>From: "Greg Stafford" <Greg_at_...>
>
>You know, this is really digest territory now.
My mistake, I really ought to subscribe to the digest. I've never really been clear on what the dividing line is. I assumed this fell under rules because we are, in fact, talking about the concepts behind the rules, which tells us how to apply them (otherwise I'd probably have moved it to RPG at least).
Anyhow, I'm hoping that the Aristotelean nature of this dialog is enlightening to more people than just myself. In any case, I've got the important answers for me now. Any questions below can be treated as rhetorical if you're not interested in replying.
(More important to get you back to editing text and stuff). :-)
>Let me start by saying that there are different methods of thought and
>discourse possible, and they are mutually exclusive. Thus rationality, an
>extremely human trait that we have developed par excellance, is one
>method. It�s the one favored by Mike, and most of us, that he uses here.
>However, this is incapable of explaining everything about the unknowable.
>The intuitive, irrational or impossible simply to do not reduce to
>rational explanations.
Actually I'm quite interested in the pre-rational viewpoint. I'm a particular fan of the BBC show Connections, one series of which was entirely about illustrating the differences between the modern rational mindset and the mindset of at least Europeans before that point. For example. I've advocated HQ elsewhere as a playable game against criticisms that it's not against people who tried to say that this pre-rational mindset (that makes the Gloranthas so genuine) made it unplayable, in fact.
If the answer to any of these questions is, "It just is" that's fine with me. I'm not trying, in fact, to argue that the gods discriminate based on otherworlds, just that it would not be unplayable if that were the way. In point of fact, I'd like the opposite to be true. And lo...
>Most Gloranthans do not have the knowledge that there are only three
>otherworlds.
OK, I didn't know that they thought there were more otherworlds. But I don't think it invalidates any of the points. The more important point, you make later. Humakt also doesn't know. That's what I was worried about. Now I'm free to ignore otherworld as part of testing. Which is what I was hoping was the case.
There seems to be some confusion about my playing devil's advocate here. Let me summarize.
Mike: Is the worship of a being from an otherworld reason for one being from
another otherworld to reject a worshipper of the original being? I've been
told so, but it seems odd.
Somebody Theoretical: That wouldn't make sense to object on those grounds.
Mike (Devil's Advocate): Well it would based on the idea that the gods seem
to discriminate on all sorts of other things.
Greg: People don't know about otherworlds. Mike: Good, and makes sense. But do gods know about the otherworlds? Greg: Essentially no. Mike: Perfect.
> > A. Human Social
>
>This is about the temple, not about the god.
...
>So, in this case, they could make things difficult, but they can not
>actually STOP
Which is why I said "object."
That matches my vision well and should be easy to play. Basically without somebody to tell you what the god is like, it's a long road to learn about the god. And they might try to stop you under certain circumstances physically ("Burn heretic!"). But what they can't do is prevent you from actually gaining a relationship. Even if it's gained while burning at the stake.
They would never object based on otherworld of other beings, though they might object based on the idea that it's not worship done their "way."
> > B. Testing for Devoutness
>You are identifying the piety relationship, the personal Relationship
>(deity).
...
>But please understand that in your sentence �show� doesn�t mean pop in for
>the written exam.
Sorry for the shorthand. I meant what you meant.
>It is not incorrect to visualize this as fitting pieces into a puzzle, or
>matching similar shapes. But in both cases, some fudge is allowed, so if
>you�re god is an equilateral triangle, some variant of triangle will also
>be allowed. If you are fitting into the Orlanthi hole in the puzzle, you
>have a LOT of variance allowed. If into Humakt, much less.
To paraphrase: Humans being imperfect, nobody could pass a such a test if perfection were required. Some tests require being closer to perfection. But all triangles have rough edges. Got it.
I used just this argument the other day to argue that agents of reprisal are not sent to avenge every infraction made by every individual who errs against their god's way. That would be taking free will from them and wouldn't match any fantasy or reality that I'm aware of. But, again my view, people are only interesting in examining just how they are imperfect. So this is all just grist for the mill.
>Furthermore, the person normally has an affinity for the deity in
>question. It isn�t really a matter of a Gloranthan choosing which deity to
>worship. It is more a matter of finding the best one available. Which is
>why the Orlanthi adulthood initiation takes at least two years.
Makes sense to me. What I imagine in play is that a character exposed to worship of a diety or spirit would note their similarities in virtue etc, and then think, "Gee, I seem to fit that hole well. I wonder if I'm not actually destined to follow this diety?" That's what's happened so far in actual play. Truth be told, we engineer these "coincidences" as players and narrators much of the time. But that's because it's interesting to investigate.
For instance, in my current IRC game, a character without much deep religious affiliation was thrust as leader of a colony deep in the territory of a tribe with somewhat animist religious views (they also actually mostly worship a single theistic diety). Over time - over a year of complete immersion - as she became alienated from her urban upbringing, and discovered a natural ability to speak to spirits, she's noted that she has far more in common with the honesty of the local natives than she does with the duplicity of the folks from the city of her origin. As ties became severed (she's sworn never to return), over time she gravitated towards the religion of the natives, and became more and more involved in their culture. After being accepted by them somewhat, the player has had the character decide to adopt their tradition and an animism practice that seems almost as though it was made for her (no surprise, since it was by the player and I).
Sound kosher (anyone, not Greg)?
>Yes, the mythology of the deity is important. And of course some cults
>will reject specific entities (�We hate Zorak Zoran and his followers�)
>and others (I am thinking of the Malkioni here) will reject everything
>EXCEPT specific entities (�Saint Talor is OK�).
Interesting case. There really is no test for the One God's acceptance per se, is there? It's purely a social test, no? The One God's viewpoint (tongue and cheek, of course) is to let em die and sort em out then, correct? If you've abused his magic, it just means an eternity in hell.
(Again, note the ironic use of "Just" there).
Or is it that there is a test for non-sorcerers? I could see it that there is a test for those who will be getting a "Worship Invisible God" ability out of it (though I'd always thought of this relationship as one-sided. But it seems that this can't be the case for sorcerers at least.
>Nope. Purely physical (form rune) may get you booted. �No elves,� or �no
>nohumans,� and of course the famous rule of Urgh, leader of the Xenogang:
>�Anyone EXCEPT humans allowed.� Oh wait, that wasn�t a cult.
OK, I wasn't aware of that specifically, but it seems like more type C, really. That is you can feel as honestly that you fit seeming to satisfy B, but if you're an elf (or whatever restriction makes you too "unmatched"), yer out.
>But are you asking, �Can my guy worship Chichi AND Orlanth since Orlanth
>never heard of Chichi?� To which the answer if of course, depends on
>Chichi.
Well it also depends on Orlanth, no? That is, the test sort of continues, doesn't it? That is, if you choose to become a non-match for Orlanth, then you may lose his magic. Right? So it has to be a two-way street, with Orlanth's Ongoing Test allowing worship of ChiChi, and ChiChi's Test allowing worshippers of Orlanth in. Again, in order for the character to have magic from both ChiChi and Orlanth.
Regarding people effecting changes on gods:
>This isn�t the place to discuss the issue, but the short answer is �only a
>little.�
Actually that's quite an excellent answer. I can work with that. :-)
>The Great Compromise is, of course, the REAL answer.
>What we are discussing is the manifestations of that.
Makes sense: the great compromise is why the gods are as they are, tests are because the gods are as they are,
> > Not to get into a chicken/egg debate, I can also swallow the "we've
>always
> > done it this way" argument. But as an icon, it's hard to imagine this.
>
>?Icon?
I'm sure that's a misspelling, but I can't figure it out, either. :-)
Uh, how about, "It's hard to imagine the learnings having no point of origin. Certainly the myths always say that there's some dude who first learned of the diety and told everyone else. Or the diety lead the people who were the ancestors of the tribe.
> > Or is there something
> > that can be examined about how he does things?
>
>Such as? will you cast some detection magic there? Go and look under his
>table and behind his high seat?
No, I'm saying that if he does do something like smite somebody for making a rude comment, that says something about Orlanth.
>As the book says, his appearance changes depending on the holy day, and
>what Age you go to visit him.
And that says volumes about him. If he's grey and sullen during the early darkness, then we know that this is how he reacts to adversity. To some extent. If he appears strong at some point, then he must be about strength. Looking at his windy nature is how people know that he has a windy nature. No?
>More likely to have been done by some powerful hero, actually, and I would
>probably say �Only Kolati allowed.� But there is not such. Come on in for
>a drink, you�d have to be REALLY powerful to do anything not allowed by
>his hospitality, even if you wanted to.
And that there tells us something about him. What you can and cannot do in his presence. That's the best sign he could have. This is my point - is it not the otherworld exposure by which a worshipper gets to know more about his diety? And his heros, and his other aspects, and sub-cults, etc, etc? It seems that you're saying that the only thing that Gloranthan's know about their dieties is what they've been taught by earlier generations.
With regards to the otherworld point, what I'm saying is that if he knew about the otherworlds and cared, he could let people know. Or, rather, his test could include something about it. Now we know he doesn't know, so it's because of that, and not an inability to communicate his nature, that such matters are non-problematic.
> > But, OK, again, great compromise.
>
>Yes, of course. The Ultimate Cop Out for me.
All games have to have this. At some point, a player can ask on behalf of his character, "Why does the universe exist as it does?" The only in-game answer that can be given is "Because stuff happend to make it that way." This is no different for real people, either. The basic question of epistemology. From a metagame perspective it has to be answered in some way that's interesting to play.
> > Hmm. Can you be an Initiate of Humakt, and a Practitioner of Sword Man?
>I
> > mean if Humakt isn't there to tell you that it's incorrect, then all the
> > character has to do is convince himself of some sort of duality of
>nature
> > of Humakt to buy in.
>
>The duality of nature has nothing to do with it.
The sort of thing I was refering to would be better put now as accepting that Humakt would accept worship "the Praxian Way." Which...
>But frankly, if there were Humakti who were among the Praxians for some
>reason, I can imagine them joining the Sword Brothers after appropriate
>adventures, etc. And betting in, because they are born dead iron killers.
...we agree is possible, apparently. :-)
>Ah, the delimma of the medium. I shoulda had a smiley!
>What I meant was that the player characters have something special: a
>player.
OK, now that's me being British. ;-)
Had me scared for a moment. :-)
Mike
Powered by hypermail