> > > I had been looking for in-world evidence
> > > that people in Glorantha knew that Inora
> > > was White Princess.
> >
> > What's wrong with standard textual evidence?
>
>Because the existing textual evidence is almost
>entirely external.
So what? There's nothing wrong with external evidence. I find this constant desire to throw stuff out because it isn't internal with no other reason whatsoever to be a pointless waste of time.
>Your example of how Praxians and Heortlings know that
>Storm Bull and Urox are two names for the same entity
>is a good example. I find that more powerful than a
>Prosopaedia entry saying that they are.
But that isn't internal evidence but merely a refutation of one of your objections. I have pointed out more than just the prosopaedia and getting thoroughly tired of kneejerk whinging about it.
> > So what? There are two references stating that
> > Inora is the white princess which is sufficient
> > for me.
>And probably for me. I was hoping for someone to turn
>up evidence that I find stonger, though.
Why bother? Your methodology of just questioning everything is a) a pointless waste of time that only b) causes more heat than light if the skepticism is not reasonable. You are never going to turn up strong evidence for everything in glorantha so you should just learn to be satisfied with what's come up.
> > >How about Lodril and Bab-u-Ladra, just as an
> > >example?
> >
> > No such being as Bab-U-Ladra.
>Maybe I have misremembered the name Stephen gave him
>in Drastic Prax. Oh, wait, I see your point. I mixed
>categories. Bab-U-Ladra or whatever the name was
>isn't in the Prosopaedia. He was a subsequent
>addition in Drastic Prax. I take your point, but mine
>was really about the canon as a whole.
Bab-U-Ladra isn't canonical either. More material has come out since Drastic Prax was published.
> > >Or the sky/fire gods of the Empire and those of
> > >Teshnos?
> > The references in the Genertela Book is still true.
> > Somash is Yelm, Zitro Argon is Dayzatar and
> > Solf is Lodril.
>I don't dispute this.
Thereby blowing a huge hole in your contention that the prosopedia is untrustworthy.
>Look, there is a point to my questions: is there
>in-world evidence that Gloranthans know that Inora is
>White Princess? If not, then the evidence is
>considerably weaker to me. I was not attemtping to
>defend a position; I was attempting to get educated.
The HQ forum is not the place to conduct in-depth textual exegesis
> > Why the need to invalidate the prosopeadia then?
>I am not setting out to invalidate the Prosopaedia.
Sure looks like it with your constant refrain that this comes from the prosopeadia and so is untrustworthy.
>But it is wise to attempt to identify potential
>sources of a Gregging, in order to assess how strong
>any piece of evidence about Glorantha is.
No, it isn't.
> > I haven't seen anything to necessitate Inora
> > being a separate deity from the White
> > Princess given that Inora's so minor she
> > didn't even receive a write-up in Storm Tribe.
> > She can still be worshipped by the Orlanthi if
> > she was a helper practice in the Kolati tradition.
>Yes, but she would not have a place on the God Plane.
She doesn't have a place on the God Plane any more than Kolat does.
> > We already know that. Why bother bringing it
> > up again since I had made that very point
> > near the beginning of this thread?
>Because you were attacking an argument I was not
>making.
So what argument were you making then? You mentioned Nomad Gods and then pondered out aloud the question of whether she was a goddess or a spirit. The most obvious conclusion was the one that I drew. When you denied this but signally failed to actually spell out what you were really trying to say, the interpretations left to me are something along the lines of you are just padding out your argument with pointless questions.
> > So this needless textual exposition isn't
> > really doing anything useful.
>Well, if you feel that way, we can certainly cut off
>discussion; just send the message that you are not
>interested in discussing it further. However, it has
>been useful for me.
You can do it in the privacy of your own home then instead of inflicting needless screeds of textual analysis on everybody else.
>You pointed out several textual
>sources that are significant, by analogy if not
>directly.
Which were already pointed out before your posting. Hence there's no need to summarize and repeat them.
> > > Third, there are enough other textual
> > > references to Inora as a goddess that
> > > deciding she is a spirit invalidates
> > > at least some.
> > No, there isn't. The description of Inora or
> > Pamalt as a Great Spirit in HQ terms does not
> > invalidate any prior textual reference
> > whatsoever because the other references were
> > _not_ _using_ the HQ definitions.
>Fine, I agree. So all references prior to HeroWars
>are irrelevant.
Wrong. I was rebutting your pointless claim about the invalidation of prior sources. It does not follow that I think they are irrelevant as I've clearly cited Nomad Gods, the Prosopaedia and Tales #14.
>That means that all relevant references -- namely TR
>and ST -- refer to her as a goddess, not a spirit.
Which refer to other spirits as gods and are less than conclusive.
>So, now we have to question the quality of those
>references as evidence,
Who is we? Do you have multiple personalities?
> > > > I'm not doing violence to any Praxian Stories.
> >
> > > I didn't say you were.
> >
> > Who was "you" meant to refer to then?
>It was a hypothetical: "you could" not "you did".
So you were just accusing me of hypothetically doing violence to any praxian stories? Let me see if I've got this right. If I were to say stuff like "You could go play in the traffic", it doesn't really mean anything because it's hypothetical? I'm glad that's been sorted out.
>I agree with you at the level of a generalization:
>there is a big difference between the rune gods and
>the Praxian spirits. You see the same distinction in
>cults of Prax. My problem is that every
>generalization has exceptions.
It's not a generalization, it's a statement of fact.
>On the misapplied worship rules on Heroquest page 110,
>you have completely missed my point. My point is not
>that you have to be shaman to visit an otherworld nor
>that visiting the otherworld is necessary.
The HQ rules are pretty express that shamans can
actually go to an otherworld [...] and have a
"safe zone" created by the god that they worship
with ecstatic rites as if it was a spiri
So a point is anything that remains after the factual errors in the paragraph have been pointed out?
>My point
>is that, _if_ you visit the otherworld of an entity
>you worship by misapplied worship, you will find that
>they have a false home that is not on the spirit
>plane, and that this fact can become apparent to you.
You don't find that it's false if you don't venture beyond the boundaries, which is not generally done in animist circles without a shaman. Animist worship is done by having the spirits come to you.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail