Your problem raises an even bigger problem concerning Glorantha: what
exactly is a god? It seems that the word 'god' is applied to two completely
different realities:
- - RQ-like gods: Orlanth and the whole bunch described in most OOP
supplements;
- - The Invisible God.
We know (or, should I say, we think to know since only HW will tell-us if
we still know) what a god in the first sense is: a magical, metaphysical
entity that can manifest in the mundane plane through his followers. We
even have rules to represent how he manifests. This concept is inspired by
RW polytheistic religions of the past (most of which vanished by now).
In the second sense we have a metaphysical entity that doesn't manifest in
the mundane plane. That's why we don't have rules to it. That's the
Judeo-Christian view of godhood.
It seems to me that these are two different realities. When I was speaking
about theism my main concern was gods in the former sense. Yes, I used the
Invisible God as an example, but you asked for examples... Wrong move on my
part, I guess.
Now, the contradiction between two types of gods is a meta-problem for Glorantha. I mean, its about the whole world design. The way I see it, originaly (at least in the published books) the concept of god in Glorantha was the first. But, has the game world evolved, it seems that the understanding of a god really is is less and less the first and more and more the second. It seems are evolving in a sense where gods in the first sense are seen as purely cultural representations of unpersonnal, natural powers (Glorantha is getting more and more like alternate earth; IMO that's a pitty).
> Indeed, the only example of fairly-pure mundanists you have was
> the God Learners, who were monotheists.
Were they? Which was their god?
> Brithini might be a better example, as they are only marginally
> monotheist (they believe in the Invisible God, but don't worship
> him). But they're pretty obviously linked to true monotheists as
> well, both historically and culturally. So these two belief systems/
> cultures really ought to be next to each other, not opposite.
Opposite beliefs may live togheter in the same population to a greater or lesser extent without necessarily attempting to destroy eachother. And they may share common cultural traits not directly connected to their core. Let me give you a RW example: some weeks ago the Portuguese voted for a referendum on abortion. Never mind the issue, let's concentrate on the results:
- - 65% of the people didn't even botter to vote. - - of the 35% that voted, half voted for it and half voted against it. - - Most of the people that voted against live in the norther part of thecountry where the main cultural institution (the one that shapes the beliefs of the locals) is the Catholic church. - - The half that voted against it live in the southern part of the coutry where the main cultural institution is the communist party (with a rather stalinist history, so you've better not go there Trotsky). Yet we don't have a civil war in Portugal, despite this main ideological divide. And many commies are catholics also...
Me:
<< Or that the shaman, used to know and do business with all types of
spirits,
might think that the all-encopassing, holistic view of the mystic
contradicts
what his daily shamanic practices teach him.>>
Trotsky:
> I don't see why it contradicts that, at least no more than it contradicts
> a mundanist view.
IMO shamanism and mysticism are opposed, at least at a certain level of
analysis. One is about discrete entities, the other is about a continum of
manifestations of a single reality (this is what I understand by mysticism;
you may not agree with my definition). They lead to very different
practices on how to interact with one's environment, and to very different
self-images.
Of course, a dialetic mind can realise that both views do coexist, and a
single person (I suppose it would have to be a very special person) might
have a spiritualist phase in is life and evolve to a mystical phase.
> And the Aldryami, IMO, combine mystical and shamanic beliefs into a
> coherent whole.
Maybe. But remember that we still don't have a clear picture of what is a mystic in Glorantha. (At least, I don't.)
> I think the ultimate conclusion of all this is that all four basic views
lie next
> to each other, and the pattern is a network, not a circle. One might
> categorise groups by which worldviews they combine - although I'm not
> sure where this gets us or how new and/or useful it would be.
I can agree with you on the first point within a dialectical mindframe. What I think is that this is something that would not be aparent in a first analysis. Most of the people would recognise the existance of the different belief systems, but would consider that his belief system is definitively the one. Some of the others would be viewed as complementary and some as contradictory to his basic belief system. It would require a very hard philosophical evolution to finaly realise the complementarity of the primary belief systems.
[skip]
> I suppose if you wanted to turn it into a chart it would be a square
> with orthogonal and diagonal crosses connecting the corners,
> but does that really get us anywhere?
Yes, it does (at least to me; different people have different needs). At
two levels:
- - At the game design level, it defines the magical practices allowed by a
certain culture. If the culture is, say, theistic/spiritualistic it should
not have mystical or mundanistical practices. This would go down to the
rules that represent that culture in game terms.
- - At the GMing level, it helps you to decide how to develop your scenarios
and the type of interactions between NPCs and PCs and NPCs.
- - For the mature player (notice the word mature) it may help in the
caractherization of his PC.
Julian makes several comments that realy show that we are converging to a
common position. But there is something that still needs to be told:
> 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.
I'm a lawyer, so I like rules. You need to have rules, even if it's only to
break them...
But it realy is not a rule, it's a principle. It's not mandatory, it only
fixes guidelines on which rules can be based.
Anyway, we will have to wait for HW to know which are really going to be rules... before we all start tweaking the damned game and making our own rules!
Sergio
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #43
Powered by hypermail