Yes, I know it's supposed to be deep and I know it's supposed to reflect the innermost Lunar Philosophies, but I found the chapter on Sevening, Occlusion and Illumination completely incomprehensible. I'm no slouch on these things normally, inside and outside gaming, and have read a fair amount on theology and philosophy, but there were parts of ILH2 that baffled me completely.
Glorantha is a setting, whether a literary one of a gaming one depends on who is being asked the question. We can all make it as complicated as we can, but what is the point? Why make something so complicated that you need a degree in theology to understand it, or at least the impression that you ned the degree?
Sure, make Glorantha deep and complex, that's fine. But there is a big difference between being deep and being overly complicated.
> >Simon Phipp wrote:
> > >How many words for Initiate or Priest do we really need? Sure,
> > >many of the terms are subtly different or don't represent exactly
> > >the same idea, but too many terms is just downright confusing.
> >But here I disagree (to an extent). I dont want too many generic
> >for priests but my groups had great fun with the various terms for
> >levels in RQ2 - Wind Lord, Death Lord etc. Very easy to have lots
> >individual terms that people are likely to use in the streets of
> >rather than the eoteria that the Grey Sages would revel in over a
> >warm milk....
> There are three catagories which are involved here. Firstly there
> cult names for positions which are broadly comparable across cults.
> These are interesting and not too confusing if introduced as cult
> specific information.
I have no problem at all with having titles for cult ranks. So, Daggers and Swords of Humakt, Death Lords, Light Sons and the like are fine and add flavour. But, the understanding is that they are just different titles for the same things.
> Secondly there are similar positions which
> aren't really comparable - the Lunar preceptor is sufficently
> from the Malkoni litergist to justify a separate name.
Where they are different and where there is a need to make them different, then fine. But, there does seem to be a tendency to make a whole host of new terms for all the levels of all the different models of magic-users.
Has anyone ever listed the different terms for religious/magic using people in HeroQuest? It is a simple system gone mad, in my opinion.
> Finally there
> are multiple names for the same thing in a society - the godi,
> god-talker argument is one example. I can't really see a
> for this and the fact that one is a feminine version of another
> an unfamiliar means of conversion. All very interesting to language
> experts but just confusing to everyone else.
Yes, I would agree with this. The prime language for HeroQuest and Glorantha is English, for better or worse, and the main terms should be in English. If you need a specific word for a specific idea and the word exists in a different language then use it if necessary. But, don't use obscure words for the sake of using obscure words.
Sure, Sartarite, New Pelorian, Praxian, Seshnelan and so on are all different languages in Glorantha and would have terms in their own language, but so what? Do we need to know what the Praxian is for a Rokari Wizard? No, not at all. So why introduce extra complexity for no reason?
But, I am an old fogey. After all it took me half a day just to read the threads.
Powered by hypermail