>Ice is a hard, cold solid, water is a liquid. Clearly the two are not
>the same. Obviously, by using Himile's powers one can transmute a
>liquid into a part of Valind's Realm. After all, why not? I like the
>idea of the Ice Rune - anything as big and nasty as Valind's Glacier
>deserves a rune to itself. Anyway, put a merman inside a glacier and
>tell him that Ice is the same as water.
But why give it a rune? Is there a Silver rune, or a Sea Metal rune, or a Wood rune? What's special about ice? Now, a cold rune is a different matter, but ice is merely matter and so is derived directly from the elements and forms. Presumably some combination of water and stasis modified by the cold rune maybe.
.......
>Not at all. Glorantha is a game world in which I am interested,
>nothing more nothing less. It helps me as a GM to know the objective
>truths behind the mythology and makes gaming easier. It matters
>neithe rone way nor the other to me as a person expect as part of an
>enjoyable hobby.
My appoligies. It is not my place to say whether you are passionate about your hobby, or anything else.
>I supose it depends on what we define myths as. Are they the beliefs
>of a people, irrational and products of the cultural psyche (whatever
>that is) or are they memories of what happened many years ago or in
>mythical ages past? In the Real World, myths are the former. In
>Glorantha they are the latter.
You obviously know a hell of a lot more about exactly what terestrial myths realy are than anyone else I've ever heard of. Why do terrestrial myths have to be irrational?
Also, myths in Glorantha are something the cult heroes can actualy experience - they are not just something in the past like dry historical stories but are quite tangibly part of people's present experience of the world. This is fundamental to the nature of Glorantha and I'm amazed that you seem to be denying it.
>First of all, I do not accept that the aforementioned Real World
>deities are the same - they are different.
The probelm with this is that each of these deities is billed as the world creator. If they cannot have some aspects in common, then all but one of them (at least) must by necessity be false.
>Third, as for the blind men and the elephant - that analogy is only
>relevant if you accept that the deities are part of a single whole.
>Jainism has this as part of its belief system, most people do not.
But 'most people' believe in one of these gods and absolutely deny the existence of the others. Either gods that fulfill the same cosmic role can have some aspects in common, or they are mutualy exclusive. Either it is possible to have more than one independent sun god, or all are aspects of a single divine sun, or one is the only true sun god and all others are false.
>Certainly in Gloranthan terms, if you tried to show that the
>Invisible God was part of the same thing as Wakboth or Storm Bull
>then you would have problems.
So it's just as well that nobody has. These gods have nothing in common other than simply being worshiped as gods. The gods of the sun though are obviously liked in some way, otherwise why do they all have the word 'sun' in their title?
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail