Thanks for the revelation about Rurik. Its a shame really, i was
thinking of starting my own 'rurik the restless' cult (for insomniac
yelmalions). It was quite an ignoble way to go, particularly when you
consider the possibility that the trollkin came back later and nibbled
his corpse. Maybe he lives on.....a zorak zoran brute might have turned
him into a zombie (then he would truly be 'rurik the restless').
I've been thinking about some of the things simon phipp has been saying
about arkat/argrath. His theory resembles the Nietzschean one about 'the
eternal return of the authentic hero,' which suggested that history was
created by 'authentic' great peoples - philosophers, warriors, poets,
etc. The authentic individual is one which uses 'that which is at hand'
(zuhandenheit) to accomplish his/her ends - a concept resembling that of
lukacs' 'praxis' ie. not seeing things as 'things,' only as means to ends,
as tools....a bit like heroquesting to change oneself in glorantha. The
authentic being keeps returning to move on history.
An interesting theory, but sadly one which the nazis made use of. For
example, Martin heidegger thought hitler was the authentic 'hero' that would
save germany. However, could not arkat be a similar terrible figure,
which is leading the world to destruction? He possesses many cults which
look towards him as their saviour, and follow him, whatever the
consequences. Many cults also view him with hatred (earlier this
century opinions on hitler were similarly polarised). Ironically arkat might
lead glorantha into its hours of greatest darkness, rather than
salvation. Of course, this is a difficult issue, in our world heavily
laden with anger and distrust. Personally I feel hitler was a lunatic,
yet at the time the bourgeoisie of the west thought him a great man
(particularly in britain, unfortunately). At the moment in Europe
many revisionist histories are being written on the subject by
fascist apologists. I feel similar opinions may be brought to bear on
arkat/nysalor - saviour or lunatic.
Attempting to choose between the two may be the problem, and dismissal
of the concept altogether might be gloranthas only chance to avoid the
eternal circularity of its conflicts. I am not attempting to influence
anyones thinking, i was just pondering on philosophical justification for
the gloranthan hero cycle. I feel Nietzsche is particularly useful for
this, as many of his opinions resemble 'illumination.' I appreciate some
of you will dislike this, or hate Nietzsche - i am not overly fond of his
work myself, but i'm trying to work out things rigorously in my head,
with what i know.
Obviously, my opinions are influenced by what i am studying, but i
personally feel that glorantha's main themes are enrichened by some kind
of philsophical background. We have got illumination already of course
(resembling soilpsism/nihilism/'postmodernism'), and i feel it is this
kind of deeper thinking which raises runequest far above the cheap
two-bit philosophy and pop-psychology which proliferates in other
roleplaying games. Talking about philosophy 'in game' is also useful for
'real life' also! I think this is why glorantha has persevered for so
long, in that its rich themes and philosophical underpinnings make it a
more 'mature' game, without any of the western capitalist anachronisms
which sully other fantasy games. Of course, its got morokanths too.
Just some thoughts, anyway.
Dominic.
End of Glorantha Digest V2 #634
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html