Orlanthi mean streaks

[Joerg]

 

Quote

The context around the question is extremely interesting. We know Orlanth's way is objectively more vibrant than everything the Empire can provide at this moment in history

But Jar-eel!

Seriously. Putting her son onto the throne of Dara Happa probably is one of the concluding items in her quest to become the moon goddess, then to undergo a metamorphosis - possibly lending Argrath's and Harrek's powers to undergo an utuma. An invisible moon... how mystical can you get?

[Akhôrahil]

6 minutes ago, Joerg said:

But Jar-eel!

Go team Jar-eel! The team of Argrath, Harrek and Sheng Seleris are not the good guys!

[Lordabdul]

2 hours ago, Minlister said:

And the thoughts about weregild and chieftains sons of chieftains raised an interesting issue: how fluid is really Orlanthi society?

My vision of it is that it is has very little social mobility. You're stuck in your family's stead for ever, following your parents' footsteps... unless you do something dangerous or stupid (or both) like joining a cult that will "take you away".

[Akhôrahil]

25 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

My vision of it is that it is has very little social mobility. You're stuck in your family's stead for ever, following your parents' footsteps... 

And this is the good outcome, for the eldest son. The rest have it worse.

[Puckohue]

One reason to let your Glorantha vary from the sociological descriptions above, a reason I've read is relevant to some gaming groups, is that in order for your group to reach MGF you need to remove certain issues from the game. There may be RL issues that you play games to get away from. One such issue might be the fact that your gender limits your opportunities.

[Sir_Godspeed]

4 hours ago, Minlister said:

And the thoughts about weregild and chieftains sons of chieftains raised an interesting issue: how fluid is really Orlanthi society? 

 

Not as fluid as a lot of the fluff leads players to be believe, imho. See examples above. 

56 minutes ago, Puckohue said:

One reason to let your Glorantha vary from the sociological descriptions above, a reason I've read is relevant to some gaming groups, is that in order for your group to reach MGF you need to remove certain issues from the game. There may be RL issues that you play games to get away from. One such issue might be the fact that your gender limits your opportunities.

Yeah, there's a thread from a while back that talks about this, although I can't remember which subforum it was in. Regardless, I think to some degree we have to accept that Glorantha is fiction and that slavish attention to realism isn't really the goal. If you want to envision a world without the discrimination of the physically disabled for example, then god damn, you should be able to do that, "realism" be damned, imho.

[French Desperate WindChild]

5 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I didn't put those two together til you mentioned it, but I'd rather take it that Vinga has a spell that allows them to stand when others (men) run away... Rather than they need that spell to be just as courageous.

 

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

It is as you say. The Vinga cultists are renowned for their fearlessness. More so than the men.

I was taunting on that .

But what is nice in glorantha is :

Orlanthi seems to be the good because "freedom" blablabla but in fact have good and bad things

Lunar seems to be the bad because "chaos", "slavery" blablabla but in fact have good and bad things

there is no black and white

except perhaps sun followers... so black 😛 just another free taunt

But more seriously, I think this "grey touch" doesn't appear enough clearly when you discover glorantha. Or maybe when I discovered glorantha decades ago in my french books

[Lordabdul]

5 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Orlanthi seems to be the good because "freedom" blablabla but in fact have good and bad things

Lunar seems to be the bad because "chaos", "slavery" blablabla but in fact have good and bad things

Orlanthi are "good" and Lunars are "bad" mostly because the vast majority of material was written from an Orlanthi perspective... Even King of Sartar's dual origin documents is very superficial in its differences of perspectives, so the Lunar version is just about adding negative adjectives here and there. One of the things I wished existed the most in any Glorantha product line-up was more Lunar-centric books, and especially books about a timeline where the Lunars win the HeroWars -- something that would definitely put the whole "metaplot or not?" debates to rest, and would propel Glorantha into very interesting and innovative places (I don't know of any game setting that acknowledges multiple possible timelines, except maybe Traveller?). Can anybody say "meta-meta-plot"?  

Edited February 7, 2020 by lordabdul

[soltakss]

On 2/6/2020 at 3:57 PM, Minlister said:

So  my question would be: what are, from your point of view, the "dark and mean streaks of the Orlanthi society" that are worth staging for the sake of a good, balanced, game"?

Urain - The dark god of the violent storm, Orlanth's foul temper on a really bad day, the dark thunderstorm, all ripping and blasting.

Vadrus/Valind/Gagarth - All bad winds, but all available to Orlanthi who try hard

Abduction Myths - The Orlanthi have loads of abduction myths, where they take the women of other tribes, Vadrus and the Blue Woman, Orlanth and the Scarf of Mist and the Storm Gods fathering the Cetoi are just some examples.

Murder Myths - Humakt, Orlanth's brother, committed the First Murder and Orlanth killed Yelm are two examples of good old-boys murdering other deities.

Blood Feud - Orlanthi have a tradition of continuing blood feuds with other clans for centuries, they killed one of ours so we must kill one of theirs, repeated ad infinitum.

Outlaws - An outlaw cannot claim help from clan members, so is forced to act outside the law, so by outlawing someone for, say, banditry, they are encouraging them to become bandits

Nobody Can Make Me Do Anything/Violence is Always an Option - Orlanthi often resort to violence and are pig-headed because it is a religious duty of theirs

There is Always Another Way - Orlanth is ruled by Ernalda, which makes him a big Mother's Boy, or maybe Yes Dear, a henpecked husband

 

[Sir_Godspeed]

6 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Orlanthi are "good" and Lunars are "bad" mostly because the vast majority of material was written from an Orlanthi perspective... Even King of Sartar's dual origin documents is very superficial in its differences of perspectives, so the Lunar version is just about adding negative adjectives here and there. One of the things I wished existed the most in any Glorantha product line-up was more Lunar-centric books, and especially books about a timeline where the Lunars win the HeroWars -- something that would definitely put the whole "metaplot or not?" debates to rest, and would propel Glorantha into very interesting and innovative places (I don't know of any game setting that acknowledges multiple possible timelines, except maybe Traveller?). Can anybody say "meta-meta-plot"?  

One of the issues with making the world-altering magic empire win is that it feels thematically off, imho. Obviously, this is subjective, but it's a bit like making a timeline where the God Learners won. "Welp, what now, then?"

[Lordabdul]

4 minutes ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

One of the issues with making the world-altering magic empire win is that it feels thematically off, imho. Obviously, this is subjective, but it's a bit like making a timeline where the God Learners won. "Welp, what now, then?"

I don't think it's the same. God Learners are at their core a bunch of meta-NPCs whose sole purpose is to rationalize gaming material as "in-world" material. They were never supposed to win anything. In comparison, the Lunars are similarly ambitious people, but they're playing more within the rules of Glorantha -- they can only pull off so much, even with their awesome magic. In most cases they can only do one big awesome thing every wane. The other thing is that the Lunars would probably not survive the Hero Wars in the same shape and form as before it...otherwise, it's not very narratively satisfying: you're playing under Lunar rule in 1618, then there's the Hero Wars, and you're back under Lunar rule in 1630? Meh. It has to be something different. I have a few ideas, but I'm curious what Jeff and friends have in mind.

 

[Sir_Godspeed]

Narratively, unless you're Kralorela, empires exist to rise and fall in Glorantha. Something drastic would have to happen in the Lunar Empire for it to just not come off as massively static afterwards. 

 

Although, that being said - you could use a hypothetical post-Hero Wars "stabilized" Lunar Empire as a huge RPG sandbox, I suppose. 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Sir_Godspeed

[Qizilbashwoman]

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Well, Luther and the Enlightenment sort of "won" over the "conservative Catholics", and life is still interesting here on Earth

uhhhh the Catholics weren't the conservatives in that argument. that was the counterreformation.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Qizilbashwoman

[Bill the barbarian]

3 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

uhhhh the Catholics weren't the conservatives in that argument. that was the counterreformation.

Curiosity compels me to ask; why would you not call the ruling catholics (pre-reformation)  conservatives. trying to hang on to power against the rebellious Lutherans, followers of Hutter and other protestants  and the Catholics  of the counterrevolution (post Council of Trent) as reactionaries (and bloody evil ones at that)? 

[Qizilbashwoman]

1 minute ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Curiosity compels me to ask; why would you not call the ruling catholics (pre-reformation)  conservatives. trying to hang on to power against the rebellious Lutherans, followers of Hutter and other protestants  and the Catholics  of the counterrevolution (post Council of Trent) as reactionaries (and bloody evil ones at that)? 

my sense here is that the meaning is not "maintaining the status quo", as certainly the Lunars are not doing so

[Bill the barbarian]

6 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

my sense here is that the meaning is not "maintaining the status quo", as certainly the Lunars are not doing so

Apologies, I am not understanding. Would you mind elucidating, the catholics after Luthers nailing of his points to the doors of the church were not "maintaining the status quo” (being conservative)?

Apologies again for a quick thread drift all. If this goes on too long I promise to move it to the Inn.

cheers

Edited February 8, 2020 by Bill the barbarian

[g33k]

17 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

...I was taunting on that ...

Please don't:  some people take it seriously.  Like... the main author from Chaosium who found it necessary to chime in and rebut your "taunt."

Also, people making sexist & racist & etc remarks are all too prone to trying to cover up genuine sexism & racism & etc with an "only joking" excuse (which excuse is getting thinner and thinner; and looking more and more often like "wink wink nudge nudge we ALL know I wasn't joking; but having done the public disavowal, I am immune to public criticism!").

I'm not trying to say YOU are doing this:  I'm always willing to stretch the benefit in favor of someone making the effort to speak/write in my language, since I'm so dismal in all the others I've ever tried!  I'm trying to note how it may appear.  (Also worth noting -- "taunt" specifically means a remark intended to hurt or anger someone; is that your meaning?)

[Qizilbashwoman]

2 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Apologies, I am not understanding. Would you mind elucidating, the catholics after Luthers nailing of his points to the doors of the church were not "maintaining the status quo” (being conservative)?

Apologies again for a quick thread drift all. If this goes on too long I promise to move it to the Inn.

cheers

the reformers were claiming to adhere to the original intent of the document, to strip away the dross and get back to the real faith. they were in that sense understanding themselves to be the true conservatives, hearkening back to the early Christians and shuffling off the pagan corruption of the Church. In addition, they pledged themselves to a more austere, sin-obsessed, and deeply xenophobic series of practices I think most of us are familiar with ("Calvinism"), thus also finding themselves at odds with the rather more practical- and open-minded Church. Despite the history of the Church, it was far more relaxed and tolerant than the revolutionaries were.

this is what we get, over and over again, with reformist religious movements - Wahhabists, Deobandis, multiple kinds of Christian revivals, and so forth.

[Bill the barbarian]

34 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

this is what we get, over and over again, with reformist religious movements - Wahhabists, Deobandis, multiple kinds of Christian revivals, and so forth.

I would say the Hutterites and the Anabaptists are a bit mellower than that... those lutherans though... I don’t trust 'em at all.

But seriously thanks for the explanation. I see where you are coming from though I can’t quite agree. No worries I am more a historian than a theologian. I will suggest for the sake of an excellent thread that we castigate those damn Orlanthi instead and leave everyone else alone for the nonce. If necessary, we could take this to another forum, but I figure we got each other’s points and can quit our squatting here in any case.

Cheers

[Shiningbrow]

46 minutes ago, g33k said:

Please don't:  some people take it seriously.  Like... the main author from Chaosium who found it necessary to chime in and rebut your "taunt."

Also, people making sexist & racist & etc remarks are all too prone to trying to cover up genuine sexism & racism & etc with an "only joking" excuse (which excuse is getting thinner and thinner; and looking more and more often like "wink wink nudge nudge we ALL know I wasn't joking; but having done the public disavowal, I am immune to public criticism!").

I'm not trying to say YOU are doing this:  I'm always willing to stretch the benefit in favor of someone making the effort to speak/write in my language, since I'm so dismal in all the others I've ever tried!  I'm trying to note how it may appear.  (Also worth noting -- "taunt" specifically means a remark intended to hurt or anger someone; is that your meaning?)

Personally, I didn't take it as a taunt. And, prima facie, the Vingan Fearless spell could be seen as what women warrior's need to do to stand with the men. That's what happens when it's decontextualised... (and when the myth changes from being a woman to just another aspect of Orlanth himself...but in red pigtails). 

[French Desperate WindChild]

58 minutes ago, g33k said:

 (Also worth noting -- "taunt" specifically means a remark intended to hurt or anger someone; is that your meaning?)

Arf no, you teach me something. I didn't know the word enough. I learned "taunt" as a warrior capacity in world of warcraft without trying to go deeper in the understanding, I saw the word, I saw the effect, I did the connexion.

I apologize for that. As I wrote in another topic, we are here for enjoy, not suffer, not hurt.

But I think it is good to clarify the spell point because both views are possible (  [vingan has the spell because they are naturaly weaker] versus  [vingan has the spell because their path is stronger] )

 

And it is good to clarify my intention too, thanks for that

 

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Arf no, you teach me something. I didn't know the word enough. I learned "taunt" as a warrior capacity in world of warcraft without trying to go deeper in the understanding, I saw the word, I saw the effect, I did the connexion.

I apologize for that. As I wrote in another topic, we are here for enjoy, not suffer, not hurt.

But I think it is good to clarify the spell point because both views are possible (  [vingan has the spell because they are naturaly weaker] versus  [vingan has the spell because their path is stronger] )

 

And it is good to clarify my intention too, thanks for that

 

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time" (in outraaaageousss French accent)

 

 

 

(For the uninitiated - Monty Python and the Holy Trail)

[soltakss]

17 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Orlanthi are "good" and Lunars are "bad" mostly because the vast majority of material was written from an Orlanthi perspective

Orlanthi see the Lunar Empire as bad because the Red Goddess embraces Chaos. She rode out on the Crimson Bat and sent a whole host of people mad just by seeing her.

They could probably forgive a lot of the lunar stuff, but that is the defining moment.

Of course, things like Ogres, Broos and Scorpionmen serving in the Lunar army and the Lunars training the Vampire Legion don't help matters.

 

[Akhôrahil]

13 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Orlanthi see the Lunar Empire as bad because the Red Goddess embraces Chaos. She rode out on the Crimson Bat and sent a whole host of people mad just by seeing her.

They could probably forgive a lot of the lunar stuff, but that is the defining moment.

Of course, things like Ogres, Broos and Scorpionmen serving in the Lunar army and the Lunars training the Vampire Legion don't help matters.

Being beaten like a red-headed stepchild and thoroughly occupied doesn't help matters any. 

[tedopon]

I have always hated Orlanthi culture with a passion. I have never understood why people fancy a culture that is ignorant, xenophobic, belligerent and chained down by dogma handed down by a succession of reaver simps. Sure, they value freedom...but if you go below the surface regarding any of their cultural mores, it's all based in some regressive "ism" that reinforces some negative aspect of their society.

Orlanthi are trash. Expand the glowline over the whole damned continent.