Re: Odayla

From: Alex Ferguson <>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:37:46 +0100 (BST)

Joerg Baumgartner writes:

A thoughtful reply most of which I nodded along to, and snipped...

> Being a male path god doesn't make a god a great god, but I agree that being
> the means of understanding the universe is a good indication of a link to a
> (the) Great Secret of Glorantha.

Right, though it seems that one pattern is for a duo of great gods to be split up along those lines. Well, a pattern of one point at least, I suppose the Heortlings are the only proven instance.

What I'd like to know is what is the significance of having a cultural god who is "great" (in the HW sense, or indeed otherwise), vs. one who is not. The major pantheons we know of are "headed up by" Great Gods, and for the most part "Great" by _any_ likely definition, conveniently enough. But what precisely would it mean to languish in a pantheon that lacks same? Am I missing any obvious examples where this is the case? (I suppose the Yelmalions (and Elmal, unless their "acknowledgement" of Orlanth does the job?) are seemingly in that position.

Not having access to the secrets of existence sounds like a bit of a drawback, to be sure...

> "Newborn applicants with 6 mythic cycles working experience preferred."

Hrm, now there's a CV-challenger, all right.

> I wonder whether any God Learner (or other Imperial Age Gloranthan in a
> position to judge) reckoned Sedenya in whichever form a Great Goddess. It
> appears possible that a Great God may be lying low-profile for ages.

The RQ2 material was fond of saying that the status of Lunar "element" (yes, I know it's now a Movement in RiG...) was "much disputed among its peers". (Or something like that. Though doesn't the term "peers" beggar the question?)

Mind you, some of 'em, like Mastakos (GG by RQ3-5 definition), are pretty low-profile right now...

Powered by hypermail