Personally, I think that IFWW is not universal, but is shared by many races in Genertela and was responsible for the defeat of Chaos. Of course, many other things were also responsible for the defeat of Chaos, so it is not alone.
John Brown mentioned his anxieties about John Hughes' "Paths of the Hero" article.
I see a danger in becoming too involved emotionally with characters and actions in roleplaying games - after all, it is only a game.
Whilst I do think that there is a place for emotional catharsis and confronting moral issues in roleplaying generally, I think that this should come about as a logical extension and by-product of play, not as the end itself.
It is possible to carry out a HeroQuest in real life, a HeroQuest is merely a personal enlightenment journey, to widen one's experiences and achieve some insights into the world, yourself or your friends, family and society. However, there is a world of difference between doing this in real life and simulating it in a roleplaying session. To imply otherwise cheapens the real-world experiences. Anyone who has actually had a religious experience will know what I mean.
Some people could well believe that people can be drawn into higher worlds, or at least higher modes of thought, through vicarious identification with the actions and choices of player characters. However, what happens if the PCs are evil or perform dread deeds? Should we also vicariously identify with those deeds and actions? Should we empathise with the actions of the rapist on a Vadrus Quest or with the mass murderer emulating Babeester Gor's slaying of the Healers in Healer Valley? When should we do this and when should we not? Have we a list of HeroQuests which should be shared emotionally between players and characters and another list which should not?
There is nothing, in theory, to stop anyone playing roleplaying games from the opposing side - playing chaos or evil people. Such a thing is part of the enjoyment of roleplaying as it is only make-believe. When we start to cross the line and say that it is not make-believe any more then we have problems.
The idea that my player characters mirror my own personality is also too horrible a concept to even contemplate. As a GM, I play the entire gamut of characters, from evil chaotics to amoral sorcerers to good wholesome people and everyone between. Does this mean that my personality is mirrored in all these characters? What about the characters that I play from published scenarios - does my personality take on their attributes simply because I play them? Obviously not, the idea is patently silly. Roleplaying is just a bit of fun, to be picked up and put down whenever we want, not an emotional experience for us to draw on.
when I first read the article, I thought, like John, that it implied that we play ourselves as characters, however, on reading it six or seven times in the last week, I am not so sure that it does. Clearly, experiencing emotional catharsis and empathising with the character is easier if the character is closer to your own personality, but it can also be done when the personalities are drasticlally different - I can empathise with an evil, bloodthirst character fairly easily, even though I would hope that it does not reflect my personality.
I agree fully that this is not the way to direct HeroQuesting in roleplaying - - IT IS JUST A GAME, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps something less extreme and "right on" would be in order, especially for the repressed English and their equally repressed American cousins.
Thanks for those comments about RQ RIP, I am not giving up RQ just yet, nor Glorantha.
Are we going to see many posts about what should be in the new Glorantha the Game? I hope not - such things could be better placed in a different forum (or am I being extremely naive here?).
Sandy mentions that Vadeli are atheists - thanks. In the Convulsions 2 Pub Quiz, one question asked who were the atheist cultures in Glorantha - we answered Brithini and Vadeli bu the "official" answer was Brithini and Mostali (who worship Mostal) and we lost a point. As we came second by only a couple of points, I felt agrieved by this and still do - at last, more proof that I was right (as always!)
> Eat me, oh unfamiliar-with-HPL wiseacre.
OK, I read ten or so Lovecraft stories in the late Seventies, for some reason, and a couple more omnibuses in the early Eighties, so I am a bit rusty, but even then I found his style very disappointing (the word "boring" springs to mind). As this is a loranthan list, not a Cthuluhu list (or a Lovecraft list) this is my last post about this - but my opinions still stand.
> Depending on which definition is more useful to your purpose,
> the "soul" of a living creature is either ...
> -- the creature's body & spirit combined; i.e., the
> unification of these two entities into a whole.
Wow, Mormon beliefs in Glorantha - we get everywhere - you'll be using the glove example next :-)
Simon
Powered by hypermail