Lamiae

Submitted by GianniVacca on Sun, 15/07/2012 – 07:35

I’m trying to understand how Lamiae fit in the Gloranthan scheme of things.

  • In RQ2, Lamiae were Gateway creatures, not Gloranthan creatures: they were not described in the rule book, only in the Gateway Bestiary.
  • In RQ3, Lamiae were Gateway creatures, not Gloranthan creatures: they were described in the setting-agnostic rule book, and were absent from the Gloranthan Bestiary.
  • In the Mongoose RuneQuest books, Lamiae again only appear in non-Gloranthan themed supplements.
  • Also Lamiae aren’t amongst the creatures described in Anaxial’s Roster.

So all in all, based on evidence from source material, the conclusion seems to be that Lamiae are definitely Gateway and not Gloranthan monsters. However, there were Lamiae in the scenario titled Gautama’s Vision from Shadows on the Borderland, described as children of a succubus, along with their ogre brothers.

So was the presence of lamiae in Gautama’s Vision a one-off?

Submitted by davecake on Mon, 27/08/2012 – 14:26.

I wouldn’t read much at all into something being only in the Gateway Bestiary – there are probably more things in it that are officially Gloranthan now than otherwise. Some of the things in it were already mentioned in Gloranthan sources when it was published. All the arthropods, amphisboena, catoblepas, harpies, hippogriffs, hydra, rocs, satyrs, brollachan, voughs, stoorworms, dinosaurs… You are technically wrong about lamiae not being Gloranthan in RQ3. The Glorantha book in the boxed set listed which creatures in the setting agnostic rulesbook were NOT Gloranthan, and lamiae were not on that list (so, by implication they are Gloranthan (unlike orcs, halflings, fachan, bandersnatches, gorgons)). And while Lamia weren’t in Anaxial’s Roster, it was due to lack of space – they are listed (admittedly as a primarily Pamaltelan creature) in Anaxials Annex (where all the stuff cut from AR ended up http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/annex/)

I’d say all evidence points to them being Gloranthan, just relatively rare in the areas covered by Gloranthan material so far. I think they are a relatively common manifestation of Chaos in Pamaltela (perhaps due to the chaotic goddess Seseine), rare and unusual elsewhere.

Gloranthan Lamiae

Submitted by David Scott on Sun, 15/07/2012 – 17:30.

They are mentioned as one of the denizens of Nightwood, one of the stations of the Lightbringers Quest in Archane Lore.
Also in Heortling Mythology as part of the enemy gods of Orlanth section:
“Shepelkirt: Poison Blood, The Red Moon Goddess. In ancient times she plotted against her father, Orlanth, and the cosmos. She was cast down, but not before becoming the mother of vampires, lamiae, and many other Chaos monsters.”
So not a one off, just rare.

Submitted by Jeff on Mon, 16/07/2012 – 01:57.

Lamia is short-hand for evil Underworld demon that devours what it should love (children, lovers, whatever). When Greg or I use the word (or vampire, or other underworld monster), we don’t necessarily mean the RQ stat block creature.
So if the question is, “are there underworld demons that devour what they should love and often take at least partially the appearance of something fair and attractive?” the answer is yes. Lots of them. And underworld demons that are disembodied heads, or pure darkness, or deadly lust, and so on and so on and so on.

Editor-in-Chief, Moon Design Publications

Submitted by GianniVacca on Sun, 22/07/2012 – 10:32.

OK, so “Lamia” is meant as a generic word for any being that devours what it should love. And not necessarily undead/chaotic. Correct?

Submitted by metcalph on Sun, 22/07/2012 – 23:10.

I think the best rule for whether a lamia is undead or chaotic would be to look at the source.  For instance, the lamia of black rock are the children of a succubus so they are chaotic but not undead.  And so on.

Related Pages

,
Page Last updated: 2023-11-10 17:11:07