> Jose Ramos:
> >Second, Glorantha is notably more conservative than Earth. If you add
>
> >that the founder of a society can stay around to guide its
> development,
> >for centuries.
Peter Metcalfe
> But in the case of the Arkati, we know that this is not so.
We know that the Arkati societies are claimed to have formed at the end of Paslac's Empire to preserve the knowledge of the Arkati, and we know that a good part of them have been in existence since 1050 when the Three Rivals ousted the God Learner ruling body from Ralios.
I find it fairly likely that these Arkati societies work like multi-tiered hero cults, with their prime hero (Arkat) being fairly unreachable, whereas the lesser heroes - like the founders, or "re-organizers" at the end of either empire might still be reachable by some means.
> >Don't forget that most Secret Societies are not Arkati (even if some
> >are infiltrated and used as pawns by the same), so infighting and
> >fragmentation is not the main problem.
> But the Arkati are fighting against each other. So if they are
> controlling other organizations (not necessarily secret) then
> they would be using these organizations against each other.
Not all Arkati are fighting against each other. Do the words Old Arkat Kult Alliance mean anything to you? They are a group of _different_ Arkati societies recognizing the _similarities_ in their traditions, cooperating while retaining their individual secrets (heroic guides).
In a way, the Arkati operate similar to thief gangs with access to a divine or heroic founder (more on these in next Tradetalk), which qualify for the term "secret society" fairly well. They all claim their domains, sometimes territorial, sometimes sprititual, and they are aware that outside these there are other groups to reckon with. They will try to keep intrusion into their territory minimal while making deals with the other groups, or routing out other groups.
> But the Arkati and Religious Secret Societies are after people's
> hearts. It's nigh impossible for them to devoutly manifest two
> such loyalties. That is what I find disturbing about your notion
> that people would consider joining two or more secret societies.
This is the same argument which says that the various Orlanthi cults are after their initiates' souls, so if you are an Orlanth initiate, you can't be initiated to Issaries or you don't know where you go in your afterlife. Well, that notion is sort of outdated...
I see groups like the Ralian Loons very much like modern day ecologists' groups: they are out after activists, but also after financial and political supporters. True, if you're active in Robin Wood, you're less likely to chain yourself to an oil platform in a Greenpeace activity. But nothing keeps you from putting both money and effort into both organisations.
> Philip Hibbs:
> >>Just because magic can prove that the secrets
> >>are 'true' does not entail that the society or religion
> >>will survive unchanged over great periods of time.
> >It will provide a stabilising factor.
> No, it won't. You only have to look at the Yelmalio/Elmal
> controversy (among others) to see that.
In case of Elmal/Yelmalio, you have the phenomenon of an old group (the Heortling Elmali) getting absorbed into a more recent tradition (Nysalor Age Daysenerus / the EWF Sun Dome Cult / Balazar's Sun Dome Cult (which may be identical to the EWF cult, but feeling betrayed by the 1042 events) / Monrogh's Yelmalio) of Pelorian Sun Dome worship. This sort of development is happening in Otkorion, with its hybridisation of (Lankst) Orlanth worship and Otkorioni Arkatism/Henotheist Malkionism. It requires a group willing to incorporate parts of the convertees' basic creed into its own, yielding some of the own tenets in the progress. (Easy in Monrogh's case since he was a self-converted prophet...)
Where you have a group defining itself from ist founder (or re-organiser) more than from its focus, as seems to be the case with some Arkati groups, continued access to this founder might be stabilizing vs. a group lacking this.
So the "No, it won't" is too absolute for a productive statement...
> If they weren't a secret society, then they are not relevant. And
> on the same track is a bit illusory as there have been several
> important developments over time.
Ok. Let's face it: we won't be able to produce any society passing Peter's test for "Secret Society" and stability, because the definition seems to be mutually exclusive.
Let's call them sects, guilds, or parties, and go on using them as they have been described in active play...
Thus, I can be member of one secret society, and at the same time of a political party, a guild, a sect, a larger church (or several if I'm of the polytheist persuasion), a militia-unit, a neighbourhood watch, a choir or carnival association, etc.
We know that it is possible to be a leading member of several competing warrior-societies in Prax, unless you want to postulate a different Argrath each for the Bullocks, Sword Brothers and Twin Spears.
> This is dragging further and further afield from my original point
> against the notion that Secret Societies themselves could survive
> unchanged over centuries.
Then let's accede that they won't survive UNCHANGED, but that they survive with a continuous tradition. Same thing to the members, but Peter's point proven.
> Again, Guilds are not Secret Societies. Nobody persecutes them.
Nobody persecutes the Loons, the Old Arkat Kult Alliance, or the World of Losers Movement any more than say the PDS (former socialist party of the GDR refurbished into something resembling a democratic party) is persecuted in modern day Germany. Trade or craft guilds are subject to customs' scrutiny part of the time. The group's activities are persecuted, while membership remains legal.
> The question is why do I want to join a society which is illegal
> and/or immoral to join?
Because I expect to profit somehow from the membership. Mutual protection (or at least lack of aggression from this side). As long as the government's retaliation are less likely to happen than this society's, it looks like a safe bet.
Besides, "illegal and/or immoral" is way too strong a term (aka strawman). Membership in the Ancient Beasts Society is inopportune towards the powerful, neither illegal nor immoral. Participation in a carnival society, an athletics team or a rifle association has been treated as potentially dangerous to the government at various points in German history, and often the founders did combine the overt reason for the group with some "insiduous" aims.
> If it is not illegal and/or immoral, why is the society concealing its
> existance or its membership?
Because it is inopportune to the powerful. Trade unions in US history are a fine example...
> Merely theorizing that they do it because it's the in-thing, misses
> the point IMO.
The point is that these societies are the one outlet for Safelstran citizens to participate in any self-governed way in their affairs. Various societies are formed to promote certain interests, and if you condone one society's proclaimed goals, you go and support it somehow if these goals mean something to you, be it through donations or low level participation.
Powered by hypermail