The God Test. from Alex Ferguson on 1994-11-21 (Glorantha Digest Vol 01)

From: Alex Ferguson <alex_at_dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 00:23:01 GMT

Nick sez to Michael H.:
> You familiar with the AI conversational computer test? If you can talk to
> someone across a terminal link and not be able to tell whether it's human or
> machine, it's "intelligent". Gloranthan deities may well be self-aware by the
> same test: there's nothing you can do to prove they aren't.

Plus of course, no one in their right POW is even _trying_ the God Turing Test.

> It's a pretty well accepted Truth that any Gloranthan question will have at
> least four valid answers: from the Animist/Shamanic, Theist/Priestly,
> Monotheist/Humanist/Wizard and Mystical perspectives. [...]
> And if your theory says [any of them are]
> wrong, then it's wrong.

Of course, this is only true if the rules/theory are _intended_ to be "overarching". If one were attempting merely to look out from the viewpoint of, or write rules to cover, one particular set of people. Like say, from the exclusive and shamelessly subjectively objective Sartarite viewpoint. Just think: free rein to write anti-<whomever> inventive, and _no sorcery rules! ("... is not available to players, and has effects determined by the referee"). Bliss!

Doubtless if this were done, people would then proceed to apply them out of context, and cite them as proving that [whatever] was _really_ true, just as happens with any and all sets of rules currently, but those am de breaks.

Alex.