Sandy wonders (#97) how to tell whether it's me or Ian commenting. I always identify myself at the beginning of the post.
To Michael Raaterova: Thank you for the clarification of the hearth stone ceremony. From your description, it is in the center of the dwelling, while the hearth is elsewhere, probably against the side of the house. As a matter of fact, I think that in the cold weather, the hearth was never allowed to go out anyway. Perhaps on Hearth Day the fire must be kept alight all day and night, unlike most nights, when it is banked for the night and roused from embers in the morning. (Oh, and as for being forcefed good manners, try an English mother - - they're also fierce about it!)
To get into the Omniscience of the Gods argument: I believe that the priest when handing out gifts and geasa would either do the Divination correctly, and then (when not in direct communion with the god) would lie, or would fake the Divination ceremony altogether, so that the would-be initiate would not know that they were fed the wrong geas or gift. I do think that if in the ceremony itself the priest lied, there would be a reaction from the god, and the god would be UPSET.
In the long run, it's probably going to come out. Either the worshipper hasn't really been initiated at all (and would find out, possibly in some very nasty way), or their god would have this nagging feeling that there was something peculiar about that initiate. It might be blamed on the poor initiate, of course.
In many other cases of divination, the priest might easily perform the Divination honestly, and then realise that if the contents are faithfully relayed, there will be a disaster of some sort. For instance, a man has been murdered, and even his ghost doesn't know by whom, but the murderer is known by the god invoked (the murder was mentioned in prayers). Now that the priest knows, does he or she want to precipitate a tribe or kingdom-splitting feud, or does he or she take the chance that no-one will doublecheck the divination, and just mumble something about the signs being too unclear to interpret? Or perhaps he could relay roughly what was given, but then bamboozle the seekers into accepting an incorrect interpretation. Might he not think, "Would the god truly want his worshippers slaying each other, which might allow worshippers of a rival pantheon next door to take advantage of the feud and invade? Actually, I am really fulfilling the divine wishes better by doing this." There's sure to be some scenario material in here somewhere.
I agree with Dave Pearton's examples that show that it can be done, not to mention the Maximum Game Fun mandate.
In response to Bo Rosen's request for opinions (#99): Bo, don't be afraid! That's a very nice idea. So nice, I may ask your permission to try it out with our own lot. (I'll have to tell Ian not to read that part of the digest, that's all.)
This is the sort of thing that could easily fit into Tales, I think. Certainly into RQ Adventures. You might have to flesh out the three different paths to solve the problem, but I think it would be worth doing. I also like it because it could be put so many places with only a little rewriting, not just at the edge of the Dead Place.
Powered by hypermail