NB>> When the PCs worship gods, sure. When they don't? Would you impose
>>real, objective gods on a party of monotheist Malkioni adventurers?
>>Surely not.
>Why? Malkioni don't deny the existence of gods, they call
>them false and unworthy of worship. That doesn't have to
>mean that the gods aren't real to a Malkioni.
The parallel goes more like this:
The Malkioni do not deny the existance of the Sun, it is up there for everyone to see. However some benighted savages delude themselves into thinking it a god and by their worship make those delusions manifestly real. But these delusions have no higher existance unlike the Invisible God and his Saints...
The above is likely to be true for the well-educated Malkioni. Lower down the social spectrum, the malkioni are more likely to be credulous about the existance of gods.
Simon "Mote-caster" Phipp:
>It is a shame that Peter Metcalfe/Nick Brooke seem to be unable to
>comment without resorting to needless sarcasm, not just in reply to
>my postings.
Whereas it is perfectly alright for someone to gloat "Ha, ha, ha, ha! It's always good when a theory I do not like gets shot down in flames!!!" (GD V5.#483) or to introduce a needless slam against "subjectivists" in a debate about how big the Sky Dome is? Not to mention the tactic of implying someone is wrong merely because he happened to be using the latest version of the rules?
Which leads to:
>Unfortunately, this drastically reduces the enjoyment
>derived from participating in the Gloranthan Digest.
being unintendedly rich in irony.
Powered by hypermail