As I recall, my post was a reaction to the rather severe tone of Mr. Laurie's post which I perceived to be suggesting that those who wanted to have a Glorantha with an objectively true mythos that is perhaps partially expressed by the Jruseli Monomyth were essentially mental defectives who ought to be playing lame AD&D modules rather than dealing with Glorantha which is most truly expressed as a sort of sociological study reflecting and mirroring real world mythological world views that differ drastically in their expressions of spiritual and mythic "truths".
A perception thing, you see. Just as whatever the over-truth of Glorantha is expressed differently by different observers.
I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be discussion and debate and all that; I just have a certain amount of a problem with this One True Glorantha and all others are for buffoons business. I fully acknowledge that something along the lines of the Subjective Viewpoint is pretty much what Greg has in mind and what the majority of active Glorantha fans support and is thus "The Truth". But some of us rather _liked_ the idea of a mythos that was so much more unified than Earth myth-systems; with heroic events that almost everybody knows about, if from different perspectives. That's what we like to play. I don't want to force everybody else to play that way. And I'd love to see a future Glorantha Game suppliment with a "monomyth" from the Dara Happen/Pelorian/Lunar perspective; a compliment or counterpoint to the Sartar/Pavis/Prax centered view of previous suppliments.
V.S. Greene : klyfix_at_aol.com : Boston, near Arkham....
Powered by hypermail