> I've read most of the Telmori/Red Moon articles on the Digest
> lately. Therefore I have a question. In Dorastor on page 122
> it is clearly said that only the unknowing Gloranthans see a
> connection between the transformation of the cursed Telmori
> and the phases of the Red Moon. Can anybody explain to me why
> the majority of the Digest contributors ignores this?
This is probably easiest to express in Pelorian Newspeak:
"OldThinkers UnBellyFeel MoonWise"
Loosely translated, "Those whose mythic understanding has not been reformed in the liberating light of the Lunar experience cannot instinctively comprehend the glory and beauty of the Lunar Way, in all its myriad manifestations." (I abbreviate, slightly, in order to save Digest space for Peter Maranci).
There are lots of contributors to the Digest who, warped by the sadness and inadequacy of their own mythic comprehension, feel the need to traduce the New Moon Way. If levelling accusations of inducing Chaos-warped transformations in the poor benighted Telmori would libel the Good Moon, these meagre souls are quite prepared to do so. But the Goddess loves them all -- Her foes, Her friends, and those who know Her not. Ere long they will all be wrapped in Her Crimson Embrace, and have their eyes (outward and inward) opened to the True Lunar Light. For which result we earnestly pray and strive.
It's easy to tell ten lies in one paragraph, and it may take ten or twenty paragraphs to explain the truth. "Flaming" is when you attack the author, not the argument. "Debate" is when you take time to show what's wrong with the argument. (There are times when it's more fun, and more satisfactory, to show what's wrong with the author, but I'm trying to cut down on these. It takes a *real* dickhead to get me going nowadays :-).
> There should be some amount of Common Truth and that should be
> reflected in whatever future product comes out. I'm saying that
> the Monomyth was a good way of getting a handle on the universe,
> fully understanding that it was a synthesis of whatever mythoses
> (mythosi?) [mythoi] the God Learners encountered as opposed to
> Absolute Truth. I'm saying that some stuff _should_ be universal,
> if viewed and interpreted differently by different cultures. I'm
> saying this information should be accessible to both Newbie and
> Scholar, both Web surfers and the non-connected. I'd like there
> to be an Encyclopedia Glorantha (or something like it) giving an =
> overview of Gloranthan historical, semi-historical, and mythic
> events; it doesn't have to be The New and Improved Monomyth.
Right. If you read the Cults of Terror "Cosmology" and "History", and the "Glorantha Book" from the Genertela boxed set, you have got most of this. Then read the main text of the "Genertela Book" (for the area you're interested in), and start doing further research. I'd recommend "Uz Lore" (which goes into extra detail for Troll-related myth and history), or the "Orlanthi Mythology" section of King of Sartar (likewise for Barbarian-related myth and history), or the GRAY and FS (likewise for Dara Happan myth and history)...
Or pick up a copy of the excellent "Broken Council Guidebook" (First Age background), our own "Sog City Uni Guide" (Western background), the forthcoming "Rough Guide to Glamour" (Lunar myth, history and propaganda)... or the Praxian issues of "Tales" (and Drastic: Prax), the Ralian issue of Tradetalk, the Pamaltelan or Lunar or Oceans Specials of "Tales", the Rolston Renaissance "River of Cradles" cluster or the "Dorastor Trilogy" (Dorastor, Lords of Terror, Drastic: Chaos)...
Or go to some far-off corner of the Lozenge, like Fonrit or Teshnos or the East Isles, and start writing your own background and mythology, using whatever existing material you like as a touchstone (I'd recommend the Gods of Glorantha "Monomyth" section for mythic guidance, but that's up to you), and save yourself time and complexity by seeing if you can find anything already written in the archives of the Digest or out there on the Web (search engines work well with Gloranthan names: not many "false hits").
A great resource if you're looking for ideas, inspiration, existing sources or other people's thoughts to springboard off, would be to post a question or two here on the Digest, saying (for example), "I'm planning on running a campaign set in NNNN, and was wondering where I can find useful material." (Or, "I'm planning on running a [genre] campaign, and wonder where I could set it in Glorantha.")
Typical answers to such questions include: references to archives, Web pages, published zines, old sources (often with summaries), interesting "Real-World" books and parallels and examples and inspirations, comments on how much work might be involved, and general encouragement all round.
Don't believe me? Try it!
But, obviously, if there were a single strait-jacketing source (an Encyclopaedia Glorantha carved in stone, printed in a single edition and never changed subsequently), there'd be fewer people wanting to lavish their own creativity on the world. It's because Glorantha is still an open and evolving world that so many people are keen to contribute to it (if you ask me): we take the corpus of Gloranthan writings to date as our starting-point, expand and modify and criticise where necessary to suit our own tastes, and use the collective opinion of the Daily as a touchstone to check whether our ideas have drifted too far from the "mainstream", and to fill out background details which we might be unaware of (or never have considered). We are building the Encyclopaedia by our writings.
If you want to know something about anything, ask your question here on the Daily: you're likely to get an answer (of some kind). But posting a flat untruth or a prejudiced and misleading "fact" ("the Jrusteli Monomyth is wrong because the Dara Happans must be right, and therefore the Glorantha I knew and loved is dead, so there's no point writing to the Daily any more"; "you scholars never play games, and always enjoy flaming new posters, which is why nobody ever asks questions on the Daily, and why there are no Gloranthan publications coming out any more"; "the Red Goddess is evil and wants to destroy the world, and it says so in Cults of Terror, so it must be true") won't help anyone, will it, now?
> A goodly portion of the Digest discussion is so esoteric that
> Newbies are likely to lose their minds and run off screaming
> to embrace another game world rather than try to comprehend
> it all.
These would be those newbies without a "page-down" key, yes?
Frankly, when I skim past screeds of horse-trading about the traditions of Fonritian Sorcery, I take in absolutely nothing. Neither Stephen Martin, Peter Metcalfe nor myself is likely ever to run a RQ [or other] game in which Kalabas of Kalabar, the Fonritian Sorcerer-Torturer Supreme, makes an appearance, so our opinions about what he might say (more likely, cackle) when he has the PCs at his mercy are rather beside the point.
Now, the GM who straps his players to Kalabas' Auto-Excruciator and reaches towards the "on" lever has, by that action, earned the right to define (within his campaign, of course) what the Secret of the Sorcerers of Kalabar might be. And any player who, wriggling in their iron bonds, says "But I remember that Peter Metcalfe [or Stephen Martin] said you weren't [or were] a God Learner..." will deserve first lick of the goolie-grinders.
It's like asking "What's the secret of the Kingdom of War, and how can we defeat them?", or "Can you regain Orlanthi magics at a Pentan worship-service to West King Wind?" The Digest is a great place to theorise and spin yarns, but the only way to test our theories is to Go There and Find Out. And that's what gaming is for.
If it were necessary to comprehend every nuance of Fonritian eschatology (not to mention escapology, perhaps more useful under the circumstances) to play *any* game set *anywhere* in Glorantha, there would be something very wrong with the world. It isn't. Live with it -- you'll find it much easier that way!
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail