Re: Devoted geeks

From: Mark Galeotti <mark_at_...>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:36:36 -0000

Hi Joerg,

> > But IMO the problems with the geekdom parallel are two-fold:
>
> > 1. Geeks don't have to be good at what they do. For every super-
> > dooper programmer, there is no doubt at least one mediocre nerd,
who
> > make spend the same passion and time in geekery but to little
actual
> > avail.
>
> Given the low entry requirements for most devotees, I can easily
see
> devotees who fit that description. And even in cults with more
stringent
> requirements (like Lhankor Mhy sages) it is possible to become a
devotee
> and avail little even when measured by obscure cult protocols.
>
> Even the rules go along with this: imagine a crappy devotee who
owes his
> successes in cultic activities to hero-points spent on the success
rather
> than improvements.

I think there's a basic conceptual issue here; obviously everyone is free to consider devotees as they choose, but IMO I think there is a danger that because the rules are there, we end up defining devotees in rules terms. The rules are there, I would say, simply as a 'best fit' way of providing a gameable model of what Gloranthan devotees are.

Let's take a 'crappy' devotee then -- presumably just 17s across the board. That still means, with natural world resistance of 14, that more often than not, he can shatter a tree with a word (Yavor) or run up a sheer cliff (Orlanth A). I think that's pretty impressive. But the main thing is that a devotee has been chosen and tested not just by fallible mortals, but by his/her deity (HQ p118). I would say that this alone makes them extraordinary, rather than whether they have sufficiently kewl powerz.

> > 2. Devotee is not a job, but a calling. To an extent, a community
> > will make minimax rational decisions about whether it supports a
> > devotee, but only to a point. Let's face it, the _rational_
choice
> > for the Heortlings would be to look at those prosperous, happy
> > Tarshites and abandon Ol' Windy...
>
> That's about as likely as modern day bank clerks stopping to play
in the
> lottery, even though they can calculate the overall distribution of
> lottery money.

Exactly; human beings do not make rational choices much of the time. So trying to assess devotion purely in rational 'what does the devotee/what does the community get out of it' terms doesn't work.

Obviously each to their own, but I do think that devotion (as the play example from Jeff, for example, illustrates) ought to involve a clear life-choice that involves sacrifice and also introduces loyalties and commitments which may be -- slightly or greatly -- at odds with those of the wider community.

All the best

Mark

Powered by hypermail