Various

From: Saravan Peacock <saravan_at_perth.DIALix.oz.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 07:30:16 +0800


Late yet again. Things just move too fast for me around here! :-)

Danny Bourne writes:

>The argument about free will is not whether people choose to do something,
>but if they have the freedom to choose between doing/not doing something.

True enough. That's why I used the terminology choice/free choice as that is what I believed Nick E's posting was discussing.

>I'm sceptical of this how the Orlanthi would
>react stuff as it depends entirely on your players, the Orlanthi not being
>'real', and I, for one, wouldn't want to impose ideas of how it should be
>on them, that's not the point of roleplaying

Fair enough too. I'm talking about _my_ characters - ie all the NPCs I play in my Glorantha. That is the background culture in which my PCs exist. Without guidelines as to what is the norm (and range of norms), they cannot play sensibly within a cultural background.

Pam:

>I don't care for the "vending machine" concept of deistic interaction,
>nor do I like the "It ain't gonna happen if Orlanth don't want it to"
>approach. Use elements of both, and maintain the mystery.

I agree. I think the mystery and beauty of Glorantha is its most attractive quality. Its hard enough as a GM to get a good idea of what the world's like, let alone as a player. To reduce it to clearly defined 'truths' misses a lot of the atmosphere and variety of understandings which can be had in this great world. It also has the nifty advantage of allowing you to change your mind about things without messing up the whole game (A good thing in this everchanging world). :-)

Martin Laurie:

>The whole point of a myth is that it defines an aspect of social behaviour -
>myths being stories which have a point in relation to the good and bad ways of
>functioning within society.

Good points in this post. Yes myths are stories with moral point. But that is not all they are. I think they also define the substance of the world of Glorantha. Whether they describe the way things always were, or just the way they are now, the similarity of perpectives across cultures and religions on the big "periods" of the Pre-Dawn (taking into account their various points of view) suggest something much more profound than 'mere' local stories of an historic past which point various morals to their listeners (and participants).

Nick E.:

On giving up the Orlanthi Time debate in public:

>I think this would take a *long* time. Each element of time has, up until
>now, been dissected, put under the microscope and then discarded with
>unsatisfied results.

That was my feeling too... Though I have now got a fairly clear idea of what the situation is which satisfies me. And everyone will decide what's right for them, so in all the little Gloranthas around the place, probably all the views expressed will be true...

>[snip] Okay, I give in!! I give up!! These conversations >are starting to make
>>my head spin! This is my last post about bloody time!!

Me too pretty much. Though I welcome your post through private e-mail.

On the time debate as a whole, I have to agree with Martin Laurie that, for me, it has been a greatly illuminating discussion.

As for gods, I'm rather impressed by the idea expressed recently and clearly that the gods are heroes who have slowly accumulated more and more status (and so on.) This will take some contemplation... I favour Peter M's view on this that a hero 'Orlanth' might have become linked with the power of the Storm (and similar for the other gods). Simply because I favour a more 'traditional' view of gods as forces of the world. I rather like the Godlearner perspective expressed in many of the official publications. It has a good deal of resonance overall with the creation of the world, and the development of "divine entities". Perhaps these are the gods behind the gods of which David Cake speaks?

My main problem with this is one of origins. What did Orlanth I believe? Did he worship anything and if so what? And did he have magical power from the 'gods' or forces of nature or whatever? In fact where did the world come from? Are we talking Evolutionism here? If so, I'm disappointed. I really rather like the notion of gods interacting to create the world through exercise and development of their 'natures'.

Pax

Saravan.


Powered by hypermail