>Isn't it more the case that contemporary Orlanthi do not believe that
>Harmast and Alakoring instituted "change" per se, so much as put things back
>to "the way they always were".
Perhaps. The question of how orlanthi view new/old is a tricky one. Since my copy of TR hasn't arrived yet, my comments are very tentative. ;-)
>Dawn age Orlanthi beliefs may be somewhat different to things after Harmst
>brings his changes but as far as the Orlanthi are concerned all he did was
>burn away Lokadayamonism (in the baths of Nelat?)
>
>Yes we might know that Alakoring introduced inovations (Orlanth Rex,
>stronger tribes) but as far as modern Orlanthi are concerned these were just
>Heort's laws reafirmed.
If they didn't do anything new, why do they get their own hero cults?
Maybe we need to look more at Orlanth himself. Heortlings _must_ be aware that Orlanth in the Godtime did (and does) things that hadn't been done before. However, the advent of Time has effectively ended his days of innovation.
So. I would agree that heortlings aren't normally receptive to change. As long as things are working fine, why rock the boat? However, once in an extreme while they'll be faced with a "change or die" type of situation. What then? I think the proper response is "What would Orlanth have done?" I.e. do something new, but in the spirit of established myths. So e.g. allying with a new clan - even one of foreigners - is acceptable. A change of leadership is acceptable. Going on a seemingly suicidal heroquest is acceptable. Finding (rediscovering) a 'new' myth that fits into the pattern of those previously known is acceptable. Forsaking Orlanth for a foreign deity is _not_ acceptable.
Powered by hypermail