I sort of like it actually.
I see that the theistic beings are transcendent entities that are comprehended by Gloranthan mortals to a varying degree mostly through their myths. The observer's personal experiences are mediated through and accessed via those myths. Myths, but their very nature, are mutable, interpretable, and flawed.
Given this it makes very little sense, to me, to attempt to conclusively describe the theistic beings themselves through the use of runes, or any other descriptive taxonomy. It is far more useful, in terms of a capacity for (verisimilitudinal) accuracy and usefulness to people playing, exploring, or writing within a specific cultural context to explore the theistic beings as they appear in that culture's myths and - by extension - it's cults.
I've become a lot more interested in the runes attributed to theistic beings in the myths of a particular cult, rather than the runes that they "actually" have. This approach allows me to have cults of Orlanth the Rebellious Murderer (Storm, Death, Disorder) that are worshipped by traitorous folk in Dara Happa; illegal societies of peasants who worship Lodril's suppressed Fire; and a plethora of exciting cults based on intepretations of local culture-heroes.
Hammering down the ineffable has a dubious return for me, the confusion and paradox of Glorantha is part of it's appeal I reckon! Focussing the descriptive lens on the fallible, but practical, cults that interact mythologically with theistic beings seems to offer more potential for shared creation and more of the delightful inconsistency and unpredictability that - I think - characterises Gloranthan writing and represents one of its key strengths.
--
John Machin
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge'.
Powered by hypermail