I am, however, still a bit uncomfortable with the FG/PG distinction. Reading over "What the Wizard Says" reveals that he never refers to the False Gods at all. Oh, he mentions "false gods" (small f) on the first page of his section, but in a context that makes it pretty clear he is talking about pagan gods in general: "Lesser cultures derive magic powers from otherplanar entities such as spirits or false gods." Although the wizard gives an account of where other people's divinities come from, he speaks only in terms of other cultures personifying "their social desires, the forces of nature, or their emotional needs." He never mentions evil sorcerors who gained control of nature's powers and now are worshipped-- False Gods in the sense defined in the Prosopaedia.
So, the question becomes--how do we deal with the contrast between "What the Wizard Says" and the Prosopaedia. Off the top of my head, I see three alternatives:
(1): The distinction between False Gods and pagan gods that Peter Metcalfe
suggests. This is an erudite explanation, and I admire its ingenuity. Yet
, I find it a bit complex for my tastes (others may disagree). Further, it
doesn't explain why the Wizard of "What the Wizard Says" fails to make any
mention of the False Gods (in the prosopaedia sense).
(2): Westerners have a variety of different explanations for other
people's gods. A Malkioni can explain Orlanth or Yelm, etc., as a
personification of natural forces, human desires, etc., *or* as an evil
Western sorceror who is now worshipped by ignorant foreigners. Probably
those with good theological training (like the Wizard) accept the first
explanation, while the less-learned laity embrace the second. The
description of Ehilm in the Prosopaedia tends to support this viewpoint,
since it makes him a figure from "fairy tales." (p. 5) [Of course, the
general account of the False Gods speaks of "ancient Malkioni history." (p.
6)] But Malkioni, as a whole, do not divide other people's divinities into
two classes: Pagan Gods and False Gods.
From my perspective, this interpretation accords more closely with what the Prosopaedia says about the individual False Gods. The paragraphs on Humct and Worlath sound to me like a lay Westerner's perception of Humakt and Orlanth. It doesn't matter that these aren't very accurate perceptions - --I wouldn't expect Western Malkioni to have a very good grasp on foreign theist's beliefs. For a RW example (I know, Glorantha isn't earth), consider the things said about Islam in "The Song of Roland."
(3): The inconsistency is a mistake on Chaosium's part. Choose either the
False Gods or the personification approach and ignore the other one. I'm
aware that this probably ranks as prime heresy (is the motto of the list
'save the appearances'?) but it gains some support from GoG. The
description of Ehilm in the Prosopaedia states that "Ehilm is the name by
which Westerners personify the sun." (p. 5) But then "What the Wizard
Says" describes the personification of the sun without ever invoking the
name/concept Ehilm. Maybe the left hand didn't know what the right hand
was doing.
My apologies for rambling on so long. For those upset by useless speculation on the list, I'll point out a possible gaming consequence of this debate. If you adhere to position (1) above, it's likely that Malkioni will react much more negatively to certain foreign cults than others (i.e., cults seen as worship of the False Gods). If you pick position 2, Malkioni are more likely to judge all foreign gods as equally false and pernicious theologically, and thus discriminate between them only on other grounds (how offensive they are to Malkioni morality, etc.)
Jonas Pope
popej_at_cofc.edu
Powered by hypermail