replies

From: David Cake <davidc_at_cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:09:43 -0800


Danny Bourne replies to me with all the disrespect I deserve for a somewhat preachy tone. While I reply to him here, I read Alex Fergusons reply only after already writing this, and I have to say Alex said almost exactly what I wanted to with greater eloquence.

>re David Cake:
>>The Gods do not have free will.
>
>Says who? If someone else wants them to be so, then they are so.
>Subjectivism for GMs!

        Sure. You are always free to make your own Glorantha. I'm just stating the 'canonical' point of view. If you want a Glorantha where Mostali have Uzis, or World of Darkness vampires roam the cities of Ralios, or Magasta is Cthulhu, or the whole of Glorantha is scum on the top of Gods washing up water, and Magasta's Pool means he has pulled the plug, cool. Thats great, and I'd love to hear about it, though such will always remain peripheral to the digest (I wouldn't want to express my opposition as forcefully as Martin - hypothetical alternate scenarios aid understanding, even if I don't agree with them). But there is also the canonical Glorantha, a base point from which we all work, a Glorantha that is approximately Chaosium and Gregs Glorantha (not that those two always agree), and furthermore is Glorantha for most of us, especially those of us who are eagerly consuming Gregs most recent outpourings. My point is that the Gods having free will is NOT actually true in this version of Glorantha - - though many people think it is, both in Glorantha and on this digest.

        If you want the gods to have free will in your Glorantha, fine. Just understand that it is an alternate Glorantha.

>>Understand this - A God is not a Person.
>
>Says who? I personally (as I've mentioned before and have had slagged
>before) that I believe people can become gods - Greg mentioned this at
>Convulsio 3D WRT Julius Caesar.

        Oh, I was distinguishing between semantic categories, not saying that Gods are never people. You can certainly be both. At one end of the scale, the Red Goddess in her mortal incarnation was both a person and a deity. At another end, all heroes with cults are both to some extent (while they are alive).

        But the two categories are not the same, so assuming that all gods are people, with free will, opinions, distinct personalities and so on, is not going to help you understand what gods are.

        And if you want to play in a Glorantha were all the gods are people, and frequently lie to their worshippers, and so on, then good for you. But it won't be the same as the one I play in.

Alex adds to this
>Come to that, Herodom seems to involve setting aside a certain part of
>what makes one a Person, though to a lesser extent than Godhead.

        Absolutely. Geases are the beginning of the process whereby a mortals free will is constrained in return for otherworld powers, as are heroic level passions and character traits. Eventually, it becomes such that rather than being constrained NOT to act in certain ways, a heroes can only ONLY act in certain ways, his actions constrained. At this point, he has to all intents and purposes lost a great deal of free will. Gods (at least those who were once mortal) have followed this process to its logical conclusion, and have enormous power and no free will. Or at least, so little that it doesn't matter (ie in the Orlanthi POV, gods can do all sorts of things, providing they are willing to threaten the entire universe...).

Oliver, looking for trouble tries to construct a logical anti-laurieism
>Your whole argument/
>problem can be countered by the following:
>
>1) The gods exist and are self-aware.
>2) Humans are incapable of understanding the true nature of the gods
>or even what the gods may or may not be trying to communicate with them.
>(This is why you see different worship practices for what may or may not
>be the same god).
>3) The gods may or may not be constrained in some fashion. Humans wouldn't
>be able to say.
>4) Maybe the gods don't fiddle maybe they do.
>
>>It doesn't work, its not logical and its a fallacious argument.
>
>Makes as much sense as yours.

        But note point 2 - Olivers argument also implies that the Orlanthi POV (or indeed that of any Gloranthan) is incorrect, in that the Orlanthi are incapable of understanding the true nature of the gods or what the gods are saying.

        Saying all the cultures of Glorantha are essentially right, and saying all are essentially wrong, all boils down to much the same thing in the long run, unless you want a Glorantha wildly divergent where there is an essential truth that in no way resembles what we know (Ie where the gods are outside experimenters, or other such cheap solutions).

        One another issue - Nick points out the recent Lunar aggression in relation to Sartar can easily be justified historically as a practical solution to nation of barbarians that not infrequently attack your territories. And he is, of course, correct. But the Sartarite barbarians will also feel quite outraged that their nation has been recently conquered by an Empire they see as aggressive. Of course both sides think they are in the right.

        Cheers

                David


Powered by hypermail