LARP

From: Svechin_at_cs.com
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:41:35 EDT

Me:
>The LARP shows Moonson as being a noble who became Emperor after completing
>the rituals. Though I agree with MOB and Nick that this is fun and
>playable from the players perspective, I think it is less theologically
>correct than a singular Emperor. So while their work is excellent if one
>follows their argument and approach, I disagree with the core theological
>concept of the Emperors form.

MOB
>I refer Martin back to Nick Brooke's excellent post "Testing the
>Candidates" (GD V7 #581), especially his concluding remarks:
>FINALLY: "Life of Moonson" does *not* accurately depict a normal Imperial
>succession crisis. It's a freeform game, dammit! Greg helped write "The
>Broken Council", but if you tore strips off his Gbaji Wars material because
>that game presented the creation of Nysalor as a perversely complex
>trading-card game, he would be justifiably amused (or annoyed, depending on
>his whim).

>And, using LoM as our definitive view of the Imperial Succession would be
>as fair to us as regarding the trading-card game in Broken Council as
>Greg's ultimate statement on the mythic genesis of Nysalor.

Okay, fair enough.

This does leave me wondering though what we've been arguing about. I've been accused of running right over other peoples work but it seem to me that I'm not contradicting the Tales #16 write up with the Emperor being singular and if, as you state above, the LARP is not an accurate representation of the succession, then what exactly am I leaving out?

As far as I can see, the RMM has nothing in print that flat out denies a singular Emperor, other than the LARP and that is not fully Gloranthan fact in your own mind, let alone anyone elses.

It seems that the fan stuff I've been accused of ignoring and denigrating isn't there to begin with? Am I missing something?

Let me ask you this, where exaclty in the RMM publications does it say that the Emperor is not singular and had a previous life beforehand?

Martin Laurie

---