Various bits

From: Nigel Smith <ns10005_at_hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:45:08 +0000

Various bits on the God Learners lately have included:

Simon Hibbs:
>The God Learners could probably see the world from whatever
>mythological perspective they chose, but not all at the same time.

and Joerg replying to Carl:
>> For one piece of evidence, the God Learners eventually failed. They
>> could distort things only so far before being obliterated.
>
>IMO they failed because they acted like grave-robbers rather than decent
>archaeologists when digging up and interpreting myths. The Raccoon exchange
>is a clear example for thoughtless and unthorough meddling.

This still sounds as though they were Illuminated, and various passages (in CoP and Lot for ex) point towards a tendancy to the Dark Side, a taking without considering the balance (or consequences).

Perhaps the GLs were set up along the lines of modern research scientists, with supervisors directing the efforts of their students. Perhaps only the supervisors were Illuminated, with each of their students tied deeply into the mysteries of one cult, moving in one direction, but with the Supervisor creating a synthesis out of all the research?

• ------------------------------ Loren:
  >I guess what I don't get... the thing that Carl Fink so dislikes that
  >I can't get myself worked up about... is this thing about euhemerism.
  >
  >Let's see. If it's possible for mortals to become immortals, to
  >become gods, then how does that make the gods any less impressive or
  >majestic? Am I missing something? Is it the "every prophet is a bum
  >in his hometown" phenomena?
  

I see two types of euhemerism (or rather, explanations):

1. A man so superior he becomes a God.
2. God is no more than a successful man. The first is complimentary, the second derogatory. I think the first is possible in Glorantha and it doesn't make the gods any less majestic, because the degree of superiority is immense. The second is often stated in Glorantha, usually just before a fight breaks out...
   • ----------------------------- Mything About... Been following this with interest. Hate to sit on the fence, but I would say you're all right - and wrong!

Myths aren't stories, they have a momentum and inertia of their own. It takes a lot to move a legend to a Myth, and a lot to divert the Myth from its present course. To take the Hill of Gold example:

        If 1 Yelmalian beats ZZ he is a local oddity. The Myth won't change because there are a million Ys _and_ ZZs who know Yelmalio lost.

        If 1 Y beats ZZ, teaches others how to do it, and a temple developes around this, I hazard that the temple would either be a new sub-cult - the Myth won't change in essence but it will be tweaked so that Y lost but was able to keep some of his fire powers - or it will be a splinter religon, "Burning Yelmalio" or similar. Now there will be two Myths, where Yelmalio wins & loses!

If more Ys and ZZs know that Y kept his fire powers then the splinter religon would become dominant, and it could happen that the 'old' Yelmalio dies out, leaving a re-written Myth and a re-written cult.

But how likely is even this simple example, involving minority cults (compared to Orlanth or Ernalda)? The force of belief in the new Myth would have to be greater than that in the old. Given that most people try to recreate the god's actions in a ritual, because even the failures make that god who he is (and often why he is), how many would try to change the course of Myth? And on a more mundane level, would the temple hierarchy allow it?

In brief, I would agree with those who say Myth, and thus prehistory, are mutable, but the effort required makes this little more than an acedemic point, or useful end-of-world scenario. From a gaming-in-Glorantha PoV I for one need some fixed points so that I can relate to what you are talking about, and the Myths are some of those points.

Take it or leave it...

Aw Hell, the Retching Loon!

        Nigel

---