Jump to content

Tell me more about Queen Leika


Martin

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Grievous said:

Ok, but none of these theories or discussion seem to really account for Kangharl and Korlmhy being two different people, but I guess we can assume Kangharl precedes Korlmhy as tribal king and general troublemaker.

Personally, I play it that the lineage chart was wrong (the two names just got switched in position) - Kangharl was the king, Korlmhy a brother taken hostage by the Lunars.  In that way everything aligns with SKoH and GS.

  • Thanks 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Personally, I play it that the lineage chart was wrong (the two names just got switched in position) - Kangharl was the king, Korlmhy a brother taken hostage by the Lunars.  In that way everything aligns with SKoH and GS.

same for me

the only issue I have is what Kangharl  became after the rebellion (  ban for you, hostage for jeff ) and why he followed the lunar way (illumination/forced conversion/power access/family threat ...)

Is it "open" (there is no story so each story is the best ) or will it be described in the sartar supplement (for example) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2021 at 2:22 PM, jajagappa said:

Personally, I play it that the lineage chart was wrong (the two names just got switched in position) - Kangharl was the king, Korlmhy a brother taken hostage by the Lunars.  In that way everything aligns with SKoH and GS.

Do I miss something here? In my version of the Gamemaster Adventures book in the family tree on p.21 Kangharl as well as Kolmhy are marked as Tribal (King 1615-1625). As the Taraling are a clan in the Colymar tribe, this can mean Tribal King of the Colymar only. As only one of them can be Tribal King, this has to be a mistake.

In the Colymar Kings List on p.12, only Kangharl is mentioned as a Colymar king.

If mentioned in the text, the Name Korlmhy references Korlmhy the Priest, Kangharl's Grandfather, always. In the family tree on p.21 this grandfather is listed as Kolmhy the Priest ...

The name Kolmhy does not appear at all in the text of the book.

Nothing in Jeff's notes on Facebook hints at, that Kangharl and Korlmhy are not the same person (even the nickname 'Blackmor' is used for Korlmhy in these notes).

So from my point of view Korlmhy and Kangharl are the same person. The only place, where assumption seems to be contradicted, is the family tree on p.21 of the Gamemaster Adventures book. Given that this family contains several more issue with the used names, I would say, that this family tree is not correct.

@Scotty: Definitely this is worth a clarification on the Q&A page for the Gamemaster Adventures book in the Well of Deliath ... or maybe even a new version of the PDF?

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oracle said:

Do I miss something here? In my version of the Gamemaster Adventures book in the family tree on p.21 Kangharl as well as Kolmhy are marked as Tribal (King 1615-1625). As the Taraling are a clan in the Colymar tribe, this can mean Tribal King of the Colymar only. As only one of them can be Tribal King, this has to be a mistake.

My physical copy shows both marked as Tribal King.

My pdf shows this:

image.jpeg.15c6d303d89a89e9fc1fc72fae1091d7.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sense of it is that there was a mistake in the initial files (which was noted in the errate/errors threads at the time), which named Korlmhy as the king (making S:KoH out of wonk). When this was noted, I think the situation was remedied in a way that it can be interpreted in multiple ways (the myriad ways that would make sense to me which I had some difficulty parsing, hence my post necroing the thread) to accommodate a variety of potential campaign solutions. Whether that was a good remedy is something we can debate once we settle the Elmal-Yelmalio discussion. 😄 Anyway, that's my speculation.

I think some folks may still have the old uncorrected pdf's floating around (I do actually, but the printed versions seem fine), which may add to the confusion around the issue.

 

Edited by Grievous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2021 at 8:27 AM, French Desperate WindChild said:

the only issue I have is what Kangharl  became after the rebellion (  ban for you, hostage for jeff ) and why he followed the lunar way (illumination/forced conversion/power access/family threat ...)

Is it "open" (there is no story so each story is the best ) or will it be described in the sartar supplement (for example) ?

I must be the only one to love ambiguity in canon? I feel that when sources disagree, therein be the realms of imagination! A tabula rasa, it’s your game, baby!

Huzzah!

Edited by Bill the barbarian
  • Like 3

... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I must be the only one to love ambiguity in canon? I feel that when sources disagree, therein be the realms of imagination! A tabula rasa, it’s your game, baby!

Huzzah!

I mean, ambiguity can be fun, but I think it's a bit much when the sources disagree/are mistaken on who was reigning as king one year before the start of a typical RQG campaign, because it lists some guy we've never heard of as somehow having been king simultaneously for Blackmor's entire reign. If your character comes from the Colymar (which is by far the most fleshed out tribe in Sartar, so not unlikely), they should know who the king was from 1615-1625, and any irregularity should be noted and pointed out for the players' benefit. This isn't an event from decades or centuries ago where it makes sense there would be some confusion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I read the family tree, absent anything else: Kangharl is the Colymar king, but remains a hostage, and Kolmhy performs the duties of tribal king that require you to not be a hostage to do them. Which is why his children are also noted as hostages. And everyone focuses their ire on Blackmor because he wasn't present enough for anyone to have pleasant memories of him or any personal relationships, but Kolmhy was. Possibly was even a good king, and so people don't bring him up because it would implicitly criticize Leika. But this isn't intended to be a definite answer- it's low-key and practical. You could say that Kolmhy and Kangharl were conjoined twins and that's why they're both kings with an identical reign. You could say Kolmhy was a proxy for Kangharl to perform certain ritual duties he couldn't, himself, perform. (Note that Kangharl has no children shown.)

The Thelxinoë of the Graclodont set.

Eight Arms and the Mask

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leingod said:

I mean, ambiguity can be fun, but I think it's a bit much when the sources disagree/are mistaken on who was reigning as king one year before the start of a typical RQG campaign,

Each to their own, I see opportunity, other's see...

Edited by Bill the barbarian

... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Leingod said:

I mean, ambiguity can be fun, but I think it's a bit much when the sources disagree/are mistaken on who was reigning as king one year before the start of a typical RQG campaign, because it lists some guy we've never heard of as somehow having been king simultaneously for Blackmor's entire reign.

Both historically and in the light of certain recent political events, seems all too plausible!

OTOH arguably when we game we'd like the evening off from such stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2021 at 6:21 PM, French Desperate WindChild said:

Sorry to use chalana power on this post, but looking for Kangharl choices, I would like to know if there is any consensus (or canon story) explaining "how Kangharl decided to follow lunars"

is it  any lunar illumination(like beatpot) ?

any rational conversion (see how powerful we are, you want the kingdom , we share our power with you) ?

any irrational  conversion (if you love me, follow my faith in the red moon) ?

any  psychological effect (stockholm syndrome) ?

any magical domination (like sorcery spell, succubus ability, etc...) ?

or something else ?

Raw ambition is also a thing.  It is an uncomfortable decision to make, but some Sartarites got pragmatic and decided to make the best of the occupation by towing the Lunar party line, thinking that the Lunars had won and it was futile to resist.  Kangharl saw the opportunity to cement his leadership, and to get not only Lunar support but a better deal for his tribe financially.  No magic involved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Darius West said:

Raw ambition is also a thing.  It is an uncomfortable decision to make, but some Sartarites got pragmatic and decided to make the best of the occupation by towing the Lunar party line, thinking that the Lunars had won and it was futile to resist.  Kangharl saw the opportunity to cement his leadership, and to get not only Lunar support but a better deal for his tribe financially.  No magic involved.

I seem to recall S:KoH portrays it as essentially a mix of that and Kangharl being genuinely disillusioned with his peoples' traditional gods. In his mind, Orlanth has definitively lost, and the people just have to accept that if they don't want to be trodden underfoot by the victorious Lunar gods and empire.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2021 at 4:32 AM, Leingod said:

I seem to recall S:KoH portrays it as essentially a mix of that and Kangharl being genuinely disillusioned with his peoples' traditional gods. In his mind, Orlanth has definitively lost, and the people just have to accept that if they don't want to be trodden underfoot by the victorious Lunar gods and empire.

I agree.  I think the Colymar have already been "trodden underfoot", and Kangharl is trying to be a pragmatist and mitigate their unfortunate position by getting onboard with the invaders, much like many Gaulish  and Briton chiefs did when defeated by the Romans.  Events culminating with the death of Orlanth after the fall of Whitewall were a long list of Lunar victories, and one could be forgiven for becoming disillusioned I think.  

One aspect of this which is worth drawing attention to, is that the Lunars don't appear to have been nearly as genocidal as the Romans during their occupations of Tarsh and Sartar.  Defeated tribes were normally driven into slavery and ceased to exist. even during the Bronze Age on Earth.  The Lunars certainly don't seem to have many qualms about committing atrocities, given that they have the Crimson Bat in their lineup, so the question then becomes "Why not?". 

To my mind, the crucial factor here is the leadership of Fazzur Wideread.  I suspect that without Fazzur that the Lunars would have likely been unable to take Sartar, at least not without drowning the Sartarites in blood i.e. outrageous Lunar casualties.  Fazzur, being a Tarshite native, was notoriously well informed about the peoples of Dragon Pass, and he understood how to negotiate with the Orlanthi tribal and clan system; how to play the clans and tribes off against each other, and how to use the threat of Lunar force in place of the actual costly exercise of military power.  Fazzur likely understood that dead people are worthless to everyone but Delecti, and that a ruined country can't pay tax, but most importantly, that he could leverage the carrot and stick of the threat of force and the potential for political and financial support so that the leaders of the tribes and clans would eventually realize that there were more benefits to supporting the Lunars than opposing them.  This is perhaps why the people of Sartar weren't simply rounded up and sold into slavery. 

I think Kangharl "did the maths" and realized that he was unlikely to see an Orlanthi victory in his lifetime, and that was almost true, as his last moments slipping down the Brown Dragon's gullet were a pretty decisive Orlanthi victory and a very effective application of terrorism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Darius West said:

This is perhaps why the people of Sartar weren't simply rounded up and sold into slavery. 

There's probably something to that, since according to the Sartar Companion the rebellion and destruction of the Dundealos was deliberately engineered by the Lunars simply because Tatius the Bright wanted an excuse to take more slaves in order to build the Reaching Moon Temple on time, and he would have done the same to Wilmskirk had Fazzur not put his foot down and refused to allow it.

Edited by Leingod
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Darius West said:

One aspect of this which is worth drawing attention to, is that the Lunars don't appear to have been nearly as genocidal as the Romans during their occupations of Tarsh and Sartar.  Defeated tribes were normally driven into slavery and ceased to exist. even during the Bronze Age on Earth.  The Lunars certainly don't seem to have many qualms about committing atrocities, given that they have the Crimson Bat in their lineup, so the question then becomes "Why not?". 

Band breakups can be notoriously difficult at the best of times.  Do you want to be the manager that has to tell Batty "we've got a new drummer that doesn't eat the souls of so many groupies -- you're fired"?

 

12 hours ago, Darius West said:

To my mind, the crucial factor here is the leadership of Fazzur Wideread.  I suspect that without Fazzur that the Lunars would have likely been unable to take Sartar, at least not without drowning the Sartarites in blood i.e. outrageous Lunar casualties.  Fazzur, being a Tarshite native, was notoriously well informed about the peoples of Dragon Pass, and he understood how to negotiate with the Orlanthi tribal and clan system; how to play the clans and tribes off against each other, and how to use the threat of Lunar force in place of the actual costly exercise of military power.

I'd very largely agree with this, though I'd put it in less exceptionalist/Great Man Theory of History terms.  Though in Glorantha a Man -- or Woman, or Non-binary, in the most time-honoured of sources! -- can have a CF of ((20!!)).  Which is pretty darn Great!

The Lunar Empire is large, and contain factional multitudes.  The Tatius take here obviously has a certain logic to it:  grind out an Imperial expansion with a combination of a barbarian-killing ground game, and a Middle Air War that copper-fastens those gains.  Perhaps just about sufficiently for them to secure their much-desired Warm Water Port by way of another Glowline-backed thrust deeper into Heortland.

OTOH, it's not a great way to win friends, influence people, and convert the whole world to the peaceful Lunar Way, is it?  Babeester Gor initiation rates in Esrolia quadruple, dire oaths of vengeance sworn, even unto death and beyond.  So arguably Fazzur's the one more faithfully discharging the big picture strategy, as opposed to a monomaniacal Dara Happan and his obsession to leaf-by-niggle his own particular pet project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2021 at 11:28 AM, Darius West said:

To my mind, the crucial factor here is the leadership of Fazzur Wideread.  I suspect that without Fazzur that the Lunars would have likely been unable to take Sartar, at least not without drowning the Sartarites in blood i.e. outrageous Lunar casualties. 

As much as I think that Fazzur was the right man as general of the Provincial Army, the conquest of Sartar saw him in a subordinate role. Moirades was the Dragon Pass leader who understood the Sartarites, and who wanted their money and trade, but even though he got filthy rich from taking Boldhome, the Assiday family managed to place Euglyptus in place to bleed Sartar dry, and ruin it too. Deliberately so, IMO - Euglyptus was the perfect nincompoop to ruin the richest kingdom in Genertela. His military acumen was abysmal (as was that of his cousin and grey eminence), and it is hard to say which of the two was responsible for greater Lunar losses - Euglyptus at the Building Wall and in the early battles of the Starbrow Rebellion, or Tatius sending company after company into ritual death at Whitewall, and then getting thousands of Lunars eaten in the Dragonrise.

Fazzur's first claim to prominence was as commander of the 1605 assault on Heortland, and his (well-deserved) bad-mouthing of Euglyptus may have been more deliberate than his rivals in the Lunar military gave him credit for. Fazzur knew that Euglyptus would cause another disaster, and stood by to undo that.

His path to power came in 1613, after the serendipitous sugared eel incident that helped Euglyptus to ascend, or more likely descend.

 

On 10/3/2021 at 11:28 AM, Darius West said:

Fazzur, being a Tarshite native, was notoriously well informed about the peoples of Dragon Pass, and he understood how to negotiate with the Orlanthi tribal and clan system; how to play the clans and tribes off against each other, and how to use the threat of Lunar force in place of the actual costly exercise of military power.  Fazzur likely understood that dead people are worthless to everyone but Delecti, and that a ruined country can't pay tax, but most importantly, that he could leverage the carrot and stick of the threat of force and the potential for political and financial support so that the leaders of the tribes and clans would eventually realize that there were more benefits to supporting the Lunars than opposing them.  This is perhaps why the people of Sartar weren't simply rounded up and sold into slavery. 

In 1613, you mean?

Yes, by blaming the ducks he found a way to make the Sartarites go against their vows to the Founding dynasty, and reducing the Colymar and Kheldon by three clans each following the Rebellion was  good attack on those influential tribes.

 

 

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2021 at 9:51 AM, Alex said:

Band breakups can be notoriously difficult at the best of times.  Do you want to be the manager that has to tell Batty "we've got a new drummer that doesn't eat the souls of so many groupies -- you're fired"?

So, a Christian Metal Band then?

On 10/4/2021 at 9:51 AM, Alex said:

I'd very largely agree with this, though I'd put it in less exceptionalist/Great Man Theory of History terms.  Though in Glorantha a Man -- or Woman, or Non-binary, in the most time-honoured of sources! -- can have a CF of ((20!!)).  Which is pretty darn Great!

There is a bit of a caveat on those 20CF demi-gods.  They are assumed to not represent a single person, but to be a single powerful individual surrounded by their entourage, who consist of magical specialists.  Harrek for example would have a number of advanced wolf pirates, while Jar-Eel would have a body guard of Nathans and Full Moon Corps and her own entourage of healers, sorcerers, etc.  Androgeus would likely have a selection of lovers, and so forth.  This also applies to 4CF heroes like Argrath.  As to it being pretty darn great, well yes, you can manipulate the various magical powers of the world to generate enormous skill totals that guarantee critical hits.  Most of RQ's most useful magic is all about buffs, and they add up, and sometimes they multiply.

As to the Great Man theory, plz, it is called the Hero Wars for a reason.  The entire structure of the conflict ultimately comes to orbit the egos of the prime protagonists on a magical and mythological level, to the point where Gods themselves get killed in the process.

On 10/4/2021 at 9:51 AM, Alex said:

The Lunar Empire is large, and contain factional multitudes.  The Tatius take here obviously has a certain logic to it:  grind out an Imperial expansion with a combination of a barbarian-killing ground game, and a Middle Air War that copper-fastens those gains.  Perhaps just about sufficiently for them to secure their much-desired Warm Water Port by way of another Glowline-backed thrust deeper into Heortland.

OTOH, it's not a great way to win friends, influence people, and convert the whole world to the peaceful Lunar Way, is it?  Babeester Gor initiation rates in Esrolia quadruple, dire oaths of vengeance sworn, even unto death and beyond.  So arguably Fazzur's the one more faithfully discharging the big picture strategy, as opposed to a monomaniacal Dara Happan and his obsession to leaf-by-niggle his own particular pet project.

 IMHO Tatius wasn't very bright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...