Call me scared or unconfident, but I've never put much faith or trust in psychology. I've usually held it to be very judgemental in approach and somewhat pretentious in tone. To boil it down to a single phrase; I often find the message to be "I know better than you do, you poor thing."
>"In gaming, a GM should make it very clear to the characters that their
>powers and lifestyles have put them outside of society..."
This sounds like a lecture, much akin to one that children could receive from a scolding parent when they are told that playing cowboys and indians represents a genocidal act on the part of racists. Just let'em have fun.
>"The villagers that have been saved from a horrible infestation of chaos
>will quickly become uncomfortable with the heroes' presence."
I suppose this could be true, but I think the equation depends on far too many factors to always add up to one result, especially if the village in question is your home one. Plus, why do Gloranthans have to act like people might act in the real world?
>"Adventurers are only accepted while they are needed, often not even then."
I think this depends on how they work in the context of the game. Duke Raus basically sends out hired guards to do a number of jobs that basically equate to adventures. You live up to your end of the bargain, and he lives up to his. He even allows you to settle on his land after a while. Temples don't just keep odious adventurer members around because they hope to squeeze a few more missions out of them before they get them killed off. Most lay members prove their worth through missions so they can convince the examiners that they should become initiates. The same is true for initiates who want to become rune levels. You don't get prestige and skills from just huddling around the shrine every clayday. You help your temple, often through adventures.
This leads me (albeit long-windedly) to my final point: This all hinges on what you mean when you refer to an "adventurer".
If you mean someone not tied to a social unit*, who flaunts great power that directly threatens the established order. What you outline may happen.
*I believe being an adventurer does not make this an unavoidable outcome.
If you mean someone who goes on adventures, and gets powerful, I don't agree with what you outline at all.
In the end, I'm left wondering whether Allen's message would only discourage players from having fun enjoying a simplistic approach to adventures and roleplaying. As long as they are having fun, I don't really care about all of the social impact and psychological nuances the situation creates. Allen's essay contains too many absolutes and, to me, too much preaching about the correct way that adventurers must be treated.
Example: I want to play an initiate seeking to become a runelord. To help show my loyalty I volunteer for a variety of missions. I don't want to come back to the temple with the prize in hand and be faced with a complicated socio-political crisis.
If you say as a GM that that is how the temple elders should act toward my PC, I can only ask why. If you say that's how it would be in the real world, I'll remind you that that has no absolute effect or impact on how it would work in Glorantha. If you tell me that it should, I'll just have to settle for "Your Glorantha may vary."
Just let the players have fun. Why make it a morality play?
Take Care,
Rick Meints, Education, Training & Development, 8-737-2126
Mobile: 0976-686-454 Internet: RMeints_at_e-mail.com
Powered by hypermail