Great Gods

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_bigfoot.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 23:27:57 +1200


Alex Ferguson:

>But that's largely by the by, since the real thrust was that the
>HW "definition" (since IIRC, it never really so much defines as
>alludes) of a Great God doesn't seem to imply this has-Core-Rune-ness,

         Great God, Great Goddess: a _transcendent_ god or goddess who
         usually heads the pantheon of a culture.  A great god or goddess
         has many aspects or areas of influence, usually including some
         form of governance.

         Transcendent:  An entity that is beyond normal contact from the
         Inner world.  Some transcendent entities are worshipped using
         sacrifice or veneration, usually through aspects or lesser
         entities such as saints.  Other transcendent entities have passed
         beyond the world, and teach only by example.
                         HW glossary

         GS:  [The Lunars] recognize there is an infinite and transcendent
         aspect to the world which people are not normally in contact with.
         Some of the Greater Gods are in touch with the transcendent aspects
         of the world but many of the gods are not.  When we look at the old
         RQ stuff, we can consider that any of the deities in the old list
         that had "doubled" runes are connected in some way to the 
transcendent.
         We call them the originators of the runes, and that is because they
         are in touch with the transcendent.
                         RQ-Con 2 Compendium p69.

I don't see we should have to give up the old notions just because they aren't mentioned in Hero Wars to date. By that logic, much of Storm Tribe would be a hideous aberration because they recycle Cults of Prax.

>You seem to be suggesting that I'm suggesting replacing an account
>in which one states crisply "those are the same being" with one
>where one can equally crisply state that "those are different beings".

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I am denying your suggestion that the understanding of the Divine World is such that one can never be sure who or what one is worshipping. Given that Greg actually has a map of the God Plane with all the realms plotted onto it, I don't see why we should labor with the idea that it's all a cultural conception.

>Why should it be troublesome to have two theists,
>from for example utterly different pantheons, to be able to "prove"
>by HQ, or otherwise make magically effective, superficially
>contradictory things?

It depends on what things you are talking about. I do not believe it applies to questions of whether this god is the same as that god or not, and have seen nothing in glorantha to indicate that this is the case. The map of the Divine World is as real as the mundane map of Genertela.

There are cases where contradictory answers do occur. One that has already been mentioned on this thread is whether Humakt slew an unrepentant Orlanth, as the Humakti say, or whether Orlanth submitted to Humakt to save the Cosmos, as the Orlanthi say. The answer? It depends on whether you are Humakti or Orlanthi.

>It's already established to be true between
>the "different systems", after all.

Which is no doubt they are "different systems"? But I don't anything indicating contradictory identities between pantheons.

>The issue isn't whether they're worshipping "gods", but of "what
>is a god?"

"Not a cultural conception" would be an excellent answer for glorantha IMO.

>My objection was to for example your use of "being",
>which implies some sort of discrete, anthromorphised entity.

Nothing in the meaning of the word "being" predicates anything remotely like this! What "being" is a gerund based on the verb "be": _to_ _exist_. Hence when I assert that "Gods are beings", I simply state that they exist (or as a philosopher would put it "have the property of existence). If I had said "gods are human beings", you might have had cause for complaint. But since I didn't, you don't.

> > And we should disavow all intention of affirming the
> > reality of gods in glorantha just to get this obscure point
> > across? Thunder Rebels p177 and p207 make this point far
> > more clearly without abandoning the commonsense "you worship
> > a god" position.

>TR is pretty much neither here as far as this discussion is concerned,
>since there's rarely, if ever, going to be any major cosmological
>dissent within a given pantheon.

Well considering that the very same point can just as easily be made across pantheons (to wit: Yelm and Somash), I still fail to see why the position "you should worship gods" should ever be abandoned.

>If the "cosmic rune sets"
>vary from pantheon to pantheon -- _as they do_ -- then inevitably
>there will be beliefs of the sort that "Orlanth is just another
>god of cosmic order-breaking, like Shargash" or "Shargash is just
>another death god"

Hardly. What cosmic rune set variance that has been shown is that the Orlanthi and the Malkioni have a _different_ rune for the _same_ concept. This is in no way comparable to your position i.e. that cultures cannot tell two concepts apart and thus one culture will not be able to tell the difference between Orlanth and Shargash.

>but IIRMOC, the point is that it seems to
>be generally agreed that these definitions are not precisely equivalent
>in extent (though they overlap considerably), hence there is a
>distinction to be made -- and one which becomes _necessary_ in those
>cases where it is at least arguable they are in one

This is apparently supposed to be a damned compelling reason why it's necessary to make explicit the distinction between FoHDs and the Great Gods-cum-cultural constructs. But I'll be buggered if I can see it.

> > And this is a problem in what way? Since I had already admitted
> > that all definitions are imperfect, I fail to see the need to
> > point this out as though it was something I was completely and
> > utterly unaware of and thus a critical flaw in my reasoning.

>I find it necessary to point it out, as you continue to freely
>transpose the definitions without any such qualification,

Since I have openly stated my views on the definition a number of times in this thread, I fail to see why simply mentioning the great gods should require a full paragraph of definition of what meaning of great god I am using and whether it is consistent with all possible senses of the phrase.

>such as when you contend that Odalya cannot be a Great God in
>the HW sense because he isn't a Greater God in the RQ3 sense

Given the HW definition of Great God stresses the being's transcendent nature, I don't see how one can meaningfully talk about a great god solely in the cultural sense.

Powered by hypermail