Relativism and Sandy from Bibishar_at_aol.com on 1996-07-12 (Glorantha Digest Vol 03)

From: Bibishar_at_aol.com
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:19:06 -0400

Before I begin, I would like to thank Sandy for replying and to apologize for the length of time it has taken me to reply to him.

Sandy replies to me:

>>How do we _know_ there is "only one you"? Worse yet, what do you mean by
>>"only one you"? You the ID software person?  You the father?  You the
>>Gloranthan guru?
>	Sticks and stones can break my bones, but semantic  


> postmodernism only insults me.

>	Why can't all the bits you listed be part of the "only one

> me"? Just because Earth has a northern and southern hemisphere
> doesn't mean there's two Earths.

First, Sandy, while I agree that I went overboard (but only a little) when I asked what you mean by "only one you", I think you may have missed the point of my questions. So let me try again -

You claim there is "only one you". Assuming, for the moment, that all parties in this discussion agree as to what that means, how do you prove the "truth" of your assertion, especially to those for whom you are only name and a set of writings?

You could use the testimony of friends and family. You could use a birth certificate or other documents. But people can be convinced, forced, or mislead to say things they themselves don't believe are true. And documents can be forged. So this kind of corroborative evidence does not objectively prove to others that your statement is "true". And if you have no ojbective way to prove your assertion, how can I possibly agree it _is_ so regardless of whether I believe it is or not (i.e. "true")?

(I actually do believe that you are who you say you are but I also recognize I might be mistaken.)

2) I agree that all the different roles (father, ID software person, etc.) _can_ be a part of only one person. But if you, the object in question, are defined by a set of attributes, then do you become a "different you" when that set changes? If not, then please describe to me what defines the "unique you".

3) I believe language is an important (the most important?) tool used by Humans to communicate with each other. When people assign different meanings to the same (or similar) sounds or markings, the result is usually confusion. (For instance, is a "vest" usually worn on top of a shirt or underneath it?) Do you disagree with this? If so, why? If not, why be insulted?

Sandy continues:

>>begin by explaining to me how relativistic dieties in Glorantha "have harmed

>> Glorantha"
>	1) having every view of reality be "true" prevents one from

> having false beliefs in one's campaign, thus preventing one from
> running certain types of adventures.

Just because a player or GM believes in multiple Truths doesn't mean the characters (PC and NPC) do. (I, for instance, have never played a Gloranthan character who didn't have his/her own definite ideas of Right and Wrong.) This seems so obvious to me, I feel I must be misunderstanding you.

>	2) stating that Orlanth and his pantheon is utterly

> different everywhere that he appears makes it significantly harder
> to have your PCs travel widely, as you must re-invent the wheel
> everywhere they go. Now, it has been pointed out that if you _don't_
> let Orlanth be different everywhere, then you lose the fun of
> culture shock. Not so. If the point of your adventure is NOT the
> culture shock, but something else, it's best not to muck it up with
> a whole new cosmology, and if the point of your adventure IS the
> culture shock, it is easy enough to apply by having Orlanth BE
> different in the place they're visiting.
> But if, by definition, Orlanth MUST be different, you're
> stuck explaining it when 'tis not important to your plot and action.

IMO, the point of having different views of the "same" gods is to create a "more realistic" setting. (Of course, what is "more realistic" depends on who is defining the term, does it not?) Also, I question the assertion that a GM must explain everything which is different to the players (and their characters). One of the best (meaning "most satisfactory both to me and the players) campaigns I ever ran had the PC's constantly aware they didn't know what was going on or why NPC's were doing what they did.

In short, it seems your argument is that having the "same" gods everywhere in a campaign makes it easier for a GM in general, and also makes it "best" to run certain (unspecified) types of campaigns. As to the first assertion, I agree that this is _a_ valid point-of-view. (I just don't agree that it is the _only_ valid one.) As to the second assertion, your use of the word "best" ("it's best not to muck it up...") masks your reasons. Why or in what way is it best?

>	3) the various helpful supplements, such as Gods of

> Glorantha, Elder Secrets, and so forth, become worthless, because
> the facts they explain become "true" only for tiny fractions of
> Glorantha's expanse.

You argue that we should abandon relativism since it invalidates previously-published material. I, on the other hand, could (and sometimes do) argue that univeral-absolutist material should not be published since it promotes a very limited and narrow view of a very large and complex cosmos (i.e. Glorantha). (I welcome material published with an absolutist viewpoint from a particular Gloranthan source. So I would accept "Gods of Glorantha: A God Learner's Catalog" and "Elder Secrets: The Oldest Reveal Their Beliefs", but not "Gods of Glorantha: Universal Truth Revealed" and "Elder Secrets: Disagree at Your Peril".) IMO, both extrememe approaches have strengths and weaknesses, so a RW policy of publishing some of both might be the most useful course for the Gloranthaphile community.

Finally, (really!), I am off to England & France for 3 weeks. I hope to see you at Convulsions 3D, where perhaps we can agree to avoid this topic, or continue it.

james polk