>>From: "Greg Stafford" <Greg_at_...>
> (More important to get you back to editing text and stuff). :-)
My priority as well.
>>Let me start by saying that there are different methods of thought and
>>discourse possible, and they are mutually exclusive. Thus rationality, an
>>extremely human trait that we have developed par excellance, is one
>>method. It�s the one favored by Mike, and most of us, that he uses here.
>>However, this is incapable of explaining everything about the unknowable.
>>The intuitive, irrational or impossible simply to do not reduce to
>>rational explanations.
>
> Actually I'm quite interested in the pre-rational viewpoint. I'm a
> particular fan of the BBC show Connections, one series of which was
> entirely
> about illustrating the differences between the modern rational mindset and
> the mindset of at least Europeans before that point. For example. I've
> advocated HQ elsewhere as a playable game against criticisms that it's not
> against people who tried to say that this pre-rational mindset (that makes
> the Gloranthas so genuine) made it unplayable, in fact.
I consider it unfortunate that rationality has become the ONLY acceptable method of thought in our modern Western culture. It would be idiotic to ditch it, but relying solely upon it ends up with such idiocies as religions trying to make themselves scientific and science trying to explain irrationalities.
> There seems to be some confusion about my playing devil's advocate here.
Not with me, just for the record.
> Greg: People don't know about otherworlds.
> Mike: Good, and makes sense. But do gods know about the otherworlds?
> Greg: Essentially no.
> Mike: Perfect.
Mind you, they know about Otherworlds. Gods know that the spirit world is significantly different form their homeworld. But most of them do not know there are three, etc.
>> > A. Human Social
>>
>>This is about the temple, not about the god.
>
>>So, in this case, they could make things difficult, but they can not
>>actually STOP
>
> Which is why I said "object."
Yes, I was only trying to emphasize this for people who are not living inside your skull.
> That matches my vision well and should be easy to play. Basically without
> somebody to tell you what the god is like, it's a long road to learn about
> the god. And they might try to stop you under certain circumstances
> physically ("Burn heretic!"). But what they can't do is prevent you from
> actually gaining a relationship. Even if it's gained while burning at the
> stake.
Correct.
> They would never object based on otherworld of other beings, though they
> might object based on the idea that it's not worship done their "way."
Which they do all the time.
>> > B. Testing for Devoutness
>>You are identifying the piety relationship, the personal Relationship
>>(deity).
> ...
>>But please understand that in your sentence �show� doesn�t mean pop in
>> for the written exam.
>
> Sorry for the shorthand. I meant what you meant.
Yes, I think that was plain from your commentary. Again, I only added that for the persons who are still living in the �convince the examiners� stage.
>>It is not incorrect to visualize this as fitting pieces into a puzzle, or
>>matching similar shapes. But in both cases, some fudge is allowed, so if
>>you�re god is an equilateral triangle, some variant of triangle will also
>>be allowed. If you are fitting into the Orlanthi hole in the puzzle, you
>>have a LOT of variance allowed. If into Humakt, much less.
>
> To paraphrase: Humans being imperfect, nobody could pass a such a test if
> perfection were required. Some tests require being closer to perfection.
> But all triangles have rough edges. Got it.
>
> I used just this argument the other day to argue that agents of reprisal
> are
> not sent to avenge every infraction made by every individual who errs
> against their god's way. That would be taking free will from them and
> wouldn't match any fantasy or reality that I'm aware of. But, again my
> view,
> people are only interesting in examining just how they are imperfect. So
> this is all just grist for the mill.
I would agree with you.
There is always an uncertain border in their worship. This is why most
people are conservative and live in the �you can only do this� realm. They
don�t want to risk entering the gray area and getting an immortal rash�
>>Furthermore, the person normally has an affinity for the deity in
>>question. It isn�t really a matter of a Gloranthan choosing which deity
>> to
>>worship. It is more a matter of finding the best one available. Which is
>>why the Orlanthi adulthood initiation takes at least two years.
>
> Makes sense to me. What I imagine in play is that a character exposed to
> worship of a diety or spirit would note their similarities in virtue etc,
> and then think, "Gee, I seem to fit that hole well. I wonder if I'm not
> actually destined to follow this diety?" That's what's happened so far in
> actual play. Truth be told, we engineer these "coincidences" as players
> and narrators much of the time. But that's because it's interesting to
> investigate.
Yes to all.
> For instance, in my current IRC game, a character without much deep
> religious affiliation was thrust as leader of a colony deep in the
> territory
> of a tribe with somewhat animist religious views (they also actually
> mostly
> worship a single theistic diety). Over time - over a year of complete
> immersion - as she became alienated from her urban upbringing, and
> discovered a natural ability to speak to spirits, she's noted that she has
> far more in common with the honesty of the local natives than she does
> with
> the duplicity of the folks from the city of her origin. As ties became
> severed (she's sworn never to return), over time she gravitated towards
> the
> religion of the natives, and became more and more involved in their
> culture.
> After being accepted by them somewhat, the player has had the character
> decide to adopt their tradition and an animism practice that seems almost
> as
> though it was made for her (no surprise, since it was by the player and
> I).
>
> Sound kosher (anyone, not Greg)?
This sounds perfect to me.
>>Yes, the mythology of the deity is important. And of course some cults
>>will reject specific entities (�We hate Zorak Zoran and his followers�)
>>and others (I am thinking of the Malkioni here) will reject everything
>>EXCEPT specific entities (�Saint Talor is OK�).
>
> Interesting case. There really is no test for the One God's acceptance per
> se, is there? It's purely a social test, no? The One God's viewpoint
> (tongue
> and cheek, of course) is to let em die and sort em out then, correct? If
> you've abused his magic, it just means an eternity in hell.
Not exactly, since the Saints have introduced specific methodologies for guidance.
> Or is it that there is a test for non-sorcerers? I could see it that there
> is a test for those who will be getting a "Worship Invisible God" ability
> out of it (though I'd always thought of this relationship as one-sided.
Remember that most people never actually �take a test.� They are born into a way and adopt it, and adapt to it. Most people don�t wander around and get exposed to various options. But there would be a test of some sort to get into the church. It would be possible (though unlikely) that a person could be born into Rokarism, but have absolutely zero essence. He wold probably not pass the test.
> But it seems that this can't be the case for sorcerers at least.
Sorcery schools try to keep their secrets intact and NEVER teach outside the school so that they control entry and access to their magic. Their test is to be a member of the school.
>>Nope. Purely physical (form rune) may get you booted. �No elves,� or �no
>>nohumans,� and of course the famous rule of Urgh, leader of the Xenogang:
>>�Anyone EXCEPT humans allowed.� Oh wait, that wasn�t a cult.
>
> OK, I wasn't aware of that specifically, but it seems like more type C,
> really. That is you can feel as honestly that you fit seeming to satisfy
> B,
> but if you're an elf (or whatever restriction makes you too "unmatched"),
> yer out.
Yes, could be so.
Note that the �higher� a god, the less likely that it has these
restrictions on the Form rune.
Note that the gender requirements are pretty much in this category too.
�Bu I am REALLY REALLY sure I�m supposed to have a baby� won�t get you
into the pregnant mother�s cult.
>>But are you asking, �Can my guy worship Chichi AND Orlanth since Orlanth
>>never heard of Chichi?� To which the answer if of course, depends on
>>Chichi.
>
> Well it also depends on Orlanth, no? That is, the test sort of continues,
> doesn't it? That is, if you choose to become a non-match for Orlanth, then
> you may lose his magic. Right? So it has to be a two-way street, with
> Orlanth's Ongoing Test allowing worship of ChiChi, and ChiChi's Test
> allowing worshippers of Orlanth in. Again, in order for the character to
> have magic from both ChiChi and Orlanth.
Yes, you are correct. I had a mental image of being in Orlanth and then trying to join chichi.
> Regarding people effecting changes on gods:
>
>>This isn�t the place to discuss the issue, but the short answer is �only
>> a little.�
>
> Actually that's quite an excellent answer. I can work with that. :-)
Good.
>>The Great Compromise is, of course, the REAL answer.
>>What we are discussing is the manifestations of that.
>
> Makes sense: the great compromise is why the gods are as they are, tests
> are because the gods are as they are,
Yea. IN a sense, the Great Compromise is a story that explains the real reason: �Because that is how it is.�
>> > Not to get into a chicken/egg debate, I can also swallow the "we've
>>always done it this way" argument. But as an icon, it's hard to imagine
this.
>>
>>?Icon?
>
> I'm sure that's a misspelling, but I can't figure it out, either. :-)
>
> Uh, how about, "It's hard to imagine the learnings having no point of
> origin.
Of course, if it has no point of origin, it does not exist Curious things arise when something is important to people, but they do not know its origins and have to find it, or make it up.
> Certainly the myths always say that there's some dude who first
> learned of the diety and told everyone else. Or the diety lead the people
> who were the ancestors of the tribe.
Yes, of course.
Mythology is all about creation.
>> > Or is there something
>> > that can be examined about how he does things?
>>
>>Such as? will you cast some detection magic there? Go and look under his
>>table and behind his high seat?
>
> No, I'm saying that if he does do something like smite somebody for making
> a rude comment, that says something about Orlanth.
Yes, absolutely, as your further explanation makes clear, a person always depends upon their personal experience.
>>As the book says, his appearance changes depending on the holy day, and
>>what Age you go to visit him.
>
> And that says volumes about him. If he's grey and sullen during the early
> darkness, then we know that this is how he reacts to adversity. To some
> extent. If he appears strong at some point, then he must be about
> strength.
> Looking at his windy nature is how people know that he has a windy nature.
> No?
You are correct.
>>More likely to have been done by some powerful hero, actually, and I
>> would
>>probably say �Only Kolati allowed.� But there is not such. Come on in for
>>a drink, you�d have to be REALLY powerful to do anything not allowed by
>>his hospitality, even if you wanted to.
>
> And that there tells us something about him. What you can and cannot do in
> his presence. That's the best sign he could have. This is my point - is it
> not the otherworld exposure by which a worshipper gets to know more about
> his diety? And his heroes, and his other aspects, and sub-cults, etc, etc?
> It
> seems that you're saying that the only thing that Gloranthan's know about
> their dieties is what they've been taught by earlier generations.
Sorry, I wasn�t trying to say that. Experience counts. Remember how the Great Healer cult gained widespread popularity, but over time the worshippers realized that it was also the Great Illness, and finally, the Great Deceiver. That was gained through experience with the god (and his cultists of course).
> With regards to the otherworld point, what I'm saying is that if he knew
> about the otherworlds and cared, he could let people know. Or, rather, his
> test could include something about it. Now we know he doesn't know, so
> it's
> because of that, and not an inability to communicate his nature, that such
> matters are non-problematic.
>
>> > But, OK, again, great compromise.
>>
>>Yes, of course. The Ultimate Cop Out for me.
>
> All games have to have this. At some point, a player can ask on behalf of
> his character, "Why does the universe exist as it does?" The only in-game
> answer that can be given is "Because stuff happend to make it that way."
> This is no different for real people, either. The basic question of
> epistemology. From a metagame perspective it has to be answered in some
> way that's interesting to play.
>
>> > Hmm. Can you be an Initiate of Humakt, and a Practitioner of Sword
>> Man?
>
>> > I mean if Humakt isn't there to tell you that it's incorrect, then all
>> the
>> > character has to do is convince himself of some sort of duality of
>>nature of Humakt to buy in.
>>
>>The duality of nature has nothing to do with it.
>
> The sort of thing I was referring to would be better put now as accepting
> that Humakt would accept worship "the Praxian Way." Which...
>>But frankly, if there were Humakti who were among the Praxians for some
>>reason, I can imagine them joining the Sword Brothers after appropriate
>>adventures, etc. And betting in, because they are born dead iron killers.
>
> ...we agree is possible, apparently. :-)
Yes, absolutely.
>>Ah, the delimma of the medium. I shoulda had a smiley!
>>What I meant was that the player characters have something special: a
>>player.
>
> OK, now that's me being British. ;-)
> From: Lightcastle <light_castle_at_...>
> Subject: Re: Concentration (What Gods Know)
> On Friday 18 November 2005 3:02 pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
> ...
>> because we are, in fact, talking about the concepts behind the rules,
>> which
>> tells us how to apply them (otherwise I'd probably have moved it to RPG
>> at least).
>
> So lets bring this back to the rules. (To be honest, I haven't gotten
> anything from the digest in ages, so I don't know if something has happened
> to it.)
> What is the game purpose of concentration then? It seems to be a bit
> superfulous. The people of Glorantha don't know of the 3 otherworlds, and
> most of their religions are not consigned to one or the other but rather
> are
> mixed. The social/religious limitations seem to be more stringent anyway.
> Concentration becomes required for people at the equivalent of Devotee
> level,
> where they have already put aside magic from other sources that the one
> they are dedicated to.
Concentration may not be known by the Gloranthans, but it does exist. Imagine we want to join a cult of flying, but we don�t know about gravity. It will still have an effect on us.
> So why is it there? It seems to cause weird incentives due to to the Hero
> Point bonus, but doesn't accurately reflect Glorantha. In other words, a
> concentrated Orlanthi getting a charm from Kolat loses his concentration
> bonus (backsliding), while using something from Zorak Zoran won't. Why is
> the
> otherworld (which most Orlanthi know nothing about) a more powerful issue
> than the religion?
It is not knowledge that determines reality. There ARE three Otherworlds
and their affects are omnipresent.
You could think of this as ritual purity. If you have a drop of flesh in
your makeup, you can�t be a plant. You have to rid yourself of flesh.
> Greg himself slipped and said concentration when he was referring to
> Devotion,
> and it does seem more intuitive to think of concentration with respect to
> a single diety, not an otherworld.
This is not dissimilar to the way it is, actually. But a part of the entity�s requirements is that the worshipper have no meat in them, only plants.
> I've long considered removing concentration from my games, instead giving
> the
> bonus when someone gives up magic from other gods, rather than tying it to
> the other world. If anything, Greg's posts to Mike have made that seem
> more
> reasonable than ever. Can someone tell me why this would be a bad idea.
> (I tend to think that the people writing the rules put them in for a
purpose,
> so I assume there is something about concentration that I'm not seeing.)
I am not clear on what you are asking here. If I choose to worship only Orlanth, then I have concentrated (too). The whole �concentration on an Otherworld is a definition of the fuzziness of the �god�s boundaries.� You worship only Orlanth, but some other things can sneak past.
Sincerely,
Greg Stafford
Powered by hypermail