Except this isn't an Undeniable Truth, it's a completely hypothetical and untestable assertion. If Orlanth's worship, and hence his magic, his apparent personality, and indeed, everything that is manifest about him _has_ changed, how is it helpful or meaningful to say that _he_ hasn't changed, aside from (RW or Gloranthan) dogma?
> It's real easy to run a game without knowing the objective truth. I
> decide beforehand what the truth is. Orlanth, West King Wind, Worlath,
> Orlanatum, all the same entity. Elmal however is in fact a different god
> from Yelmalio although they do have similiar abillities.
I think that's precisely the sort of thing that people are talking of when they speak of "the objective truth". The argument is about: firstly, whether these matters are knowable _within Glorantha_; and secondly, if they're not, whether this sort of "truth" can, or should, be usefully contructed from an outside-of-Glorantha perspective.
It seems to me that in these cases, the truth _isn't_ knowable within Glorantha, as they're exactly the sort of things Gloranthans have theological debates/wars about, with no conclusive "objective" resolution possible.
> I now know that the Humakt religion is wrong, it's missing a fundimental
> portion as the myth of Humakt severing his storm ties is false. Does it
> still "work"? Sure.
Doesn't the fact that you've just altered your model about what the Objective Truth is, in the face of a new piece of "subjective" evidence suggest that your model is somewhat fragile? Eventually, if you proceed to do the same with say, the Carmanian "Humakt", Yanafal, the assorted Humakt/Humct/other worshipped by the Kingdom of War, and anyone else reckoned to be the "same" god, the result will be some overarching meta-deity, which is so broad and vague to account for the different "aspects" of any single god that it becomes meaningless for describing any one of them, as he is actually experienced. And each of them will be "false" in the terms you now believe Humakt mythology is.
> So, what's the point? What's the difference? Orlanth Thunderous rites
> work at West King Wind shrines because they're really *the same god*.
> Elmali rites *don't* work at Yelmalion shrines because their different.
I think a God Learner would find this a "surprising result", as all indications we have are that Elmal and Yelmalio are more "similar", in most observable senses, than are Orlanth and WKW. This almost certainly runs into the old "non-transitive equality" problem. For example, say a Syllian Orlanthi discovers his rites can be made to work at both a Shargash Enclosure and a WKW temple. From this, the above theory would conclude all three are the same god. But what if a Shargashi discovers that _his_ rites don't work chez WKW? Then Shargash non est WKW, but Shargash est Orlanth est West King Wind? You may or may not concur with this particular example, but I doubt you can concoct a consistent set of God Identity assignments which avoids it, or at least one that's not totally arbitrary, and which doesn't have holes big enough to drive Juggernaut through.
Good luck,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail