Language

From: Nick Brooke <100270.337_at_compuserve.com>
Date: 25 Mar 96 02:53:34 EST



Robert wrote:

>> This micro-focus on language as the main means of imparting knowledge >> (inadvertently) to the gods *really* doesn't feel right to me.

> Likewise in some ways, but I thinks it's a nice way of thinking about
> some things and explains, easily, exactly what knowledge a God would have
> in response to a divination.

But... you've been saying the God wouldn't tell his untrustworthy worshippers anything, anyway, if he had his choice. So why is this necessary? Why do Gods reply to Divination at all?

Please tell me how Orlanth stands vis a vis the spoken Tarshite language when responding to a Sartarite's question in your model: I'm honestly interested, and this is a common enough case. (The Lunar Provincial Army speaks Tarshite, a Theyalan language; it would often be useful for Sartarites to know what it's doing; Orlanth is presumably eager to tell them!).

I'm interested in knowing how much access to this *vast* quantity of detailed information (every spoken word!) you think the God should have, and/or divulge. Since I don't know every word spoken in Glorantha, saying that this explains "easily, exactly" what the answer is doesn't help me much. An example would help.



Doyle writes:

> Though a large majority of the GL's were not Illuminated, many of them
> were aware of Illumination and its consequences in an _intellectual_ sense.

I'd have absolutely no problem with this. The knowledge that Illumination exists is bound to be widespread in the West in the early Second Age: it was *the* philosophical, religious and moral issue that (in a sense) ended the First Age. Attempting to work out "what Illumination is" from observation and theory and semi-scientific study (rather than direct personal experience) is entirely in keeping with God Learner methodology.

Your question about altered states of consciousness comes from a strange angle. I feel able to role-play these things in the absence of clunking great heaps of game mechanics, as do all RQers (or we wouldn't have a hobby). And you can't deny that some people are lurking out there waiting to abuse shamelessly any new game mechanics we might write. So, just at the moment, this is a sleeping dog: I'd say, let it lie. We ought to be leery of propelling Glorantha into a strange new dimension where established players can't understand what on earth we're talking about... it's enough of a minority hobby anyway!



Loren wrote:

> Anybody think that in some weddings this degenerates to the in-laws riding
> behind the newlyweds clashing their swords on their shields, whooping and
> hollering, and just making a lot of loud noises? Anybody think they simply
> string noisemakers off of the groom's saddle and let thenewlyweds make their
> own racket?

I don't just think it: I *know* it now! Thanx,



Nick

Powered by hypermail