Trotsky wrote:
> IMO, Basmol did exist, and somebody did kill him, but I agree that
> from a gaming POV it doesn't matter who. I think he exists in the
> underworld in the sense that you could potentially HeroQuest there and
> meet him.
I'm agnostic (at present). Having a load of myths referring to Basmol as a dead god _is_ indicative. However I recall someone making the same sort of argument to me about the RW existance of god - and I'm agnostic about that too.
> Myths do have an underlying truth - the gods do exist and they must
> have got up to *something* before the Dawn and the myths reflect that.
I currently feel the same about Gloranthan myths as I do about RW ones. Was there a Spike? Was there a Troy? Don't know.
re God Time:
> I think its pretty clear that there was ...
More don't knows from me, I'm afraid. It's possible that Gloranthans feel the same way about God Time as we (RW) do about dinosaurs. There's probably about the same amount of physical evidence. Maybe they're not that certain.
Nick's Flipside/Obverse/Junction/Critique:
I think I understand what you are saying as being that any culture which has come out of the stone age will have suitable myths to explain its triumph over the various dangers it has faced. If one of these has been lions, then there'll be some 'local hero / god' overcomes lions myth.
What you're also, I believe, saying is that this myth was triggered by a real event: this guy did actually beat up a lion.
Yeah, I agree with this.
I think that at the point at which a new myth is born, it is likely to be accurate to what actually happened. It's not guaranteed - depends how many witnesses there are and whether the people who did it want to tell it the way it happened.
Still, "local boy beats up lion" makes the headlines, and the local press write down a nice juicy story which forms the script for hero quests to come. There's always a grain of truth somewhere in these myths, but you know what story tellers are like. And if after a while the hero, who was blonde and blue eyed, doesn't fit the culture, which has become shorter and darker, then they'll change him. And if lions become yesterday's news and the new problem is grizzly bears then they might try changing the myth to suit the new problem.
It doesn't take long for the myth to be pretty unrecognisable from the original story.
Lunar stuff next:
Trotsky again:
> I don't see that implication myself. The Red Moon is quite a long way
> up, so if Destix is close to it it's entirely possible that it isn't
> unbright enough to have a significant effect on Glorantha, or any
> heavenly bodies. After all, it apparently isn't visible.
I think there's two issues:
I would have thought that if it was strong enough to totally obliterate the light of the red moon then it would have had some effect on the surface world (what I've been calling Glorantha) which would be visible when the light from Yelm was weak (Dawn and Dusk).
> While Lunes may be a tool of educational enlightenment or whatever
> you mystical types use them for, they're also damn good at terrifying
> the enemy by revealing the true splendour of the Red Goddess to them
> and showing them just how insignificant and powerless their little
> storm gods are. And that's got to be a good thing.
It still feels kind of weird to me to use something which, AFAIU, is primarily a tool of enlightenment, as a weapon of war. I would have thought that the Lunar army had a veritable arsenal of physical and magical weapons at its disposal that it would use in preference.
[Incidentally, whatever happened to the Soldiers of the Red Moon books?]
Nick:
> Our wisest teachers learn from Lunes too. Just as Troll shamans learn
> stuff from spirits of Darkness which you would probably dismiss as
> "Shades" -- there's more to Dehori than Fearshock Attacks!
Right. Fascinating!
re Heavenly bodies shine by their own light: Ok.
re Correction about Glorantha: Fair enough. You call what I was calling Glorantha: "she". Is there another term I could use - I feel just "she" might get a bit confusing.
> I repeat, one more time: what earthly difference would it make to
> anyone in the world of Glorantha, whether or not she "reflects light"?
Earthly? :-)
Actually, I didn't catch the first time you asked this. I was just being curious, that's all.
Personal stuff last:
Trotsky:
> I think your earlier post indicates that you have recanted your God
> Learneriness. Rejoice! :-)
Don't be too sure :-)
Nick:
> (After Richard's Hawking extravaganza, I was worried he was about to
> start another ner-ner thread -- "Nick says all of Glorantha is
> invisible!" -- hence my caveats in past posts).
Yes, I quite understand. You do need to be careful around here ;-)
>> Maybe I should commune with a few Lunes myself :-)
> I sometimes fear, reading your posts, that you already have! ("How can
> anyone look at the sky in daytime, when the sun's up?")
"In the Lunar Way, Insanity is brilliant" ;-)
Incidentally I'm on holiday for the next week (so no one think I'm ingnoring them :-) ).
Cheers
Richard
Richard Develyn (http://www.skaro.demon.co.uk)
Powered by hypermail