Several lore questions

[metcalph]

The conflusing date of Kallyr's death comes about because the page was originally written when King of Sartar was in its first edition.  There Kallyr has a number of fates at differing dates and the 1630 date was supported in two places (Argrath's Saga which has Harrek sacking Boldhome in return for the death of Gunda and Minaryth Blue which mentioned that Kallyr killed Gunda and in return is killed by Harrek).  But that's been changed in the second edition in the interest of a coherent chronology.

[David Scott]

18 hours ago, coffeemancer said:

Any more?

There's a whole Appendix (J) with pictures in the Guide to Glorantha.

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/gallery/simon-bray/

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/reconstructing-the-hero-warsjust-working-on-the-reconstructing-the-hero-wars-appendix-for-the-guide/

 

[coffeemancer]

14 hours ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

There is a story of Greg Stafford being asked this at a convention in Britain, I believe (some of the members on this forum where there, but I can't recall who, sorry) and his response was pointing out at the landscape outside. 

Basically, the general idea seems to be that post-Hero Wars Glorantha becomes more "mundane" and less magical. 

 

This makes me so sad

[Tindalos]

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

*SPOILERS*




In the canonical campaign, she's going to get killed in 1626. And stay dead. Heck, this is mentioned in the core RQG rule book.

Yes, but I can understand the confusion. The guide mentions on 117 she dies after quarrelling with Harrek the Berserk, which given the earlier reference of King of Sartar, it's easy to understand why people may not have realised that KoS's events have changed, and that her quarrelling with Harrek and then dying are not as intimately linked as the phrase would suggest.

It's like how the guide mentions she lit the Flame of Sartar, but there's no mention of that in RQ:G or the Sourcebook, except noting she's not done it yet, which leads to the question of exactly when she'll find time, given the previous date of her lighting it (KoS 212) is after her death.

[Shiningbrow]

20 hours ago, Jeff said:

*SPOILERS*




In the canonical campaign, she's going to get killed in 1626. And stay dead. Heck, this is mentioned in the core RQG rule book.

As shown by a few posts above, canon keeps changing. The very fact we're having this discussion is proof of that. So, mention of it in one book honestly doesn't really mean a lot, given all the precedents. True?

[Jeff]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

As shown by a few posts above, canon keeps changing. The very fact we're having this discussion is proof of that. So, mention of it in one book honestly doesn't really mean a lot, given all the precedents. True?

Canon has not changed. Originally Greg was undecided on when Kallyr's death should happen. Maybe 1626, maybe 1630. Originally, Greg had the Hero Wars last another century or more. By the time of the 2nd printing of KoS, the date was fixed. And since we both wanted people to be able to play out the Hero Wars, certain key events had to be fixed, at least in our heads.

[coffeemancer]

New lore question: what is the sartarite opinion on sorcerers and sorcery? and what is the common view of Lhankor My sorceries?

[Sir_Godspeed]

6 minutes ago, coffeemancer said:

New lore question: what is the sartarite opinion on sorcerers and sorcery? and what is the common view of Lhankor My sorceries?

This is my general impression, based on a hypothetical Sartarite "man in the street", as it were, not some learned Runelord:

Magic that doesn't spring from the respectful veneration of the (good) gods is bad and you should stay away from it. 

Lhankor My sages are religious chaps and so their sorcery "doesn't really count" as godless sorcery. Esvulari magics probably straddle a line, but it mostly okay so long as they pay their respects to Orlanth and whatnot. 
(Edit: Also, Lhankor My won his access to sorcery fair and square by just being better so it's his and his followers' to use. Just more proof that us Orlanthi are the best! Suck it, Zzabur!)

Also, hey, if some sorcerer (Arkati, Malkioni, who knows, these sorcerers all look the same to me) comes around and he's in service of a powerful king or whatever, then you shut your yap and let them him do his thing so long as it doesn't cause the community harm. Best not to upset the king by bonking his favorite godless heathen in the head.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Sir_Godspeed

[coffeemancer]

Yeah, I can imagine the people tolerating the king having his odd retinue but when the crops go bad they go on a good ol fashioned sorcerer-scorcherer

[metcalph]

5 minutes ago, coffeemancer said:

New lore question: what is the sartarite opinion on sorcerers and sorcery? and what is the common view of Lhankor My sorceries?

It depends who you are asking.

Lhankoring Sorcery is Good Thoughts.  Sorcery from other sources is soulless and probably evil.  Lhankor Mhy is acceptable because Orlanth trusts him.

A sartarite farmer mich look askance at a Lhankoring casting sorcery in much the same way as he would view an accountant.  Both are legitimate but their cryptic nature can cause suspicion.

With another sorceror, say Urvantarn or the Black Arkati, there is no safety net.  They are judged in the magics they cast and if it turns out to be the tinest bit suspect then the sorceror's reputation will take a huge dive.

[Grievous]

9 hours ago, coffeemancer said:

New lore question: what is the sartarite opinion on sorcerers and sorcery? and what is the common view of Lhankor My sorceries?

Yeah, I feel as the other guys have said. Most times sorcery has been involved (outside of LM), things have gone mostly horribly wrong: Arkat and the God Learners to name the usual culprits. Not that the normal Orlanthi will know much about them, but they'll know enough to think they're bad.

[French Desperate WindChild]

but how a "common" sartarite without any idea of what is sorcery can be sure that the guy in front of him use sorcery and not some unknown spirit magic ?

Is there any obvious proof of sorcery ?

 

I would say that, for a sartarite, any unknown  effect  (from any kind of magic) is seen as "bad magic" except if the magician is LM / well known / under king protection. Am I wrong ?

[coffeemancer]

I seem to remember that it is mentioned in KODP that sorcerers have no soul(?)
 

[Grievous]

17 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

but how a "common" sartarite without any idea of what is sorcery can be sure that the guy in front of him use sorcery and not some unknown spirit magic ?

Is there any obvious proof of sorcery ?

 

I would say that, for a sartarite, any unknown  effect  (from any kind of magic) is seen as "bad magic" except if the magician is LM / well known / under king protection. Am I wrong ?

I actually think that's very much part of the thing. People don't know what sorcery looks like and are going to be suspicious whenever something that could be sorcery pops up. "Is this some of that God Learner business? We don't want none of that on our lands."

[Kloster]

10 hours ago, metcalph said:

A sartarite farmer mich look askance at a Lhankoring casting sorcery in much the same way as he would view an accountant.  Both are legitimate but their cryptic nature can cause suspicion.

This is the best answer I've ever seen. I just used it (translated) to explain to my sons.

[jajagappa]

3 hours ago, coffeemancer said:

I seem to remember that it is mentioned in KODP that sorcerers have no soul(?)

Yes, in the sense that they have no connection to the divine world (other than as a place to magically exploit). 

[7Tigers]

On 4/1/2020 at 5:17 PM, Minlister said:

@jajagappa As I am writing a description of the Arfritha Vale, at the time when the Lysang and Namolding have been transfered to the Malani, I am quite interested by the list of the Malani clans. Could you tell me in which publication it can be found?

Thanks!

 

For info, Paul Baker just released White Stone Ruins , Red Deed Saga #1 out of3, 1625,  $10 for 88 pages:

Quote

 

White Stone Ruins is a source book and scenario set in the Namoldin lands of Arfritha Vale.
It details the history of the Namoldin clan and their tribe the Malani, and details some of the settlements of that area.

This document contains the majority of the background and areas of interest, as well as a short adventure which has later repercussions.

The other two booklets expand on locations, customs, and the people of the tula:

. Elgar's Blade – Two adventures with further clan information.

. The Back Edge of the Sword – A further adventure and further details of Tula.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/309808/White-Stone-Ruin

 

 

[coffeemancer]

who made humans?

[David Scott]

53 minutes ago, coffeemancer said:

who made humans?

Everyone. All of the powers present at the time created beings based on the form runes. Different human groups were made by different gods, revealed in many different creation stories.

GtG page 116

Quote

This era saw new types of beings. The Form Runes were introduced and the Young Gods were born. Said to be creations of the Celestial Court, each deity made a Form Rune by contributing to it. All the elements then tested the Form, each by its own evolving nature. First made was the Dragonewt Rune

...

Finally came the Man Rune, and humanoid races spread across the world.

 

[Lordabdul]

On 4/20/2020 at 2:31 AM, David Scott said:

All of the powers present at the time created beings based on the form runes. Different human groups were made by different gods, revealed in many different creation stories.

In RQG (and maybe in the system-less world of Glorantha), people have this conflict between the Human Rune and the Beast Rune. Are other species also conflicted between form Runes? Like, Dragonewts, Aldryami, and Spirits all have their form Rune, but do they have an "opposing Rune" too?

Edited April 25, 2020 by lordabdul

[French Desperate WindChild]

11 hours ago, lordabdul said:

In RQG (and maybe in the system-less world of Glorantha), people have this conflict between the Human Rune and the Beast Rune. Are other species also conflicted between form Runes? Like, Dragonewts, Aldryami, and Spirits all have their form Rune, but do they have an "opposing Rune" too?

That's a good question

I would say aldryami 75% plants (elder race in bestiary) then 25% man.

dragonewts / spirits : I was unable to find any rune score for dragonewts or spirit in the bestiary. In this case, it is interesting philosophical point. Or that's just meaning 100% in draconic / spirit rune

 

[David Scott]

14 hours ago, lordabdul said:

In RQG (and maybe in the system-less world of Glorantha), people have this conflict between the Human Rune and the Beast Rune. Are other species also conflicted between form Runes? Like, Dragonewts, Aldryami, and Spirits all have their form Rune, but do they have an "opposing Rune" too?

The "probable" order for creation from the Guide is Dragonewt, Plant, Beast, Man. I can't really see any linkage from that. However, perhaps mobile Aldryami came after the man rune appeared, so Green elves for example have the plant rune and man rune with their pull being between true plants (immobile) and bipedal creatures. Beast people clearly have man / beast rune. I don't think I'd take it any further than that otherwise you get into weird rules territory. There's clearly an argument for trolls to have man / darkness, or the mer-peoples to have man / water but as a rules model, i'd ignore it. Likewise elementals to be wind / spirit etc.