> Trotsky:
> > Perhaps it would help if you gave some examples of each of these
> > societies, to show how it works. I'm willing to be convinced, but I
> > haven't been yet...
Yes, Trotsky, you might be able to gain some mileage out of Sergio's stuff
for your
version of Greyhawk ... ;-)
> Before trying to convince you, I must address a question raised by Julian
> Lord:
> > I disagree with the diagrams representing the relationships of the
> > four main philosophical currents of thought in Glorantha. It looks like
> > they're turning into an alignment table from an AD&D book by Gary
> > Gygax! (My character's alignment is Mystic Theist, and he will
> > Fight Animism and Materialism wherever they are found ...)
> What you just stated Julian is not a problem with the diagram but with the
> players. Anyway the diagram is not supposed to be a D&D-style alignment.
D&D only has (had?) two alignments, Lawful and Chaotic AFAIK.Your diagram
looks like
the AD&D version which had four alignments, Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil.
Perhaps, AD&D 3rd edition might have six?
> It simply organizes the 'four main philosophical currents of thought
> in Glorantha'.
OK, but the same defense could be mounted in favour of the AD&D alignment
system, and
indeed was, quite well in fact, by EGG himsilf, in a quite happily
conceived series of
articles for Dragon magazine. His system contains many subtleties. Are
these subtleties
used by the majority of AD&D players? NO !! (And even when they have read,
understood,
and appreciated the articles.) The end result of such a system is, I think, to
arbitrarily designate one lot as "us" and another lot as "them".
(Basically, in AD&D
gaming, this is more USEFUL than "realism" in RPG psychology, morality, and
theology.
Kudos to Lew Pulsipher, BTW, wherever he may be.) No matter HOW
well-intentioned, or
well-reasoned, the system might be, it seems inevitable that it will boil
down to "us"
and "them". And I have been playing RPGs long enough to remember when the
pro et contra
of alignment systems was an issue which not only hadn't acheived rigor
mortis, but
could even do a bit of leg-jerking ....
(And BTW, the details you have worked out to support your diagram are
certainly fine
(except for some of your particular 'mixed' belief sub-systems, which are
certainly not
Gloranthan IMHO). It is the format itself, I think, which is very basically
unacceptable, and unworkable as a players' guidance tool, no matter how
much good will
you put into it)
There are such things as shamans who are also mystics, and alchemists who
adhere to a
polytheistic religion, or a monotheistic one. None of these are *suggested*
by your
diagram, whatever you might say to defend it. Similarly, in AD&D, the
chaotic evil
alignment is not seen as suitable for a judge, except as a joke.
I think, Sergio, that your idea that the four basic systems of thought in
Glorantha can
have impure, mixed forms, which we could give names to, and explain, is
quite good, but
I doubt very much that this could be usefully reduced to a two-dimensional
diagram,
except in a nonsensical AD&D version of Mythic Philosophy, which does,
however, serve
some sort of purpose in that fine game.
Otherwise, very nice try, and I apologise for the flame !! You have some
quite nice
ideas.
It is entirely possible that some Gloranthans might actually espouse some
similar
(false) system of relative philosophies in their understanding of the
world. For
instance : alchemists! Your system might then be combined with a Runic
classification
of thought and Spirit, as related to Substance and/or Elements (including
the unusual
combined Elements), and a dose of Medieval medicine to produce a fine piece of
Gloranthan writing.
BTW the missing element in the center isn't the illuminate, but the Man Rune.
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #35
Powered by hypermail