The more "Adult" aspects of RuneQuest/Glorantha...

[Urox]

Very very different to RQ3, then.

Not that different -- she is still a member of the Unholy Trio.

I just checked Lords of Terror (RQ3), and the first paragraph is almost identical -- LoT actually has a typo where Ragnaglar's name is left out, which is why some of the grammar seems incorrect.

Lords of Terror also mentions humans as members, so I am not sure where you get the broo-only membership.

I believe the inspiration for the cult is halfway between the Salem-era witches and the fictional Dunwich/Innsmouth covens.

Odd Gloranthan bit: Broos were originally the untainted children of Thed and Ragnaglar.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Lords of Terror also mentions humans as members, so I am not sure where you get the broo-only membership.

That's coming from Gods of Glorantha, as was the rest of my info.

Do I detect some Gregging, perhaps?

 

[Lord Twig]

Another note on broos. They are supernaturally potent. They can mate with anything, female OR male and they will produce offspring. The offspring is basically parasitic and will eat it's way out of the unfortunate host. It will usually take on some of the characteristics of the host when it is born.

So if a broo mates with a cow, the offspring may have cow horns and hooves. If it mates with a rhino it will probably be large, have rhino horns and thick skin (natural armor). Dorastor had several groups of broos that were spawned from various animals. I remember the dinosaur ones in particular.

Bottom line, if you are fighting broos, you fight to the death. You do NOT want to be taken prisoner.

 

[Urox]

That's coming from Gods of Glorantha, as was the rest of my info.

Do I detect some Gregging, perhaps?

GoG is generally understood to be a document of the God Learners, and is the result of their trying to unify everything, and can't be taken literally. They searched mythologies for similar gods and combined them into one -- so as written in GoG, the Thed Cult could be part Dragon Pass Thed, part 1000 Isle rape God, and part Palmaltelan Goat God.

For reference, LoT(1994) is almost 10 years newer than GoG(1985), and actually is much closer to the source, CoT(1981).

 

[Lord Twig]

Yeah, that's Gregging.

The guy can not just decide on something and say, "That's the way it is." He always adds, "Well this culture looks on it this way, but this one believes this and over here they think this." You ask, "but which one is true?" You will not get an answer.

Some people love this. After all, what is really true about Zeus? How is he different/related to Jupiter? History is not clear.

I don't want to play in the real world of uncertainties. I like the fact that in a role-playing game you can find the "Truth" and that will be it. Something either did or did not happen. You can not change the myths. They are what they are. They are timeless and unchanging. You can only change the future. To me that is what the Great Compromise did, it locked in what was so that it could not change.

Anyway, that is starting to get into the philosophy of Glorantha.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Bottom line is that the habit makes a supplement like GoG totally unusable. Learning that the Cults you've been running for the past few years are actually a God Learner construct, and that the way characters have been behaving is contradictory to the true nature of their Cults is very disheartening indeed. Elmal/Yelmalio, anyone?

Let's hope that the Second Age setting puts a stop to that.

 

[Urox]

Yeah, that's Gregging.

Actually, it's more of an explanation of why God of Glorantha is so bad.

If you want Gregging, do some digging on Elmal...

I don't want to play in the real world of uncertainties. I like the fact that in a role-playing game you can find the "Truth" and that will be it. Something either did or did not happen.

I suspect most (if not all) RQ1-3 era interpretations had fixed truths -- I know all the ones I played in did. The Devil is trapped underneath the Block. Period. Anything else is a chaos spawned lie!

You can not change the myths. They are what they are. They are timeless and unchanging. You can only change the future.

This is the whole nebulous nature of hero questing. You re-inact some myth from the past (often against some active agency), and the winner influences the future favorably.

I was never a huge fan of this station-based heroquesting, and I cut my teeth on the SuperRQ variant.

 

[Lord Twig]

Bottom line is that the habit makes a supplement like GoG totally unusable. Learning that the Cults you've been running for the past few years are actually a God Learner construct, and that the way characters have been behaving is contradictory to the true nature of their Cults is very disheartening indeed. Elmal/Yelmalio, anyone?

Let's hope that the Second Age setting puts a stop to that.

What are you talking about? Gods of Glorantha is totally usable. I just stopped listening to Greg Stafford. The guy has gone totally loony.

Gods of Glorantha is not a God Learner construct. It is a game supplement that standardized the rules for cult membership so that it was convenient for people to use in their games.

In addition it added a lot of gods to what was previously printed in Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror and fleshed out the Gloranthan game world a little more.

 

[SteveMND]

GoG is generally understood to be a document of the God Learners, and is the result of their trying to unify everything, and can't be taken literally.

Actually, while the fist chapter begins with a discussion and synopsis of the Jrusteli Monomyth, I can't seem to find anywhere in the book where it states that all the cult writeups are actually supposed to be such 'sanitized' versions.

Learning that the Cults you've been running for the past few years are actually a God Learner construct, and that the way characters have been behaving is contradictory to the true nature of their Cults is very disheartening indeed.

Why would it be? Just use what you want and don't use what you don't want. If you like the idea of the GoG writeups as being God Learner constructs, go with that. If you don't, say they're not.

I still don't understand why some people have this pained reaction everytime something new comes out that might disagree with something that was in print before it. Glorantha, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Realms, etc. The designers of the setting are constantly tweaking things to be more as they see it, and we as GMs do as well, so why all the fuss? Just use what you like, and don't use what you don't.

 

[zozotroll]

Back to Uleria for a moment. I had a woman play an Ulerian some years ago. It worked very well in that particular group. She made it all the way to preastess.

Her RW husband played a Humakti, and as on of the uptight, stuffy sort. As I have always seen the chuclkles boys that way anyway, it worked fine for me. Some of the ingame squables they had about comparative sexuality were wonders to behold.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I still don't understand why some people have this pained reaction everytime something new comes out that might disagree with something that was in print before it. Glorantha, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Realms, etc. The designers of the setting are constantly tweaking things to be more as they see it, and we as GMs do as well, so why all the fuss? Just use what you like, and don't use what you don't.

It's not really my own reaction (I never bought LoT so it didn't affect me), I was more describing a reaction.

Let's say we have a GM running a Broo campaign, where the PCs worship Malia, Thed and the rest. A lot of the PCs actions and motivations would be influenced by the material in GoG, and it's easy enough to latch on to the "goddess of rape" bit and take it to one possible logical conclusion, through nothing more than good roleplaying. Then LoT comes out, which everyone gets excited about cos it will give more background and detail to the campaign.

You can probably guess the rest. You could get off lightly and have the two versions being broadly compatible, or you could find yourself in a situation where if you want to use the more detailed version you have to effectively throw out the last 5 years of your hypothetical Broo campaign. Or you could cop out and say something like "well Ralzakark went on a HQ and now things are different". None of these approaches are satisfactory.

So I suppose my point is that if a supplement contains info that (a) affects the roleplaying element of the game to a similar extent as a Cult writeup would (in terms of PC and NPC motivations and backgrounds), and (b) is liable to be modified (either instead of, or as well as, be expanded on) by a later supplement, people have a right to get slightly upset and annoyed.

Anyway, we're well off topic here, maybe this needs a thread of it's own.

 

[The King]

There's also an adventure in Sun County where a priest of Krarsht offered his privates as a symbole of his devotion.

 

[homerjsinnott]

I still don't understand why some people have this pained reaction everytime something new comes out that might disagree with something that was in print before it. Glorantha, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Realms, etc. The designers of the setting are constantly tweaking things to be more as they see it, and we as GMs do as well, so why all the fuss? Just use what you like, and don't use what you don't.

It's not really my own reaction (I never bought LoT so it didn't affect me), I was more describing a reaction.

Let's say we have a GM running a Broo campaign, where the PCs worship Malia, Thed and the rest. A lot of the PCs actions and motivations would be influenced by the material in GoG, and it's easy enough to latch on to the "goddess of rape" bit and take it to one possible logical conclusion, through nothing more than good roleplaying. Then LoT comes out, which everyone gets excited about cos it will give more background and detail to the campaign.

You can probably guess the rest. You could get off lightly and have the two versions being broadly compatible, or you could find yourself in a situation where if you want to use the more detailed version you have to effectively throw out the last 5 years of your hypothetical Broo campaign. Or you could cop out and say something like "well Ralzakark went on a HQ and now things are different". None of these approaches are satisfactory.

So I suppose my point is that if a supplement contains info that (a) affects the roleplaying element of the game to a similar extent as a Cult writeup would (in terms of PC and NPC motivations and backgrounds), and (b) is liable to be modified (either instead of, or as well as, be expanded on) by a later supplement, people have a right to get slightly upset and annoyed.

Anyway, we're well off topic here, maybe this needs a thread of it's own.

I don't know where your Campaign is set but there is no reason why the version of Thed you use is not the one that is in the myths in that area, but she is worshipped differently in other areas (unless yours was a lozenge spaning game). I see this as only adding to the wonder of your game not detracting from it.

Addressing points made by others so far, I'm fairly sure that Thed was mentioned as being raped in CoT which you would assume would affect her cult in Glorantha. Also rape is not exclusively perpetrated by men on women. Cases of male rape are not unknown and male/male rapes are more common

 

[burdock]

Gbajithedeceiver wrote:

Let's say we have a GM running a Broo campaign, where the PCs worship Malia, Thed and the rest.

I don't think it is advisable to do this!!!!

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Gbajithedeceiver wrote:

Let's say we have a GM running a Broo campaign, where the PCs worship Malia, Thed and the rest.

I don't think it is advisable to do this!!!!

The beauty of RQ though is that you can. You're not always forced into "good guy" roles.

Well, OK. Maybe not a full campaign, but it's certainly good for an entertaining diversion.

And funny how it swings back on topic, cos the ability to play the bad guy was definitely one of the more adult/mature aspects, although perhaps not in the sense that the original post meant.

 

[Natashi Kumiko]

And funny how it swings back on topic, cos the ability to play the bad guy was definitely one of the more adult/mature aspects, although perhaps not in the sense that the original post meant.

You are correct, playing or exploring the nature of the "evil monsters (TM)" instead of just using them as catapult fodder was on of the more mature points of RQ. Wish I had thought to mention that

 

[burdock]

I'm not sure why it would be attractive to "make-believe" the situations that would occur around such player characters. Surely it is much more wholesome to play a demented, stinking, berserk, Stormbull worshipper slaughtering his way through a chaos nest? More quaint... :twisted:

 

[SteveMND]

So I suppose my point is that if a supplement contains info that (a) affects the roleplaying element of the game to a similar extent as a Cult writeup would (in terms of PC and NPC motivations and backgrounds), and (b) is liable to be modified (either instead of, or as well as, be expanded on) by a later supplement, people have a right to get slightly upset and annoyed.

Eh, I suppose I just don't get it. Over the span of thirty years, lots of stuff will change in any published campaign. If a change comes along that doesn't fit into the campaign as we've been playing it, just don't use that part.

With the exception of perhaps a very small handful, I doubt any of us know literally everything about the world that's been created by Greg, and I know each and every GM ends up with a slightly different campaign world than the other, simply because there are gaps in the full details of the world that need to be filled as you play.

I guess I just don't see why some people feel something has to be incorporated into their campaign just because it gets published.

 

[Utgardloki]

At first I didn't see the problem with changes to the source material regarding the gods of Glorantha. It's like Earth where the Jews worship God as a unitary deity, and then the Christians worship Him as a holy trinity, and then the Muslims worship him as a unitary deity again. (I haven't figured out what to do with the "Daughters of Allah" yet.) The Jews don't stop what they're doing just because the Christians announce that He has a Son, nor do the Christians stop because the Muslims announce that He does not have a son, and he especially really absolutely does not have any daughters. And that does not stop Christians in the "Fourth Age" (the Age of Aquarius) from saying that He may be considered a She, etc.

Of course, millions of people get killed over theological differences like that (not to mention questions like transubstantiation), but that is just one of those things that makes the Earth such a rich and well-detailed setting full of role-playing possibility.

But then I thought maybe that is the problem. As a GM, I've certainly had major headaches whenever I had to consider anything relating on the Christian religion. The worst was probably detailing my Macho Women with Guns campaign ideas: I really had to ask "What would Jesus do?" And then there's the question of whether Christ and Krishna may be the same deity presenting themselves to two different cultures, or whether they just happen to have similar-sounding names. Oy.

The best way to handle the gods of Glorantha, it seems, is not to say that your campaign is wrong because some new information came out, but that either the characters in your game have it wrong, or the new guys have it wrong, or that the real truth is something that somehow captures the essense of all the available information.

I certainly know how difficult this can be. For Earth, I am committed to the premise that the mainstream currents of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all valid, so what do I do with the statements in the Bible, in which Christ himself says "I am the only way to Heaven." (One possibility -- Christ is not really a name on Jesus's birth certificate, but a title given to him by the Greeks. Perhaps this can be interpreted as similar to the title of "the Bhudda", which can be claimed by any who practice the way, regardless of what words they actually use to describe it. But I digress.)

Myself, I like to have freedom to interpret a campaign. As a result, my Glorantha may have drastic differences from Gregg's Glorantha. (For one thing, I have plans to introduce Jesus Christ to Glorantha. I just need to figure out what Jesus would do.)

 

[Adept]

Yeah, that's Gregging.

Actually, it's more of an explanation of why God of Glorantha is so bad.

If you want Gregging, do some digging on Elmal...

Elmal is brilliant (no pun intended), and one of my favorite deities.

Glorantha makes more sense with the more compleate cosmologies, and the apparent (but not actual) paradoxes are very interesting.

Elmal has a lot of character, and is pretty central in the Heortling (Orlanthi) myths. I'm very glad Greg didn't hold back from introducing him just because he hadn't been mentioned earlier.

I shudder to think that the heortling vision of the sun would have been dependant on Yelm and Yelmalio.