I wonder if this tends to reinforce certain gods' antisocial tendencies. (I'm thinking here specifically of Zorak Zoran, though others might qualify too...) I imagine that after the Dawn, their were lots and lots of myths to the effect of "And then Our God came home and found that a demon had broken in, killed his servants, and pissed on the sacred fire. So Our God went questing for revenge..." with the demon not further specified. But those wacky Zoraki keep raiding the stead, burning the crops, scaring the sheep... so at some point the god-talker makes the natural assumption, and the myth changes to "And then Our God came home and found that Zorak Zoran had broken in..." The result is that the myth becomes more specific, and more useful (easier to heroquest, for example)--but it also means that Zorak Zoran is strengthened and established in a new culture. And, of course, that further establishes the "violent maniac" aspect of the god, to the point where (in ZZ's case) it's pretty much all that's noticable.
So for a certain type of god, random violence and terror is a good option. By being known as a bloodthirsty maniac in lots of cultures, you end up receiving collateral worship (or even better, propitiation!) in lots of cultures. I don't think any god plans it that way (it's not in their nature, least of all in the case of ZZ), but that's how the godworld could "evolve"--those gods who are most showily violent end up landing in the "standard enemy" slot for lots of nearby pantheons.
And "simon_hibbs2" <simon.hibbs_at_marconi.com> in like manner:
>
> Experimental heroquesting is somethign a little different.
> An experimental heroquester isn't satisfied with known myth,
> and by extension isn't satisfied with the way the world
> appears to work, or is currently understood. Either they try
> to discover a better myth that more powerfully corresponds to
> the way they understand the world, or they try to actualy
> change the world by changing myth. Both are incredibly
> dangerous.
And to complicate things, I'm not sure one can be sure after the fact what is an experimental heroquest and what isn't! For example, take Harmast, the first mortal (if I understand correctly) to perform the full Lightbringers' Quest. Did he take existing myth, and simply perform a quest which everyone could imagine, but nobody had the cojones to try? Or did he roll his own myth, make his own decisions (Hm... I think I'll try going to Subere's house, I bet she knows what's up in the underworld) and in the process establish the mythic core for Yelmists and Orlanthi alike? How could we know "now", a thousand years after his quest?
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail