Sources

From: David Ford <diadochi_at_...>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:51:24 +0000


At 09:27 11/11/2005, you wrote:
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:33:38 +1300
> From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...>
>Subject: Re: Re: Saying thank you!
>
>At 11:24 PM 11/10/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >However, Swordspeech just
> >disappeared - and, again, it just doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
>Instead of saying so-and-so doesn't make a lot of sense therefore
>it doesn't exist, why not try describing ways that it would make
>sense? This down-the-memoryhole approach to older sources
>doesn't seem very constructive to me.
>
>--Peter Metcalfe

But the older sources are either Glorantha, or a big part of Glorantha for many people. What annoys me is some people use old sources when it supports their vision of Glorantha, and poo poo the same sources that they dislike, saying they are rubbish. YGMV is probably the wisest thing ever posted in any digest.

Also, why does everything have to be rationalized to meet early 21st century requirements for authentic world. If we are happy, or not, to accept Glorantha is fantasy world, with gods, spirits and monsters, and that there is no fundamental truth or maybe there is, then what is the big issue about a cult having a secret/special language. It seems to me some people want a fantasy world with no fantasy, so if we are going to throw out Swordspeech and Apple Lane, lets throw out the gods too. Wait Greg's done that.

Seriously though, is Glorantha for HeroQuest and the new mongoose RQ, meant for gaming, or some anal intellectual exercise?

David

Powered by hypermail