Sorcery and Malkionism

From: Steve Lieb <steve_at_necadon.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:32:05 -0500


From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_wanadoo.fr>
> >Do western people call themselves "sorcerous"?
>
> No. They consider themselves Malkioni first and foremost.

I believe that there is no such distinction in the Genertelan West.

[reply] Contrarily, I think there is a clear differentiation. At the least (i.e. in the most cosmopolitan cities) the distinction would parallel that which I wound find living in a small rural Minnesota community, were I to declare openly "I AM AN ATHIEST." Everyone would think I was wierd, and we would be treated as "outsiders" almost permanently. At the worst, you would see pogroms, lynchings, persecution and even murder (cf. medieval European Jewry).
On the one hand you have the descendant sectss of a relevatory prophet (Malkionism) and on the other you have the followers of a philosophical outlook (Zzaburi) that murdered that prophet - I'd say there's some room for antagonism...although most gameworld "sorcerors" probably aren't so dogmatic or demonstrative of their beliefs as to incite those around them to active dislike.



> The learned would be aware that the God Learners classified
> their magics as sorcerous but that is probably held to be
> a God Learner Error.

IMO, the learned are aware that they themselves use 'sorcery'. They believe, in fact, that *all* magic is (or partakes of, or comes from) 'sorcery'.

[reply] And, in point of fact, the GL's WERE sorcerers, although by the end (say, post RTR crusade after they discovered/were tainted by the Arkati heresies) they were dabbling in extensions of sorcery that were (in retrospect, anyway) clearly anathema to the mainstream tenets of Malkionism - - dabbling with demons, etc.



> >But since there is a clear distinction between the religious and
> >the sorcerous orders, is it not logical to consider that the words
> >"sorcerer" or "sorcery" are not officially considered by the malkioni
> >as describing their way of life.
>
> I agree.

I do not. Given that the malkioni believe that all magic comes from the Sorcery Plane, I do not agree that any distinction between 'magicians' and 'sorcerors' actually exists in the Malkioni cultures, and especially not in Brithini culture (and language) ...

'sorceror' is in fact a theist/animist term to describe a certain class of (evil) materialist magician. IMO.

[reply] I guess I'd mostly agree with both Peter & Julian here; I think

'sorcery' (with a small 's') would be viewed as Malkioni as a word like
'logic' - it's a tool for dealing with the world.  Sorcery (with a capital
'S') would NOT be used by a Malkioni to reference herself or himself or what
they use, because it implies a lot more baggage.

> >I really think there is something awkward in this and I'm not sure I
phrase
> >my question very well. it's just that "sorcerous" society sounds splitted
> >in two : the "monotheists" malkioni and the "sorcerous" zzaburites.
>
> It is.

I disagree. The split is into a far greater number of societies than two ... As you pointed out later, Peter, the Brithini are a kind of Malkioni. The Sorcery Plane has been poorly explained in HW:RiG ...

[reply] Splitting hairs, essentially. The society started as the Brithini, which suffered a major schism when their founder (Malkion) changed his mind and left with a goodly chunk of residents. [Interesting question for anyone: what was the % of the extant inhabitants of Logic that left? I'd take a wild guess at more than half but I don't know at all...]. From this departed bunch emerged the many different subsects of Malkionism across the west.
But the essential point is true: in the sorcery-using, materialist Western culture, there are those that are Malkioni and those that are not. Of course this is a broad generalization but as useful as any. However, the Brithini are in utterly no sense a 'kind of Malkioni' (except in the most circuitous logic - indeed, Malkion was the original founder of the land of logic, so in that sense ANY Brithini would be considered to have been 'at one time' a follower of Malkion; but as the term Malkioni is used as "follower of Malkion's final beliefs", then no, they aren't at all.)

> The difference is in the answer that they give to the following
> question: Do you believe that God ultimately has human attributes?
> The monotheists (Rokari, Hrestoli) say yes, the sorcerous (Brithini)
> say no.
>
> God with human attributes is Malkion.
> God with no human attributes is the Creator.

That is certainly what orthodox malkioni monotheists believe. That is, they (the orthodox poorly educated malkioni) are probably told that the Brithini have a God with no human attributes.

[reply] Or, that "the Brithini are godless and soulless," something to which the Brithini would probably happily agree :)

However, a Brithini's answer to the question 'Do you believe that God ultimately has human attributes?' would actually be 'God does not exist' A Brithini might expound further, to state that 'God' is simply a false anthropomorphisation* of the Sorcery Plane.

[reply] perfect, IMO.

> > No. They consider themselves Malkioni first and foremost.
>
> Except the Zzaburites... =)

I believe that the 'Malkioni' can be loosely defined as those who believe that the source of Magic resides in the Sorcery Plane, according to the Ancient Laws of Malkion & Zzabur.

[reply] I don't agree. Malkioni are those who follow the word of Malkion. End of definition.

End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #748


Powered by hypermail