>AL>> Additionally, by ignoring
> >> the details about who beheaded him, there are probably important
> >> ideas being left out. Take the birth of Athena from Zeus' head, for
> >> example.
>Me> But then again take the myth of the Three Kings from the Orient. They
> > are widely told but who they are, where they came from and what gifts
> > they brought has no larger significance on the life of the person they
> > are honoring.
>Not a good example. The parallel would be if the Nativity story said
>that Jesus was given gold, frankincense, and myrrh, but didn't say by whom.
Which happens to be the case in the gospels. Is our knowledge of Jesus be increased, diminished or unchanged?
>And the story is frequently understood to have allegorical signifinace, with
>the three gifts prefiguring Christ's royalty, priesthood, and death.
In other words, it has about as much value as a Rorschach test.
> > But the old mindset was lost and unimportant in terms of the new
> > mindset. That is why I invoked the parallel of the regiment. The
> > new mindset is not going to have a grudge against the person who
> > beheaded him.
> The old mindset may have been lost, but it would still be useful to
>know.
Why? Because the old mindset has gone, there is nothing to _connect_ Durbaddath's worshippers to it.
> > No, it's not because they are _different_ myths. One is a myth
> > told by Durbaddath cultists while the other is a Dara Happan view.
> > Combining the two to yeild a third perspective is a erroneous
> > shortcut that the God-Learners engaged in - the two originals
> > are mythically true but the third synthetic myth is not.
> Nothing in the text of Anaxial's Roster says that its a Durbadathi cult
>myth.
Who else would be telling the myths of Durbaddath? The Dara Happan mythology is known and Durbaddath is absent in the definite Plentonius edition save for a single chance mention on the Gods Wall.
>The story is present as straight-forward history, not as myth.
The history of that period *is* myth with all the maddening vagarities that implies. I've already pointed out that some deeds of Urvairinus (who is written as a historical emperor) predate and postdate Murhazarm.
>indeed, the statement that
>he 'revolted' after Urvairinus' death suggest that it is a Dara
>Happan myth, given the negative connotation of 'revolt'.
But if the statement wasn't a Dara Happan myth, the negative connotation vanishes. So this is hardly a strong argument.
>It's only Godlearnism if it's done by characters within the confines of
>Glorantha. When it's done by GM, it's creative use of source materials.
>Otherwise everybody who invents myths for the game is engaging in
>Godlearnerism.
I said nothing about inventing myths, I specifically spoke about creating a synthetic myth from two disparate myths from different sources.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail