> Julian really doesn't like systematic thinking
GROSS SLANDER !!! Um, doesn't like hidebound systems, maybe?
> > 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?
>
> I simply cannot understand the animosity so many role-players have towards
> TSR and AD&D... given the fact that these same people seem to know very
> well the game and to have played it a lot (I don't know about you Julian).
Yup, all the way up to 36th level in our local munchkin campaign ...
> I only played AD&D once,
Ah !! This is the reason for your misunderstanding of anti-AD&D feeling ...In a nutshell : AD&D stinks !! (Erm, it's also the old toy we don't like any more ... )
> > The end result of such a system is, I think, to arbitrarily designate one
> lot as "us"
> > and another lot as "them". (...) No matter HOW well-intentioned, or
> well-reasoned, the
> > system might be, it seems inevitable that it will boil down to "us" and
> "them".
>
> Julian, just re-read your Glorantha-Digest archives and try to pick the
> lengthy discussion on wheter trolls and humans might interact in
> reasonnable terms. You don't need and alignement system 'to designate one
> lot as "us" and another lot as "them".'
Exactly :We don't NEED an alignment system ...
Such systems are IMO counter-productive.
There ain't nothing wrong with "us" and "them" in RPGs, except when the definitions of such are ... arbitrary.
> > 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.
>
> I was clear in stating that no mundane creature could realize perfection in
> a given belief and remain in the mundane plane.
And I accept that.
> I also stated 'en passant' that there is a difference between the belief
> system (let's call it the ideology) and the practices that are more
> connected to that belief system (let's call it the technique). So, you can
> be a follower of a given deity or pantheon (your ideology) and keep some
> alchemical and mundane practices (at a technical level)
Cool. but it isn't IN your diagram. The ideas are OK. The drawing isn't. IMO.
> What the diagram gives you is a rational
> representation of why different, contradictory and sometimes opposing
> ideologies emerge. It also gives you the basic reasons for their dissent.
I can't see it myself. Basic reasons for dissent might be a bit more complex than is suggested in the diagram.
> Notice that the second-level, mixed-belief-system diagram is not an
> hardwired construct.
But THAT is what it LOOKS like, Sergio. And neither you nor anyone else can help that !
> BTW, I didn't figure out how to connect the diagram with the
> runes and how to incorporate chaos into it (I suppose that there shouldn't
> be place to chaos in it. Chaos forced an illegitimate entrance into
> Glorantha and dispeled the tiddyness of magic).
An argument against use of the diagram?
> Remember, it's only a diagram. Like organigrams or flow-charts, it's only
> intended to model reality so that I can make sense of it more easily. It's
> not intended to substitute for the richness it represents. If someone
> starts to play by the chart, it's that person's mistake, not a fault of the
> diagram (or of the person that designed it). What we can discuss is wheter
> the diagram represents Glorantha magic systems and magical cultures
> accurately. If it, that's good. If it doesn't, scrap it.
It looks like a proposed game rule, for use in a Gloranthan game. If you use it, you basically *have* to "play by the chart". This is no good, IMO, and so it's no good as a game rule.
Sorry for being so harsh, no ill will involved :-]
Powered by hypermail