Re: The Glorantha Digest V8 #527

From: Peter Larsen <plarsen_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 22:38:46 -0500


Tim Ellis points out:

>I've just left "Thunder Rebels" downstairs, but I'm reasonably confidant
>that either the "Priest" or "Godi" keyword includes a mrntal skill of
>"Orlanthi Philosophy" for whatever that's worth...

        I'm not sure what it's worth, but it's in the Priest or Priestess keyword (Thunder Rebels, p.171).

Peter Metcalfe says:

>Since feats are easy to come by, I really do not see how a
>keenly developed philosophy can amplify this further. Is
>a Uroxi going to improve his connection with the Storm Bull
>merely by learning the rudiments of Socratic dialogue?

        I wouldn't say "rudiments" and "keenly developed" are equivalent, but if the philosophy would (for example) help the Uroxi separate what is necessary and unnecessary in his religious practice, then yes. Mind you, I don't think the Uroxi have much superfluous material in their religious practice -- Urox is the Scouring Wind, after all, and his followers can't remember all that much... As long as we're raising extreme examples, can you imagine Lhakor Mhy followers not engaging in abstract speculation?

>>The Yelmites have a well-developed philosophy, which gives them
>>an extra edge over the Elmali.
>
>No, they don't. Yelmites have an edge over Elmali because they
>worship a Great God whereas the Elmali does not. Everything
>else is chrome. Even if the Yelmites forgot their philosophy
>entirely and the Elmali uniformly subscribed to a well-developed
>philosophy then the Yelmites would _still_ have an edge over the
>Elmai.

        Is it possible in your vision of Glorantha for something to have more than one cause? Is it possible that the relationship between deity, worshipper, religion, and culture might rest on more than "mine's bigger?" Given the ambiguity that characterizes so much of Glorantha, why should this most important of topics be so cut and dried?

>The gap will remain the same because it is dependent on the
>God and not the worshippers understanding of him. What any
>philosophy might do is prevent the Elmali apostatizing to the
>Fire Tribe quicker than one can say "Dara Happa". Likewise
>the purpose of Dara Happan philosophy was not to improve their
>religion but to resolve troubling questions of doctrine and
>myth.

        And these "troubling questions of doctrine and myth" never involve feats or magic or the worshipper's understanding of them? Theism in Glorantha has always seemed like a two-way street to me, with gods and their worshippers influencing each other; your vision seems to be "the gods are what they are and give what they give, and their worshippers are passive recipients.

>>the current question is whether the Orlanthi engage in
>>philosophical speculation or not.
>
>And the simple answer is they don't. To prove me wrong,
>point to anything in Storm Tribe, Thunder Rebels, King of
>Sartar or RQ3 material that shows the average Orlanthi
>engaging in philosophical speculation. Everything they
>do think about is thought about in concrete and tangible
>terms.

        Well, there's the priest or priestess keyword that Tim Ellis uncovered... There's the evidence of the Orlanthi involvement in the Bright Empire and EWF. None of these really address the question of the "average Orlanthi," but as I have pointed out repeatedly, a quick study of history shows that religious speculation is endemic in the human race -- people like thinking about gods and the supernatural, whether they are "professional thinkers" or not. Why you deny the Orlanthi this basic human trait I have no idea.

>> >So cows can reason how Orlanth saved the cosmos, can they?
>
>>Nope.
>
>Then why the remark about how the Orlanthi might as well be
>cows if they can't engage in philosophical speculation?

        Because the Orlanthi aren't cows; they do speculate; the discover new truths about their gods and wrestle with those truths, sometimes quite dramatically.

        I think we've gotten to the "is not/is too" stage on this as well. Perhaps we should stop the discussion as unproductive.

Peter Larsen


Powered by hypermail