>Me>They [heroquests] don't [define reality]. If you want a exposition
> >why, ask on the digest.
>This is my request for an exposition why.
Well, three statements were recently made while under the influence of the proposition "belief and heroquests define reality". They were:
"Heroquest to change history": I know of no example where this has occurred. Furthermore it would appear to be a violation of the Great Compromise that fossilizes the participation of gods within the Cosmos.
"Heroquesting to worship a God as a Spirit": There is one minor culture that worships Gods as Saints. Despite having been around since the Great Darkness, they are still misapplied worshippers. Hence I do not believe its possible for a clan to kidnap a god and force him to become a spirit as was just suggested as plausible on the HQ list.
"Heroquesting to prove that two gods are one": Again there's no evidence for this. While there was a great deal of speculation about what might have happened with respect to Yelmalio/Elmal in the 90s, it's pretty much been quashed by information in HQ publications that Yelmalio and Elmal are distinct Gods (for starters - Elmal's Shining Hall is in the Storm Realm whereas Yelmalio's Fortress is at the edge of the Solar Realm).
There is the example of the Goddess Switch, which was part of the God Learner effort to revive the Elder Cults. The God Learners managed to get two gloranthan deities to admit they were interchangeable and even swapped the congregations around. But the God Learners failed to get the Goddesses to admit they were the one and the same (as the God Learners had good reasons for thinking) and the God Learners did this without heroquesting. So if the might of an empire infamous for abusing the art of heroquesting failed to combine two related goddesses into one then how can a mere heroquester hope to do better with two distinct deities?
Tim comes up with a quote from Greg which supports my position, another quote on Greg which speaks about misapplied worship and a final quote from Greg again which supports the converse. I'm be sparing in my commentary. Firstly a portion of Tim's response to the Greg statement about misapplied worship:
>Although I think many people feel that "missaplied worship" may
>represent some sort of "Gloranthan reality"
I don't think misapplied worship counts as a change in reality as it is really a change in how the worshipper perceives the divinity rather than a change in the actual reality of the divinity (the noumenon for those of philosophical bent).
And now Greg's statement in which he appears to support the other side:
>GS>FINALLY, the upcoming Hero Wars are going to contain
> >EXACTLY this sort of argument carried to the mythic
> >extreme. The game mechanic of the Heroquest Challenge
> >in which people can pit a portion of themselves against a
> >part of someone else. The loser loses all their ability in
> >whatever they bet. As the Hero Wars progress this very
> >personal challenge will be opened up to allow a group against
> >an individual, then groups against groups, then larger groups
> >against larger ones until you can have, in your campaign,
> >half the world fully backing one party or the other in a contest
> >of cosmic beliefs. Say, Argrath and the Orlanthi Way versus
> >Sedenya and the Lunar Way. The point of this is that you will
> >be able, in your own campaign, to decide whether or not Orlanth
> >= Shargash.
The context of the post indicates that it's not something that has been done before but rather than it's a new technique of the HeroQuest Challenge that has been discovered during the Hero Wars. It's not an example of making two gods one but rather two gods (and their proxies) gamble on which one gets everything.
I'll have to admit to doubtful feelings about phrase "to the mythic extreme". I think the Hero Wars are far more than just gambling contests between the Gods to determine the Victor (and I have seen this interpretation before) and I note that Argrath does nothing of the kind when he seeks to tear down the Red Moon.
Given the single published example of the Heroquest Challenge (the fragment of Eringulf Vanak Spear in Tales #7), it seems to me that the contest requires consent on both sides and I have great difficulty in imagining the Red Goddess and Orlanth (or other antagonistic pair) staking everything on a throw of a die.
What is more likely to me is that the technique becomes used as a tool among hard-pressed friends to settle their differences for once and for all. For example, two Arkats and their armies are being pummelled by the other three. They would like to combine but ideological differences prevent an effective alliance. So the two Arkats, seeing that both are going to be wiped out anyway if they do nothing, decide to stake everything on the Existence Challenge to unite effectively.
Finally to knowingly quest to change reality speaks of a rather cynical attitude towards myths and the other side. I could accept a God Learner having this mindset but I find it difficult to accept that an Orlanthi would seek to make two gods the same (more likely is that he would follow one and scorn the other) or to turn Yinkin into a spirit so his clan could have an alynx as a totem.
--Peter Metcalfe
End of Glorantha Digest, Vol 11, Issue 208
Powered by hypermail