>> Erm, not *quite*. Most heroquests are magical >> rituals that aim to preserve the world and/or a >> cult as it is.
> A 'heroquest' with that objective is just, in
> essence at least, a worship ceremony, not a HQ in
> any 'strong' sense.
Disagree. Partially. Worship ceremonies are, yes, minor heroquests as posited, but most heroquesting that one could semantically & quibblingly call such (according to the RQ2 RuneQuest/HeroQuest opposition) is founded on the enactment of myths that already exist.
Actually, I think that *any* (successful) Adventure has a heroquesting element. This is debatable, of course.
>> But, from the questor's POV, it's a dynamic process >> of interaction with the world and its myths, >> enacting a deep personal change (most likely via >> crisis)
> If you're changing your self, you're changing the
> world.
This is true, but I'm not persuaded that changing your self is *necessarily* going to change cultural attitudes and beliefs (not to mention the world itself) in any broad and meaningful way.
(Except from the questor's/PC's/player's POV, where this becomes essential : if your worldview changes, you're gonna see change in the world.)
This isn't just our usual quibbling, for once. ;-)
A lot depends on cultural attitudes and beliefs.
In a primitive society (hsunchens, say, or a small clan of merpeople), microcosm = macrocosm, (which is to say that there is no difference between individual and collective understanding) any heroquest (as a shamanic initiation, for instance) will be essential and meaningful, because the collective (and the macrocosm) is functionally the same as the questor, and quests are vitally important to the culture as a whole.
In a more advanced society, based on monolithic rules, and a more static mythology (therefore a more static magic place), the influence of an individual questor will be proportionately smaller; the potential rewards more powerful; the dangers far greater. Yadda.
> Many HQs have an explictly broader purpose/side-
> effect, too.
Yes.
>> > Once again returning us to the central semantic >> > quibble at the root of this discussion: is the >> > validity of Greek philosophy, and the testimony >> > of the Gospels, and of others with direct >> > personal experience of god (like himself, and >> > subsequent types) 'no evidence'? >> As far as I'm concerned, this isn't 'central' at>> all.
> It's central _to the question posited_. It may be
> pretty left field as far as the Digest is concerned,
> which is another matter.
It would have been nice if the question could have been posited in Gloranthan terms ...
I mean, there's enough Western material out there to have done so.
Are there Gloranthan philosophers who wrote like the greeks on these matters?
Does the Malkioni Bible have Gospels?
Are there any Apostles? Who are they? Do all Malkioni sects revere them or not?
Angels? (fallen/non-fallen)
What does a Malkioni theologian do when he goes to an ecclesiastical council if 'RW Faith' doesn't exist in Glorantha?
So many questions, so many straw men, probably; but the discussion might have been a little more grounded as Gloranthan IMO.
> the late, lamented Gian
Yeah; I hope he'll cool down, and come back ...
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail