Jump to content

Shiningbrow

Members
  • Content Count

    1,197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Shiningbrow last won the day on May 3 2019

Shiningbrow had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

445 Excellent

About Shiningbrow

  • Rank
    80% Truth 80% Air

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Runequest 1 back in the 80's (although didn't get serious with it until about RQ2)
  • Current games
    Unfortunately, not involved with a gaming group now :-...(
  • Location
    China (for now.. want to go back home)
  • Blurb
    Living in China for the time being... So want to get back to Melbourne...

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The Gods of Glorantha are totally against such things! Look what happened to the Clanking City!
  2. Have you considered asking other JC authors if they're doing anything for which those extra pages might be a useful addition? Or even just more appropriate (i.e., clearly GM material)
  3. I find this totally confusing and baffling!!! I've never seen "Orlanthi" in any English dictionary. Nor any of the other words I've cited. Then you say "Keep using English, like Greg did", probably in reference to non-English names (e.g., Sultan, Khan). I'm not saying "don't use English terms in the English books". I'm saying, "don't use non-English words to invoke a particular imagery - and especially then don't say - "oh, but they're not *really* like that!". Otherwise, you may as well just say "Dara Happa is actually Persia". Then, looking at the castes of the Malkioni, we have Talars, Zzaburi, Horali, and Dronars - none of which have English cognates (nor am I easily finding anything from other languages). Noble = Talar. Simple! (Sure, dronar does look like 'drone'). So, obviously it's something that's already been done in RQ, and I'm not actually suggesting anything outlandish. We had this basic discussion on Kralorela. So, as I said - I'm confused and perplexed by this need to use the names that have been...
  4. Because... Emperor/Empress and king/Queen are "English" words (obviously, not diving into etymology here, just modern usage). The others are not (typically seen as, although actually may be!) To say "Sultan" is to evoke imagery... Mostly for the sake of convenience. And that's probably going to create confusion (as per @lordabdul's post - Sultan Remilius). Despot and tyrant aren't quite in the same category as Tsar and Kaiser. (although, that does beg the question - why not use those latter two? Or others like it from around the world if it's not supposed to be truly representative???) One of those words which does that for me is "hoplite". Looks Greek. Called Greek. Not Greek.... I think it's pretty disingenuous to say "oh, but they're not X (earth culture)", while still using the same images (especially names). Wasn't there a *huge* debate about Orlanthi not being Viking? We have all these wonderful new terms like Orlanthi, Esrolian, Praxian, Pavisite, Lunar Tarsh, Fronelan, Ralios etc etc etc (which probably don't conjure any images, except to the experienced Glorantha-file). So why not take it that one tiny step further???
  5. If you want to have lands and cultures *based on* but different to earth stuff, why not have titles etc based on, but different to?
  6. Shiningbrow

    Dorastor

    Leave them in. And include preferred tactics! Some advice on how GMs should play an NPC with that sort of power...
  7. I agree with @Sir_Godspeed, but would make what would obviously be an insane suggestion... Why not just come up with your own terms, instead of relying on earth history? If done well, there will be zero baggage attached. And the descriptions will be descriptions of Glorantha, not pseudo-earth.
  8. As long as there's no MP in them.
  9. I have no idea who I'm referring to by name 😛 Don't worry, I'll be purchasing in time! I know that face next to Harley's, but don't recall where (Frank Thring???...) And I was thinking that Cate was actually Alice Cooper... 😛
  10. You're suggesting that wasn't most people's first thought...
  11. Irrelevant. The fact something can consider the thought shows there is existence of something. Doesn't actually matter what that is (for the purposes of this topic)
  12. Sorry for my confusing confusion emoji... 😛 There's no "srsly? That sounds weird, and interesting" emoji... edit: although I went to a Catholic high school, I was never Christian, and have read the Bible. The snippets I have read scream paganism, lucid dreams, OOBE, etc.
  13. Meditatio ns 1-3 were ok. 4, introducing God who wouldn't try to trick you, was a let down. But, if you can think, then surely there is something that exists in some form...??? (Is all it really means)
×
×
  • Create New...