From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Sat, 16 Jul 1994, part 2
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
---------------------
From: bchugg@leland.stanford.edu (Barron Chugg)
Subject: Playing Catch-up
Message-ID: <199407151857.LAA03672@popserver.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 15 Jul 94 03:59:31 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5171
Hello All.
Well, I'm back and backed up. I've got a week of dailies to respond to,
so please be forgiving if this gets long. I also have some original
thoughts that I'll try to compose in a seperate post.
7July94
---------------
Colin:
>My view is that the God's "consciousness" comes through his cult. Actions
>initiated by the god independantly of the cult are simply the natural activity
>of the domain he represents...
As far as this goes, I agree. But I'd like to add two thoughts. First,
the "consciousness" of a goddess is a _very_ difficult thing to define. As
I have written before, even if the deity has _no_ independant mind, the
number of possible paths open to the deity (based on the people who follow
it) may be so large as to be indistinguishable from free will/action. I
think that when we discuss specifics of deities' interaction with the world
it is hard to tell specifics ("What man can know the mind of God?"). I can
easily imagine goddess that appears free (i.e. passes a Turing Test of
sorts) and yet is fully constrained. And, as should come to a suprise to
no one, I don't think such a question is very useful. What is important is
how the deity manifests in the world (i.e. how she interacts with the PCs).
Second thought: Yes, the goddess responds to the cult. Their wishes
manifest in the deity (thus giving local/cultural variations). But, I
think, their unconscious desires leak over too. This is what "smears" the
clarity of the deity's purpose, occasionally causing seemingly unprovoked
effects, and leading to a better illusion of free will (but hey, Illusion
is Reality, right?).
> [Comments about "mundane" actions and the God Plane]
Dead on! I feel that this is a fundemental aspect of Glorantha (or
should be!). I'm also fairly convinced that few things in Glorantha are
ever "mundane", at least not in the non-western cultures.
>If you acted in the name of a God then this path might be added to your
>god's...
I think the path is "interwoven" more than added. If you followed some
path as a devotee of your god, then you were playing their "role" on many
of your quests. Did you do X, or did your god? Hard to tell in the Hero
PLane...
> Did Humakt *want* to be Death?
Like heroes, gods lose their independence. This is what happened when
you become defined by your actions, not your "self".
---------------
Urox, Brandon, and others:
Loved the campaign/run write-ups! I hope that they'll become a standard
on the daily.
---------------
Harald:
I like your reasoning about why it is preferable to regain magic in
temples (i.e. all quests have some opposition). I think that some basic
rules (eeewww!) would be great. Anyone ever run into this before?
---------------
8July 94
Bryan:
> In order to become a great
>heroic power, one is forced to surrender, bit by bit, one's "will".
Sort of like an investment? But one with "costs" associated. I like it.
> [More good stuff on gods.]
Very well put. I love the ideas of the gods being constrained to follow
specific paths a great deal. I'd say that if they could do otherwise, they
would not be gods. A god is a being so defined by their actions that they
can go little else. Would they "stop being gods" if they did? I'm not
sure. It seems the obvious response, but I don't know if it is a valid
question to ask. The definition of "God" includes the bit about being so
completely tied to their actions that they are defined by them. So, I
guess if you stop preforming the actions thent you are no longer defined as
a god, but I don't think gods are capable of that. Wow, this is getting
disturbingly Nysalori...
>Gods do not have "free will" in any way we normally mean this.
But, in keeping with my comments above (to Colin), do they have the
_appearence_ of free will? I think that very often people in the world
would say yes. They may be misinterpreting "natural" events, but it is
what they believe (and belief and reality are intimately convolved).
> Humakt
>CANNOT suddenly decide to go be the god of picking daisies and singing
>"tra-la-la-la-la"...
I'm not sure of the "tra-la-la..." part, put ruthlessly picking daisies
is clearly the province of the god of Death!
BTW, I loved your perspectives from each culture. Things like that
should be a standard for Gloranthan write-ups. I'd say, however, that the
beliefs are those of _very_ well educated people (ok, maybe not the
Naturalist one). I strongly doubt that one in one thousand worshippers
view their deity as so constrained. Their relationships are more personal,
almost familial. (Note: I esspecially liked the Lunar perspective...way
twisted!)
------------
Loren:
>Furthermore, I would de-emphasize "mundane" as a category.
Yep, yep, yep! Maybe those spiritually stunted Westerners think of
things as mundane, but we Orlanthi know that there are proper rituals for
all things.
> Sacred acts
>are those that were performed and approved by the gods. This includes
>almost every act of any significance, from sex to eating to death to
>bathing to lighting a fire. Taboo acts were the cause of some
>disaster in the myths, and so are prohibited by the gods as
>profane/evil/bad. If a "new" act comes to light, then the priests and
>theologians search through the myths to discover some incident where a
>god performed that act or something a lot like it, and decide whether
>the act is to be sacred or profane. Within a normally active religion
>there will be very few activities that are neither vetted nor vetoed
>by the gods, so the mundane turns out to be an empty and meaningless
>category.
This is a bit to absolute for my tastes. I think that much of the
choices about which things are good/bad are not determined by priests, but
are the result of acretion from many religions _and_ the surrounding
culture (not necessarily in that order). I do not think that people have
internal lists as to good/bad things. These are ussually so ingrained in
the culture that a person never considers them. I guess I am just
objecting to the absolute/dualist nature of your idea. The thought is dead
on, however.
---------------
11 July 94
Alex:
>When I hear statements like "the Monomyth is true", I don't so such think
>"clearly, it's actually false", but rather "in what sense do you mean,
>_true_?" To what are you claiming it's a useful approximation to?
True and useful approximation are two very different things. As I am
hoping to cover in a seperate post, there is no "truth". I won't digress
into the philosophy of science too much, but truth is far too subjectively
defined to be a worth while concept. In this case in particular. If Greg
were to write a "THIS IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, HONEST!!!" book then we'd be
able to start arguing about truth, but this ain't gonna happen (okay, it's
probably for the best. Afterall what would we be able to quibble about on
the daily if he did? :-)).
So, on the MM. I look at it as a basic framework for a pre-time
timeline. Rather than having to have hundreds of individual versions of
mythology, I get one, fairly straight forward one and I can use that to
complexify local myth to my heart's content. Now, this is a game concept.
In a more Gloranthan centered view (which is, I think what you are aiming
at), I think that the MM is a combination of all you have said. It started
with the GLs collecting myths and coallating them into reasonable
"families". Armed with this knowledge they then set off to see if their
version was "true". Here is where the hard part comes. These are the
classic (archetypal) arrogant Westerners. They had done the calculations,
they knew their result was correct. Going into the God PLane with that
mind set, they forced the GP into what they expected. So here is the crux.
Even if the MM was a crappy approximation before they started testing it,
once they did it became a better and better one. At least this is how I
look at it.
The MM is a particularly thorny problem because it is a link between the
local and the global. I don't think many of us have trouble with the idea
of local truth, but when one tries to reconcile all these local truthes
into a global one, all heck is bound to break loose.
>> It's like saying that the fact that certain biological facts
>> are difficult to explain means that the whole theory of organic
>> evolution is bunk (an argument I've heard from creationists).
>
>Or a bit like saying this phlogiston theory business has one or two minor
>bugs in it.
I'm not sure I agree with Sandy's analogy. I'd prefer to think of
Classical Mechanics. They work great on reasonable scales of length and
velocity, and were perfectly valid while those scales inaccessible. But
when we started investigating the small and the fast there was trouble.
The MM works fine as a basic framework for mythic history, but it runs into
problems when we start to look at certain smaller aspects, or when we try
to apply it too broadly.
>You seem to have abandonned "Glorantha-level" arguments several messages
>ago on this thread, but I'll press on regardless.
This is a classic difference in perspective. I'll freely admit that I
always have the "game" aspect in my mind when I think about Glorantha (not
the game mechanics, just the roleplaying part). When I consider a
culture/area I ask myself "would this play well?", or "how will this come
across?". Mind you, I very much enjoy the "Glorantha for the sake of
Glorantha" discussions, but the game part is always somewhere in my mind.
(Honestly, I doubt I'd spend so much time on it without the game parts.
I've never been very interested in discussing literary worlds for their own
sake.)
I guess what I am saying is, I think of characters as my test probes in
Glorantha. They are able to answer the crucial question of "how does
someone in the world view this?".
--------------------------
Okay, that's about half my catch-up.
Barron
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: More LB jokes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H on illumination.
Message-ID: <9407152004.AA15161@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Jul 94 20:04:52 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5173
Sandy:
> In my campaign today, the cult of Elmal is a "lost" religion,
> waiting to be reawakened or discovered. Only the Lhankor Mhy sages
> even know of its existence, and most people, including most
> Yelmalions, assume that Yelmalio has "always" been the sun god of the
> high country.
I don't adhere to this course myself, but I Highly Commend it to those
people feeling Hosed/Tinkered/Switcherooed/Gregged/Bolluxed Up/Other by
Mr. Stafford's latest brainchild. I'm 99% certain that the Cult Of Greg's
spirit of reprisal does not act in such instances. Or at any rate, I've
not heard from any survivors if it does.
> Klyfix:
> >I suspect that those famed illuminated Humakti broos would be more
> >honorable than many humans. even an illuminated broo priestess of
> >Chalana Arroy will be pacifistic and compassionate.
> Why would you possibly suspect this? By both nature and
> nurture, a broo is the inverse of honorable by any human standards.
This ignores, however, the alleged philosophical and psychological effects
of illumination, for both chaotic and non-chaotic beings. "Freeing them
[the latter] from their hate", as Lunar propaganda would have it. While
such change is purely internal, and mental, I don't think it's negligible:
after all, illuminates recognise each other by their _behaviour_, not by
any direct magical or inherent means.
Mind you, I'm sure many people do become illuminated from (or despite
having) cynical motives. I'd put not only power-crazed chaotics in this
category, but also "anti-illumination" Arkati, becoming illuminated in order
to prevent or monitor others doing so. (Sandy's cult of St. Arkat takes
all the fun out of this, note, and I'd play that joining this cult is
conditional on, or synonymous with, becoming illuminated.) Then add in
all the people who are illuminated for "good" reasons, or inadvertantly,
and are then subsequently Led Astray by the temptations...
> Note that the Hellwood elves clearly abuse Aldrya cult
> strictures for the cult benefits, and are known to have burned large
> swatchs of woods -- about the worst crime possible to any elf. I see
> no reason that broos would be more benign than the krjalki.
The Hellwooders aren't (written as being generally) illuminates, though.
I'd say their worship of Aldrya was not so much "cynical", as just highly
warped. When your whole nation worships in the same "abusive" way, whether
it offends against the CoP description becomes somewhat academic.
I did quite like the Krjalki material in Dorastor: it combines the "chaos
horror" and "traitor" aspects quite neatly. My main quibble would be that
only "advanced" Hellwood elves are presented as worshippers, while it'd
much more sense to me that rather more were co-opted to such worship, and
that the "Krjalki" themselves would get reusable rune magic.
> An illuminate must still obey the requirements to enter a
> cult. Only afterwards can he abuse it.
Depends what sort of "requirement" you have in mind. I'd think being
illuminated would certainly help out with divinations concerning past
actions or status, as well, obviously, as letting "chaotics" join non- or
anti-chaotic cults. It's not gonna help you with pretending to be a troll
if you're an elf, or a master of Animal Lore if your zoological knowledge
stops at "It was kinda big and hairy". Likewise, I don't think Illumination
helps you get away with conduct offensive to your cult once you're in it:
the other _people_ in your cult, more particularly.
The description of Belvani in Sun County is puzzling to me: he seems to
ignore the "social" mores of his cult (his weapons and his opinions), while
obeying the magical ones (his geases and the like). Just confused, I reckon.
Alex.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Loskalm and Time.
Message-ID: <9407152039.AA15396@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Jul 94 20:39:24 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5174
Joerg:
> >> The Hrestoli in Old Loskalm don't have any [Orlanthi subjects]. These
> >> make up probably one half of all Hrestoli in Glorantha.
> > The other half being whom? I think most other alleged Hrestoli aren't
> > part of the Loskalmi Nouveau Idealism, so all bets off for them. As for
> > ex-pat Loskalmi, I dunno. Where are they, for one thing?
> Janube River valley up to Eastpoint: all ancient Loskalm.
[and assorted others]
All "old" Hrestoli, which is _not_ what I asked about. "New" idealism
dates from during the ban, so it's spread beyond Loskalm and Junora is
likely to be very limited, to date. You referred to Loskalmi adventurers
in the rest of Fronela, it was they I was inviting expoundment upon.
> > There is? Who, the Jonatings? I'm not convinced they are "Hrestoli" in
> > any sense other than not being Rokari.
> See above, except for Wexten. The form of Hrestolism I call Linealist,
> which dominated throughout 1st and 2nd Age Seshnela.
I've no idea if your term is accept(ed|able), but at any rate, we certainly
_do_ need to distinguish between these two forms, and not just call them
both Hrestolism (as you blithely did in the original).
> Talar is occupied by a very different culture. As to making one up:
> feel free to do so.
Not so different that they don't have the same social castes, at least. Bear
in mind that Linealist-Hrestolism was the earliest (still-existing, at any
rate) "offshoot" of the Brithini culture. Hrestol himself is referred to as
a Talar in places, rightly or wrongly.
> >> Yes, especially the moment at 0 YT. In Godtime.
> > Eh, yeah, that's the "year" I'm talking about. Didn't I just say that?
> Already in Godtime there were days. In my reply to Nils I speculated about
> their nature.
There were days before 0YS? I doubt it. No sun, no days, in my book. Call
this excessive reductionism if you will. If you mean before 0 _ST_ (not
the calander we were discussing, note); depends whom one asks. The DHans
certainly reckon there were, but it's not clear that the Orlanthi do.
> >> I think that Yelm introduced a certain scheme of temporal order in his
> >> realm, if he didn't inherit it already from the Celestial Court.
> > And he didn't, according to Dara Happan beliefs.
> He didn't, according to Plentonius. But Plentonius needn't be right
> in any statement.
I'm not saying he's "right", I'm saying that's our best approximation for
what the Dara Happans _believe_.
> My God Learner self tells me that Elias Loennrot, the
> collector of these Karelian sagas, heard two versions of the same
> story with more differences than he felt empowered to reconcile, so he
> let this event occur twice in his collection of single myths.
Not unlike the "bigamy" footnote debate in KoS, indeed.
> Plentonius has a whole bunch of Hill of Gold events...
Including one where the Orb of Authority is lost, and one where it's found
again, not obvious candidates for being identified as same original event.
> > Doesn't it worry you
> > that this is entirely at odds with Theyalan beliefs on the matter, in
> > using this as "evidence" of anything?
> It isn't if you delve for the underlying hard info.
The what? The hard info being, supposedly? Are you asserting that the
Theyalans don't believe "Time began in 0ST, "before" that there was weird,
acausal stuff", or merely that their belief can be "explained" away?
> > Doesn't the GRAY history of that
> > period look, in fact, like something of a flimsy tissue of guesswork and
> > fabrication?
> To me, it has a lot in common with the Kalevala. Both were compiled by a
> nationalist in a period of reconstitution of a national identity. Both
> are works of literature rather than an authentic set of folk myths. And
> both hold the only surviving info on the matters.
Apart from everyone else's myths of the same "period", which you believe
must be ultimately reconciable. Anyway, I was talking about the "timeline"
of Yelm's (first) reign, which has nothing very specifically to do with
the Dara Happan nation (as well as being not very specific), not GRAY as a
whole.
> In yet another (possibly too long) posting I ranted about why and how
> a unified myth is essential for Glorantha-
Strange how it ever managed without it, and continues to, in many areas.
Alex.
---------------------
From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Subject: What makes a god a god.
Message-ID: <9407152111.AA18075@sonata.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 15 Jul 94 11:11:53 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5175
Okay, from what I've heard, there are actually two different kinds of beings
that get called "gods" in Glorantha. The first are just big spirits, like
Sog, or Sartar, or Arkat. They get their religion entirely from worship.
Their worshippers, or lack thereof, determine their existence as divine beings.
Then there are entities like Uleria and Humakt, who have a "secret power".
This permits them to exist regardless of worship. Basically, wherever there
is anything, there will be sex and death, at least in Glorantha.
HOWEVER, from what I understand, the worshippers can greatly influence the
specific form of the god. Thus, if Orlanthi take up flower arranging, wearing
perfume, and contemplation of ponds, Orlanth will start taking on these
characteristics, provided enough Orlanthi do this. However, if Storm is his
"secret power" he will still be the God of Storm. He'll just be a sissyfied
God of Storm.
I recall that Uleria's worship is VERY different in different parts of
Glorantha...
Furthermore, the goddess, herself is different in these different parts.