That's an entirely unwarranted inference. Why would people having different experiences of myth necessarily entail that they, themselves are the sole architects of their invisible world? Furthermore, the second proposition is entirely untestable in any case. To say that the deities Are is one thing; to hypothesise _why_ they Are is quite another. Given they they Are, what practicable difference does the Why make anyway?
> However, the muddle-muddle and vague arguements of the
> subjectivists rob Glorantha of what makes it special
Let's be clear about this: the "subjectivists" have very particular reasons for their position. They want to be able to have a Peloria which believes in Pelorian myth, a Barbarian Belt that believes in Theyalan myth. Seem fair? In contrast, the Objectivists apparently propose that we get to pick just one model, and declare all the rest wrong, because of RQ2 sentimentality, or some vague sense of unease about allowing multiple viewpoints, or other such non-concrete objectives. Now that, I call muddled thinking.
> Perhaps some of the folks on this list may be uncomfortable with Deities
> who are self-aware and conscious of themselves - I, for one, am
> uncomfortable with the idea of Deities in Glorantha who are not.
For some religions, it's entirely appropriatfor for them to believe in deities being personified in this way, and to experience them as if they are. For others, it clearly isn't. Isn't that a big enough argument in itself for subjectivity? The combination of pan-cultural mono-deities and self-awareness is a particularly self-defeating one: if Orlanth is West King Wind is Shargash is Umath is... whoever else, why does he keep beating himself up? Or is masochism an in-built part of the standard divine personality?
> That, to me, is too damn god-learnerish for my taste.
Don't you feel that there's a heavy irony in accusing people who believe in the truth of individual cultural myths of being God Learners, while espousing that there be literally only one "true" mythology (let's call it, say, a "Monomyth"), and relegating everything else to the status of the erroneous?
> However, in order to function as a Game World, a common structure
> and actual truth to myth must be decided.
Why?
OK, here's my potted guide for determining which myths are Actually True: They all are. Especially all those contradictory ones. Any questions? Now, you may not like this as a meta-game philosophical position, but it seems to me to be _eminently_ gameable.
> I feel it's a fallacy to think the certain parts of Glorantha are not
> 'part of the compromise'.
That's not what's being suggested. Orlanthi believe the whole world is subject to the Compromise. Dara Happans don't think it exists at all. While DH has its own rationales for why the gods aren't perambulating around the 'Bowl, they aren't constructed around a "compromise"-like idea. In fact, making a deity manifest in the world isn't Chaotic in their worldview, it's a Jolly Good Thing. Nysalor, Yelmgatha, the Red Goddess: Let's have more of 'em, in fact. The Orlanthi don't have anything like this happening, and when it's done by the DH types, they _do_ think it breaches the Compromise.
> While perhaps the issue of the subjectivity
> of the Gods is a matter of opinion, the Great Compromise is not.
I'd have to agree with you there.
> In my opinion, in all Gloranthan Myths, these aspects always play a
> part...
Your suggested "laws" are all just excerpts from the bog-standard GL monomyth. All the usual caveats, mostly-trues, and exceptions apply:
> (1) The existence of a perfect world, before time.
That's not even an Orlanthi belief. I don't think the Doraddi were "Golden Age" fans either.
> (2) A different nature of time, that makes it distinct from 'Time' as
> known today.
Not believed by the Dara Happans, the Kralori...
> (3) The existence of Chaos, and the destruction of the mythic world.
The Dara Happana don't see chaos as the special enemy. Darkness is the principal bogey man for them. The DHns do believe in the destruction of the pre-Dawn world, but I'm not sure the Kralori do.
> (4) A great act which merges the remnants of the old world and chaos,
> and establishes the order of the world we know today.
This is probably fairly universal, if we generalise "chaos" to "designated bad stuff". Monomythically, though, this is more "I Fought We Won" than Compromise, though. The Dara Happan take on the subsequent Dawn is basically Yelm Uber Alles. Concessions are fo wimps.
A Parting Observation: the Orlanthi believe in personified deities, and (quite coincidentally) that there's a Compromise which stops them freely manifesting and acting as such. OTOH, the Dara Happans, and other Pelorians tend to believe in deities as "masks" on a not-directly- knowable Divine World -- and remarkably, lack a belief in the Compromise.
Discuss.
Alex.
Powered by hypermail