Middle of the Mystic

From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_hol.fr>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 19:31:41 +0200


Sergio Mascarenhas:

> 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