I think you, like me, are an HVO (Blind Man groping an Elephant), to use Alex's tag. The "objective/subjective" thing seems (to me) to hang around=
whether or not Gloranthans would understand the arguments about Glorantha=
that we're having. "Objective" tends to create a GM-mechanical POV, while=
"Subjective" leads to the kind of arguments a Gloranthan worshipper or
priest might conceivably hold. As there's enough evidence within Gloranth=
a
that the gods *aren't* clearly and objectively understood by anyone (e.g:=
Yelmic Dara Happa vs. Yelmic Nomads; Lokamaydon vs. Harmast; Malkioni
sects; Dwarf heresies; the whole Monotheist - Theist - Animist - Mystic
thang), the usefulness of objective arguments can be questioned: without
chucking out loads of myth and history, denying PCs the Free Will you gra=
nt
their gods, etc., it's clear the world doesn't work the way Objectivists
would like it to.
> Having a half different societies with different cultures and myths
> is neat and all, but its nothing special to me. Half a dozen cultures
> whose myths are related and who have different POV's and slants on the
> myths interests me.
Agreed. Having Imperial, Provincial, Arrolian, Redlander and Heretical Lunar beliefs only works if they are different "takes" on the underlying Lunar Way. Similarly, Malkioni Heresies.
> Anyhow, the best part of painting the world in black and white is
> having things to contrast against it. =
Agreed. Paint the Lunars in black and white, the Sartarites in black and white, and that's a viable way forward. Paint Lunars black, Sartarites white, and that's a knee-jerk.
> One could _theoretically_ discuss kick-the-ball scores with Harrek,
> but even aside from considerations of continued bodily integrity,
> would you get a very to-the-point response from him?
Depends. Do you support his favourite team? (Probably wise).
> This digest is not about our own gameworlds, it's about Glorantha
> as published, written and explored through the common background
> we all know and largely have access too. Sure there is variance,
> sure there is disagreement but if in your Glorantha the Lunar Empire
> wins and in mine it doesn't suddenly we don't have that much to talk
> about.
Half agreed. We have *lots* to talk about up until the Evil Empire wins, which would presumably be the main setting of Danny's campaign. And the player-handouts Danny writes for victorious pro-Lunar characters can be adapted by any GM in a recognisable Glorantha as background knowledge and=
motivation for his own Lunar villains and NPCs. Likewise, "own Gloranthas=
"
where (e.g.) the Kingdom of War doesn't exist can still be viable thought=
experiments for other folks' campaigns.
I use "IMG" to qualify a statement usually when I either *know* there's a=
n
ill-thought-out fifteen-year-old contradiction in print and don't need to=
be reminded of it (e.g: much to do with the Holy Country), or else when there's *no* accepted common ground and I don't want to start an argument=
(e.g: Kitori, Elmal, nature of gods). It's a useful shorthand for "take i=
t
or leave it", dampening likely flamage, and I'd hate to see it go.
Martin has, IMO, presented the best argument against Hero-level games: wh=
en
the Big Bananas of Glorantha aren't Harrek, Jar-Eel, Argrath and the Bat
but some bunch of PCs nobody's ever heard of, we as a community do hit so=
me
kind of communication barrier. It's also the best argument against creati=
ve
god-fucking heroquests, too, IMO. (And, perhaps, against Onslaught and
Deville :-)
> (I also consider "national character" arguments like the above
> fallacious, but that's not as directly relevant.)
Typical American! :-)
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail