Re: Divine Identities

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 17:30:40 EDT

In a message dated 22/09/01 02:14:01, you write: Alex:
<< I agree there's a lack of info (upon which to theorise, or indeed to  do anything useful with); my point is that I wish to dispute that  the appearance of this info will (necessarily, at least) make this  question crystal clear. Such matters are subject to doubt and argument  in Glorantha; respect for the subject matters says to me that we  should leave some room for doubt in our descriptions of it.

I guess I am opposed to the classification of gods as "Great" or "not-so-Great" as a necessary part of Gloranthan cosmology/theology. Perfectly acceptable for Godlearners, amongst others, having some theory about "gods not to destroy if you do not want to destoy the universe". Interesting hypotheses, but I wouldn't like to test it. Perfectly OK to have a HW game mechanic for gods to have a secret that makes you disappear from play, become one with the wind/earth/moon/darkness/sun or whatever else you might want a secret to do.

Not so great, IMO, is the need to objectively classify every entity or aspect or version of assorted gods as 'great', 'most awesome', 'core', 'holder of the rune'. I cannot see a definite benefit in knowing which gods are great or not.

It occurs to me that if a normal human being can learn all the affinities to a certain level, then learn the secret and become one with the god it should be possible for an aspect of one entity to do a similar thing and thereby that aspect becomes "at one" with the Great God. Thus, one aspect of one Great god, especially one with similar affinities, could have aspects that "become one" with another Great God thereby forming a continuum between one Great God and another. I am not really suggesting this is what actually happens (ie I do not think advanced theology occurs using the HW rules for secrets) but....

Keith Nellist   

Powered by hypermail