> What works for me is having Humakt having an essentially unchanged
> nature since the Dawn... As always, I take the middle ground.
"I am sorely afraid that the Commander of the Faithful misjudges the location of the authentically moderate idea in this era. It is much further from him than he might wish."
NB: The Moderate Man is the inspiration for Murides Polyphiles, the unnaturally reasonable Lunar Illuminate at Moonbroth Oasis: "By a mere taking of his position, he seemed to make all that was said on many sides infinitely more *comprehensible*. Even if he was invariably deemed wrong, every man fell either on one side of him or the other, and all could measure their own opinion by its distance from his veritable Northern-Star of moderation." -- ibid.
>> Under the Bright Empire, Chalana Arroy healers were often distrusted >> by those who fought against Lokamayadon and the Empire. The Chalana >> Arroy healers certainly opposed Arkat and his reign of war...
> Not that I doubt this statement, but can someone please refer me to
> non-fan sources that support this?
Greg Stafford's unpublished novel "The Life of Harmast" (from which he's read at various conventions over the past seven years or so) includes a scene where a Chalana Arroy healer is about to betray a band of Orlanthi refugees to the Cold Sun soldiers of the Bright Empire. After all, it's the only sure way to reduce their poverty and suffering... They can only prevent her by using the Lightbringer Summons to rope her into their own fight against Chaos. She reluctantly accedes.
But maybe that's a "fan source". The term seems odd, to me.
> In the War of Arkat, I can see Healers taking both sides
Agreed. Which fits just fine with Jeff's exegesis: Makla Mann killed *bad=
*
Healers. But modern Orlanthi don't believe in "bad Healers". Which is why=
the heroquest looks weird and dangerous and anti-social to us today, but makes perfect sense in its original context (a war in which illuminated Orlanthi, Humakti and Chalana Arroy cultists fought against each other, ignoring cult and cultural restrictions whenever it proved expedient).
> For practical gaming, I find that it's necessary for the Gods to have
> a real, objective existence, at least as far as the PC's are concerned.=
When the PCs worship gods, sure. When they don't? Would you impose real, objective gods on a party of monotheist Malkioni adventurers? Surely not.=
What you're saying is that in your game it is most convenient to present the gods as objective, personal, etc. I have no problem whatsoever with that. But it doesn't mean that it must be so, everywhere, always, in each=
and every corner of Glorantha, in every conceivable campaign: that all Gloranthans experience real, objective deities regardless of their own personal and cultural world-views, does it?
We have to separate "what's convenient for gaming" from "how Glorantha really works", if we want to make any progress on the meta-issues. Once again, I recommend that all slaves of the Monomyth browse my collection, "Whatever Happened to the One True Glorantha?", on:
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Nick_Brooke/one-true.htm>
> It plays havoc to assume that Gloranthan Humanity have had no effect
> on the shape of the Gods.
So your compromise is that they've had no effect whatsoever on Humakt??
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail