Time and objectivity

From: Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG <bernuetz.oliver_at_cbsc.ic.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:40:53 -0500


Wow. Thanks for all the responses about my time question. I particularly liked Loren's take on the differences between the pre and post Compromise eras (I'm going to use that term because it's the one that most people will recognize whether they believe in it or not).

I agree that before the Compromise or whatever you call it things were different perhaps so different that no one who didn't live through it can really explain the difference. I have a hard time believing that any culture had to be told that the sun was back. ("O Brother Brithini look the sun's back." "Really? How interesting.") If Arachne Solara's web weaving really did represent a separation of the different worlds from each other and Chaos how could they not notice? They may deny a difference and saying they have written accounts proving otherwise proves nothing. (Right after the first person invented writing someone else invented the written lie-leading to all sorts of ugly things like propaganda, political campaigns and advertising).

I quite like the net concept separating the world's because it makes the separation real yet still permits things like divine intervention and magic, trips to the Gods Plane where the old pre-Compromise rules still hold true as well as trips to the Spirit Plane. But now it takes an effort and the right knowledge (usually) to make the journey.

A good way to conceptualize the difference between the two periods is to view the beings who lived before the Compromise as living in a world of only three dimensions (i.e. no time) and after as living in a world of four dimensions. Try and imagine what it would be like living in a world of five dimensions to see how difficult it would be to imagine what it would be like before the Compromise. It's very hard to get a good grasp on the differences.

As far as my "cry" for an objective history goes I'm well aware that there is no such thing and that each culture/society is going to have their own stories/myths to explain the same events. I'm not looking for answers to the BIG questions (like who won Arkat or Gbaji-does it matter? The winner said he was Arkat and founded the Dark Empire. Good enough). I would like simple timelines and relatively objective historical sketches of regions so I as a GM can know what was going on where/when. The boring facts make the stories more interesting IMO. Having an idea what really happened in Peloria would make the differences between the GRoY and the Fortunate Succession more interesting (again IMO). If people feel that they're happy with what they have that's great. If a pseudo-objective history of Glorantha ever came out they wouldn't have to buy it. Gilgamesh is a great story but you need a bit more to base a culture on.

Hope this wasn't too long and rambling.

Oliver D. Bernuetz
bernuet.oliver_at_cbsc.ic.gc.ca


Powered by hypermail