over the Middle Air and Moon, which might suggest a Yelmic holy day.

Any ideas?

Edit: I think a possible day might be Week 34 of the Month of Suffering, on Nathaday/Fireday, which is a Yelmic holiday. It may denote the day Yelm was slain (it's a day after Humakt's High Holy Day, Deathday). This would be a dangerous day to fight SS for the Emperor (or call on the Bat)...

1 hour ago, Thoror said:

As I understand it, Illumination is about the Many becoming the One ("We Are All Us"). That's why:

1. Illumination is also about acceptance of Chaos (and about Chaos accepting Order), even when it would be counterproductive, as both Chaos and Order are parts of the One.

2. Hermaphroditism represents the triumph of Illumination, starting by its own deity Rashoran/a, by assimilating both halves of one of the most primal, significant and explicit dualities of the universe into a single being.

3. There were several Arkats/Argraths; a single being turning into many is pretty much the opposite of Illumination, thus one powerful way of symbolically fighting against it.

4. This, and not some territorial dispute about the Middle Air, is the real reason why Rebellus Terminus must be killed. He is contrarianism/individualism incarnate, thus impossible to truly assimilate into the One. That's the reason why the EWF's Orlanth the Dragon thing did not last, and both Lokamayadon and Shepelkirt knew that they had to replace him if they wanted to win.

 

You're mostly talking about Sevening, which is the most common type of Illumination in central Genertela.

On point (3) I think you may be extrapolating too much: there is evidence that it goes both directions among the Lunars: the seven souls can act both individually as as a single entity. Arkat and Argrath may well, in fact likely were, composite individuals. But Argrath killed Orlanth in the end... for point (4)

I gotta turn in, but this has been a good conversation...

39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Read the stories,it gets weirder. 

I think one of the reason for the multiple traits and opposed rolls is so that you can recreate the various facets of characters from different stories. For instance, Gawain is a paragon of virtue except when his family is involved. Then he can be a vengeful murderous thug., and the game strives to reflect that. Without such a complex interacion of traits and passions he would be reduced to being one of the other, and his actions would not be explainable in the game. 

Yeah, I've read nearly all of them.

The Post-Vulgate is actually unusual in its depiction of complex villains and flawed heroes (that's where our flawed Gawaine, our flawed Arthur, and even our flawed Mordred come from). Thankfully it fed Malory's grist-mill, but it also created unusual problems.

Gawaine, for example, is up there with Lancelot prior to the P-V. He's a bit of a lady's man, but he's fundamentally honest, tough, and kind. Before the P-V tried to create a tragedy out of the romances focused on Arthur (rather than on Lancelot), his characterization was not complex, though it wasn't unrealistic, either: he's just a decent person. Malory had some trouble with this: English storytelling made Gawaine the best knight, kind of like Roland, and he ended up downplaying some of the P-V's darkness and fronting Gareth as a 'substitute'. But the Post-Vulgate's depiction of Gawaine is entirely, in the end, in the service of making Arthur suffer and have moral dilemmas, rather than making Gawaine into an anti-hero. The P-V Gawaine isn't even a good person. Instead, what we have is mainly the work of Malory trying to make sense of the contradiction, and Greg searching out a sort of way through the problem. I personally prefer a heroic Gawaine because I honestly find Lancelot a little boring. Lancelot has serious character flaws or idiosyncrasies of his own, but being anti-social and shy and aloof aren't represented in the game by active traits but by their absence.

Merciful, Generous, Forgiving, etc., are empathic character traits. Valorous, Modest, Temperate, Prudent, are all traits we might associate with self-control. Just and Temperate may also invoke introspection or clarity of thought. It's not impossible for these to be out of whack with each other, but, for instance, being 'Reckless' and 'Indulgent' go together because they reflect a lack of thinking things through. Being empathic enough to Forgive someone usually also means you can recognize that a different person requires Mercy (which is, really, a kind of forgiveness, just more abstract), or Generosity. That's probably too complicated for a game. When Gawaine is tested by the Green Knight, it's his self-control and self-discipline that really the focus, even though what are multiple traits in KAP come into play. That's why a merciful knight who is also vengeful is kinda difficult to explain; I suppose a cruel knight who is forgiving might have trouble understanding other people's suffering, but follows a sort of code of respect? Still, it becomes convoluted. Most of the villains in my game were either monstrous, or just ordinary, ambitious people with some reason to discount the needs or experiences of others. The latter works a bit better for actual roleplaying...

Which is why, I think, Morgan makes a better villain than Agravaine, because Morgan has goals, a certain respect for skillful enemies, and a capacity to love, while Agravaine is basically a sociopathic bully. Not all of Morgan's redeeming traits surface in KAP: she's evidently curious, intelligent, and honorable, even though most of these aspects of her character appear in her skills... and a sort of abstract Honor passion.

Just now, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but that partially why the traits get a rating and are not absolutes. I wouldn't trash a trait score for one action. Also traits are often opposed by other traits, so that someone might not be less mercical, but more Just. In one of my campaigns we had a PK with a hilariously funny example of that. His character was noted for being Cruel (16) but Forgiving (19 to start with). As a result, whenever any of his peasant got into trouble they would usually just apologize and beg for forgivingness thus triggering Forgiving for an opposed roll. It pretty much always worked, and the character didn't become are less Cruel, but he did become more Forgiving. 

 

If you do it the way you described what happens is that characters literally become one dimensional, with one trait dominating all the others. In your example, Merciful and Forgiving take hits despite the fact hat other factors clearly apply. It would certainly be Just not to spare that rival. 

True. Though the relationship of these traits aren't in any reality or story a vacuum: a cruel person is rarely forgiving, nor would a cruel knight in any romance be 'forgiving' (the best I can imagine is 'forgetful' (as in, why did I just throw you in the dungeon? not sure...)). Pendragon's level of abstraction is kinda weird in that regard. Most villains, of course, in the stories, are pretty 'one-dimensional' - complexity is a PC or protagonist trait. I can imagine an Honest Coward a bit better than a person who somehow is both Merciful and Selfish...

It isn't just to not spare a rival begging for mercy - it's just to put him on trial, or bring him for justice to your liege. It's a wash between Just and Arbitrary, leaning toward arbitrary, as a personal vendetta got in the way of abstract justice there (though all of this is culturally subjective).

5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

LOL! That's a bit of an extreme example. I can see someone doing something out of character as a one off- thats part of what the trait scores are for, and even kind people do cruel things at times. What I was referring to was a situation where a player knight was acting very unchivalrously one year, but technically qualified for the bonus. But I've had a few problem players, such as one guy who kept telling everybody how Modest he was (he got miffed when his 22 Modest got ruined by a Pride check).

Well, extreme actions occur. Traits reflect not just a character's internal morality, but how the story is shaping them; a 16 in a trait isn't just a definite predisposition but a matter of notoriety. A character who kills their rival when they're begging for mercy, even if emotionally justified (they killed a character's lover), is not about to keep their Forgiving trait (at least as high as, say, 16+). They may also get checks on Love (dead lover) and so forth as well.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yup. Much like any other rule in KAP. Plus what it means in play. One thing about Chivalry in KAP is that it often is treated as something a knight either is or isn't. This tends to make the player's behavior a bit extreme, as there is no point, in game to being "a little chivalrous". It also makes it so that a PK can act very unchivalrously, and still technically qualify  for the bonuses due to his high traits. I used to require that Chivalrous knight had to act chivalrously to get their bonus.

It may seem harsh or dramatic, but I have immediately raised or lowered traits based on extreme decisions on the part of a player. Mordred didn't wait until the end of the year for his personality shift around the Peningues tourney to set in.

On 10/17/2018 at 10:11 AM, PhilHibbs said:

Splitting off into a new thread in order to avoid topic drift.

I wonder if anyone's figured out what is up with Hardral, Balarzak, and Arkat, all of whom went into Dorastor, and then later on we get Ralzakark.

Hard-; Balar-; -at

Ral; Zak; Ark

you mean?

Sounds like stolen bits of soul to me: a Chaos thing that learns to mimic human-ness by stealing rather than by consuming.

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

I just assumed that Greg was as bad as thinking up names as the rest of us.

He treated names like found art: you know, the shiny things you come across on the beach or on the sidewalk, that, if you're six, you put in your pocket. Then he used them however which way.

Greg was constantly tinkering with Pendragon. Not every change he proposed or discussed (even publicly) was eventually adopted, and some may have been saved for future editions.

Edit: now, in entirely my own opinion, raising the threshold for the Chivalry bonus might exclude many knights Malory praises in his book as 'good knights' (like Gawaine), and thus make it tempting to create cookie-cutter 'pure knights' when flawed heroes are among the best characters in the saga (and for roleplaying).

Edit 2: It doesn't exclude Gawaine, just makes it a tighter fit, so I think it works.

39 minutes ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

Is Krjalk(i) close enough? What if J->Z?

Maybe related to the Kazk- element in in Kazkurtum; I suspect that phoneme means 'empty/void/entropy' in Dara Happan.

J, Z, Y, and I are are related sounds.

2 hours ago, scott-martin said:

"All of the Gloranthan Council appeared to be giants whenever they came out of the mountain."

Mountains are children of Larnste. Issaries is a child of Larnste. Is Issaries a giant?

We know Issaries is the god of a few giants and that his geas is to put the hyenas back together. If one of those giants is another piece of Genert, what is Issaries?

Before people had beasts for riding or carrying things, the people with the longest stride and who could carry the most things would all have been Giants...

21 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Splitting off into a new thread in order to avoid topic drift.

I wonder if anyone's figured out what is up with Hardral, Balarzak, and Arkat, all of whom went into Dorastor, and then later on we get Ralzakark.

And there's Atarks, the part of Rashoran(a) who was castrated.

Also called Extark and Goakstart...

More:

The Goakstart is said to have slain the Overseer of the Red Camp, Venarthurd, and turned him into a mountain. This 'Red Camp' was due west of Yuthuppa, and is clearly the Red City, Karantes, whose ruler was sacrificed by Natha at Mount Jernotius, which is obviously the mountain. Thus the Goakstart is closely connected to the Naverian myth-cycle, but from a masculine perspective. She represents all that is terrifying to the patriarch.

It sounds a lot like the mer-people are the pirates (or at least the marine extortion racket) here. They may have 'associates' who sell off the stuff they don't want when someone doesn't pay the fee or gets on their nerves...

1 hour ago, David Weihe said:

Genert and Tada -style giants were the male Earth gods (like Pamalt).  Their human-like forms were only because that was how their worshipers saw them, when they weren't being the entire continent or the Garden.  An order of magnitude greater than mere Mountain (aka, Cradle) Giants, who were orders of magnitude greater than the kinds of giants that our adventurers kill.

> Second Son became a giant.

No, he just got a couple Chaos Features, each of +3d6 SIZ and rolled all 6s.  Or in non-gamist terms, he just grew really big, as his Chaos Taint, even for already being a god.

I know you're being jocular, but there's no reason to think Hemgall's poison was a chaotic thing, at least as we understand it now.

The Earth is a body; the Earth goddess is both the shape and space of the ground and a Green Woman. Genert is like Adam Kadmon: the vast and perfect body of clay. Giants are material: dragons are mystical. Both are kinds of being in the world.

11 minutes ago, David Weihe said:

Alas for the coolness of that idea, the two were probably both around at the beginning of the Greater Darkness.

Of course, if you want Genert around, there are all those hyena skins somewhere in Vulture Country.

There are other avatars of Genert in the Universe. Jernotius/-ia, for example. One, of course could be the little brother of the other - in the way that giants are named in folklore with alliterative names.

This is what Sandy Peterson wrote in 1994:

"Gonn Orta = Genert

While Gonn Orta is obviously _not_ Genert himself (for one  thing, if Gonn Orta is Genert, who's the giant corpse in the middle of the Krjalki Bog?), I concur with the likelihood of his being a  Fragment of Genert. Maybe he's Genert's conscience or something. The similarities of names _can't_ be coincidence, knowing how Greg's mind works."

http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/ndaily/1994.06/4418.html

3 minutes ago, David Weihe said:

The Underworld is the hiding place of all, well, all everything, including runes (e.g., Separation/Death rune), gods (e.g., the unborn Sun or even Aether Primolt, back when ZZ, Xiola Umber, and AA were exploring together), and other things not specifically named, yet.  To use a grander phrase, the source (or at least repository) of all wisdom.  Saying that the Mountain Giants send their children to the "Underworld" is much better than calling it "Hell", more like sending the children away to boarding school, if a somewhat more Nietzchean one than Eton or Hogwarts.  I imagine it was slightly less fraught back when the Spike was there, and the Celestial Court could do the teaching

Given that the first known Gods War was between the Dragons and the Giants, I would tend to doubt that the Dragonewts were _allies_ of the Giants.  I think that the EWF plan was going to use the buried and/or sleeping Giants like a powerplant uses a lump of coal, as a power source to be consumed and converted, regardless of whatever the giants (or more human population) might have wanted.

Keep in mind that 'giants' are 'mythic humans' - King Arthur is a giant in some Welsh folktales. 'People were bigger in those days'. Second Son became a giant. They aren't just Disorder, but also embody (literally) the Man rune; the towering people that we see when are small. The Youf wanted to transpose the Man rune with the Dragon rune. The Youf master plan involved the transformation of all of dead Genert. Maybe he / his soul fragments / had a problem with that. Argrath was Dragonfriend and Giantfriend, but he also embodied contradictions. 

Gonn Orta = GenErt(a)??

Or you could just get Illuminated or Sevened so it isn't quite so unnerving for you. Less work, and the Red Goddess doesn't judge, after all. If its an obvious feature it's sometimes, I suppose, worth seeking a solution for it...

My brother played a Lhankor Mhy priest with a 17 STR. I think that's kind of neat. I understand where you're coming from, though: random rolls mean you'll end up playing something you don't want to. We used to roll up something like 5 sets of stats and pick the best one. Sometimes we'd re-roll the lowest stat.

As an aside I was re-reading the Perlesvaus for my KAP work and noted the use of the name "Widow's Son" for Perceval himself. There's some disagreement about Perceval's relationship to the Maimed King - sometimes, as in the Livre d'Artus, that Maimed King is his own father, Pellinor, who has been demoted from the status of father because of his 'living death' (subsisting like the Graal king/Roi Pescheur on the graal's 'food') and castration. Perceval's achievement of the Graal of course kills the Maimed and Graal Kings, or subsumes them into himself.

In the Perlesvaus the chief villains are the Black Hermit (an inverted, headhunting, diabolical ascetic) of the Waste Land and the King of Castle Mortel, the sinister brother of the Graal king himself, a wizard and usurper.

I cannot but help wonder if Greg found the term from his Arthurian studies.