Ian Borchardt :
> Greg Stafford kindly writes:
> >
> > ...this is 100% dead wrong.
> >
> > Theistic worship recognizes that access to the God World is part of you
> > Theistic worship draws the god OUT of you, because it is already a part of
> > you
> >
> > Veneration attempts to invoke [supreme entity] into this world
>
> Actually, given the example you provide here, I suspect we are
> actually saying the same thing in different ways. =8) [And in my
> case, rather poorly.]
hmmm, IMO Greg and you were saying two drastically different things -- but YMMV.
> [* And even that still doesn't quite get the sense of what I am trying
> to say, especially in light of the fact that the
> creation/manifestation of overt magical effects isn't actually the
> primary purpose of the worship. And that veneration is, as you say,
> continual and subtle rather than overt. <sigh>]
Look, if there's going to be any "correct" (LMAO) jargon-heavy description, it's likely to be either a Zzaburi or a God Learner one -- but the jargon you're trying to use belongs to neither :(
(caveat emptor, Zzaburi or GL jargon has no manner at all of universal applicability either -- despite my personal fondness for the GLs and their more pompously erroneous points of view)
"correct" hereabove simply means "existing as actual Gloranthan points of view", and not at all meaning that they would be universally true. They aren't.
I think the trouble is, you're trying to force an either/or point of view onto a non-binary subject. But Gloranthan magic as far as I can see is a domain of gnomic facts and individual exceptions, rather than being some sort of cohesively universal system.
> So is the inefficiency in worship a matter of...
>
> (a) or;
>
> (b) or;
>
> (c) or;
>
> (d) (?)
I'm sorry, but I think your entire approach is wrong-footed :(
I think you have certain misconceptions concerning the relevance of efficiency, skewing your point of view.
This is not a technical exercise, this is a question about people's *faith*. And about people's _freedom_ to roleplay in Glorantha *however* they may see fit.
> [** Yes, it does matter when you consider everything in absolute
> terms.
Considering "everything" in "absolute terms" is 100% guaranteed to provide a misunderstanding of Glorantha.
> The magic of one culture will be more efficient than that of
> the other, and the "proper" belief will drive out the "bad" belief
> because their magic will be more efficient, giving them the advantage.
You are attempting to apply some Darwinian theories that are quite simply of NO relevance WHATSOEVER. :(
> [*** Please don't blame me for the metaphor but appreciate it in the
> spirit it is meant, to illustrate the point. In truth, applying
> physics to metaphysics doesn't seem to be that successful in
> Glorantha,
It is most often spectacularly unsuccessful in RW as well. :(
Concerning metaphors, I think a couple of things.
> and is only possible because we are interested in creating
> rules by which we can model Glorantha in order to sensibly play in it.
> In a sense, we have the illusion of physics because we are creating
> this model, but the important thing to remember is that the model is
> not the thing, but rather an imperfect understanding of the thing.]
YGWV, but I think it's illusory to imagine that any set of RPG rules can constitute anything resembling a theoretic model of any well-conceived fantasy reality.
And certainly not of Glorantha -- You are positing Glorantha as though it should be a homogenous continuum of some kind, but it simply ISN'T.
Glorantha contains several radically different realities, not all of which have even been documented, so that nothing resembling physics could possibly hope to describe anything but one specific (and LIMITED) aspect of the world.
Julian Lord
PS And I'm just as annoyed as anyone else might be by abstract posts providing no real insight into Glorantha, including this one I've just written, and I hope you can forgive me for it... :-(
Powered by hypermail