> I agree that would be a common response. But a trade caravan
> deep into the Lunar Empire would be an MGF scenario.
I agree completely. My post was meant to show how the Empire can express its opposition to something it doesn't desire, in ways *other* than those=
suggested by the initial poster (which were, if you recall, to kill or enslave Orlanthi traders within the Empire). I had no intention of discouraging Issaries caravans from trying to make it to Glamour; I just wanted to suggest what some of the more interesting problems (read: scenario hooks) one might encounter along the way could be.
> I'm arguing for some degree of objectively real deities, not
> necessarily something that's absolute. I'm not in favour of
> demonstrably correct myth, I just think that some myths are
> going to be based on misconceptions or misinterpretations of
> things. I can see how the things you fear could come about,
> but I don't think they'll automatically appear if there's more
> objectivity.
Huzzah! If you're not in favour of demonstrably correct myth, then (withi=
n
Glorantha) there's no way for two cultures with differing myth-systems to=
prove which of them is "right" and which is "wrong" through pure HeroQuesting, Divination or navel-examination. They have to take actual (historically-noticeable) action against one another, like conquering, or=
compromising, or declaring each other heretical, or synthesising, or
expanding to absorb the other belief. A lot of Gloranthan history is abou=
t
exactly this kind of thing. Whichever myth "wins" was obviously "true" al=
l
along: God (or the Gods, or the Spirits, or Tao) is on the side of the bi=
g
battalions. And remnants of the defeated side become splintered and
secretive mystery cults whose myths "don't make sense" in the victors'
terms: look at Safelster, or Carmania...
> There have been Gloranthan societies following false myths. What
> was his name Lokymaydon? Didn't he pretend to be Orlanth for a
> while?
Ah, but if he had *won* then we'd all *know* that Lokamaydon was "right"
and the foolish backwoods tribes who denied his true myths and pretended =
to
be worshipping Orlanth correctly were "wrong". You are interpreting his
experiment as a "false myth" because he lost -- but when Alakoring
Dragonbreaker invented the new mythos of Orlanth Rex in the Second Age, y=
ou
accept it as a "true myth" because you recognise it from familiar Third A=
ge
practices.
(Not that a difference in myths or societies necessitates conflict. In character as Thorgeir, my in-laws in the Hillhaven clan live up on the hilltops and not in the valleys like us. They don't farm in the Ernaldan way, like we Greydogs do: the men hunt with alynxes, and uncle Bofrost, their leader, is a Breath Shaman of Umath. But we're all kin: I don't say=
that their ways are any more "right" or "wrong" than our own. They're jus=
t
different...)
> I'm all in favour of Gloranthan cultural diversity and history,
> I just think there's something objective beneath it all, but not
> necessarily something Gloranthans can perceive.
I'd agree 100%, and then go further. Let's say I accept that there *is*
something objective beneath it all, but then tell you that, despite knowi=
ng
what the Objective Truth is, I'm not going to make it public knowledge,
because that "revelation" would (IMHO) make Glorantha more boringly obvio=
us
to everyone. Now, isn't that exactly the situation we're all in with
respect to the "Secret Of The God Learners" (TM)? (Hon menshs to the like=
s
of Carl, Oliver, Sandy, etc., all of whom think they Know the One True
Secret: good luck!)
It certainly seems to be one of the design themes of Glorantha that some Ultimate Truths (or Meta-Theories) are best left unknown: we can thrash around inventing (or discovering, or deducing) our own "Great Truths of Glorantha" based on the information we all share, and if they're particularly entertaining, insightful or convenient, they'll gradually catch on.
One of my private theories about the Secret of the God Learners (as formulated at Chaosium in the Eighties) is that it's rather mundane and boring. The artificial "secrecy" imposed on it not only makes it appear more interesting, but also gives Greg the option of changing his original=
"Secret" if something better comes along. We can all cook up theories abo=
ut
the Underlying Nature of the Gods (or Magic, or the World, or whatever we=
think the "Secret" might be) and send them to Greg, and he can just smile=
enigmatically and pretend that he'd already [considered|accepted|rejected|discarded|absorbed] that theory. (Such cynicism, in one so young...)
> Just because the "truth" of a matter is unknowable to Gloranthans
> doesn't mean I and others don't want to know.
I understand and sympathise. But it does seem to be a reductionist
exercise: as soon as you define and publish "The Truth", people will igno=
re
the "false" myths of the Pamaltelans, the Yelmalions, the Lunars, the
Orlevings... when these are as worthy of exploration as any others.
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail