Rodney Dangerduck

A bit OT, but, by coincidence (?), this Orwell quote came up on one of my social media feeds today "Power is not a means; it is an end. ... The object of power is power."

For our Glorantha, I'm going with "them" (the Telmori) aren't chaotic.

Maybe. It's not clear to me that more distant Tribes, such as the Colymar, Locaem, and Lismelder, have any reason to hate the Telmori. In fact, keeping the rival Cinsina tribe "busy" might be considered a good, or at least a neutral, thing by their more Machiavellian thinkers.

I can accept this, it's actually along the line of my original question, even if I expressed it poorly. It at least makes Argrath rational, if still a monster. What magical power did he gather? I don't recall any stories about "After the defeat of the Telmori, Argrath grew to 10 feet tall and could shoot lighting out of his butt". The Wolf runner chit from WBRM, whatever it's confusing history or much debated use, doesn't have very high numbers on it. As for making the Cinsina and the Praxians "happy", yes, true. But wiping out a Tribe of Sartar sets a grim precedent. Sending the Death Star to ~~Alderan~~, er, the Telmori, might make other tribes wonder if they are next. This was pointed out by one of my PCs. I don't buy this at all. "The Gods are Real" is a constant Gloranthan refrain (I sometimes find it annoying). One can easily ask them. Divination: Wind Priest: "Orlanth, why are Telmori forbidden? Orlanth: "WTF? If they breathe, are honorable and non-chaotic, welcome them" (That's about 10 words more or less) p.s. bonus answer: "BTW, who is your High Priest? He's gonna start itching and scratching."

@David Scott Thanks for the link to Jeff's article on Well of Daliath. While I realize that real life people must sometimes be pragmatic, and are flawed, IMO Jeff takes it too far. Or, alternatively, some of the rules text, e.g. that Storm Bull Initiates are required to investigate any hints or rumors of Chaos personally, or that Orlanthi Wind Lords must fight it to kill it if possible, should be modified / toned down. IMO, that would actually be a good thing. e.g. I'd like to see more positive, aspirational material on achieving the Orlanth virtues. Less bad poetry, and less strict "Thou shall" rules that are very often ignored.

This has a feel of truth to it Argrath certainly "pays" his bud Harrek with the loot of others.

I was hoping for something better than "Argrath is a monster, but you should see the other guys". 😞 There have been some reasonable ideas. Thanks and keep them coming.

I was unaware of this - thanks! Makes me like the Telmori even more. 🙂

Maybe it comes down to interpretations of this. I disagree with you here. King Sartar and his heirs, revered rulers and members of Orlanth Rex, honored and even married Telmori. They made them a Tribe. It seems clear that Telmori, at least "default" ones, can hardly be outright chaotic. Did Sartar and heirs tell their bodyguards and wife to "Lie and whimper before me"? If one disagrees with that reasoning and rules that the Telmori Tribe is indeed rife with Chaos, then yes, Argrath's actions make good sense. As for Telmori being "tainted" by chaos, what's that really mean? Seems like an excuse for prejudice. (That's happened on Earth) Which is not to say this isn't happening...

Our RQG campaign is approaching (actually, slightly past canon) the time for this very troubling event. (1627 ish) My question as current GM for this is simple: Why? I understand why the neighboring tribes would want to get back for years of harm. But why does Argrath? I'm aware of one darker theory, to wipe out other possible heirs of Sartar. Anything else? I've got my own idea that may get revealed in our version of Glorantha. There's even a prophecy. But surely non canonical.

Hopefully an errata or future reprint will add this option. It does seem pretty obvious.

On another thread (possibly FB?) I suggested that a great player character concept would be a BG who had harmed the innocent, and felt guilty and a desire to make amends. It was largely scoffed at, since "they" thought Ernaldan doesn't make mistakes in identifying the oathbreajers and defilers. Glad to see some support here - the Gods of Glorantha are far from perfect.

If the authors had wanted Extension to apply to only spells of the same god, they could have removed the "any", and added your five words: "provided by the same god". (or possibly pantheon, etc...) They didn't. To each their own. I've found that even when the rules seem clear, which is disturbingly rare, people ignore them. Often this is deliberate in the name of MGF.

It is intriguing that a Storm Bull can be calmed out of their Berserk rage by a Chalana Arroy, but a Babeester Gor in her berserk rage cannot be calmed by a CA, Ernaldan, or similar.

This reminds me of a part of the Odyssey where Odysseus is looting the Egyptians (or Libyans?), and complains that they fought back and killed some of his men.

Given that no PC has ever stood, in game, in a pike phalanx (see note a), that "advantage" is useless. Many PCs do ride horses. (note a) I'm sure that some grognard here will cite one time in one strange and unusual adventure 27 years ago where his guy stood in a phalanx, and his skill roll actually mattered. That's the exception that proves the rule.

I agree that one cannot stack a Shield spell from Orlanth with a Shield spell from Storm Bull. Nor stack an Extension from each to get, say, 1 day duration. However, as @radmonger notes, the casting of Extension with the other rune spell is not "stacking".

I respectfully disagree. The Extension spell does say specifically otherwise: "any temporal Rune spell". Any means any. Nor does it say "with the same rune and rune points as the spell you are extending". Arguably, you may have to make two rolls against different runes to succeed. We haven't bothered with that level of detail.

Children of Hykim (on JC) has some excellent speculations about the Puma People.

Excellent start to a list of "Trigger words"!

If Chalana Arroy, the most merciful and "good guy white hat" cult on Glorantha, is actively hostile to the Red Goddess, and groups her with cults like Cacademon and Mallia, then the Red Goddess is not "problematic". By this take, she is objectively evil and must be destroyed. Which seems a profound shift from my understanding of earlier, more "nuanced" views of Glorantha. YGMV. This is not necessarily a bad thing - it makes it simpler for authors, PCs, GMs, and campaigns to focus on the Prax / Sartar / Esrolia homelands, and the typical Air / Earth cults, for which there is much more material both available and upcoming. I understand that Chaosium has limited resources and must focus their energies.

Grouping the Red Goddess in with those others is a very significant change from how our group has played Glorantha, and the Red Goddess's mission, for decades. Our Glorantha has varied! Hopefully the upcoming Lunar cults book will clarify the official vision. Looking forward to it.

We believe this too. I call it the Arian heresy. 🙂

True. I have requested that the players work to get their Devotion skills up to 70% to show "faithfulness".

Thanks @Jeff! Even if the fine details of the fate of Bagnot are obscured, that's YGMV material anyhow. One thing that we, mainly I, noticed is that the bulk of Argrath's forces, and his key allies and Companions, are weird Arkati westerners and sorcerers, Esrolians, Harrek and his Wolf Pirates, Praxians, etc. Not exactly King of Sartar material. At least, in 1627-1628. In our campaign, that is stirring up some trouble with our largely Colymar group of PCs and the proud Leika. All fun and good plotlines.