Time and objectivity

From: Bernuetz, Oliver: WPG (bernuetz.oliver@cbsc.ic.gc.ca)
Date: Thu 31 Oct 1996 - 18:40:53 EET

Wow. Thanks for all the responses about my time question. I particularly
liked Loren's take on the differences between the pre and post Compromise
eras (I'm going to use that term because it's the one that most people will
recognize whether they believe in it or not).

I agree that before the Compromise or whatever you call it things were
different perhaps so different that no one who didn't live through it can
really explain the difference. I have a hard time believing that any
culture had to be told that the sun was back. ("O Brother Brithini look the
sun's back." "Really? How interesting.") If Arachne Solara's web weaving
really did represent a separation of the different worlds from each other
and Chaos how could they not notice? They may deny a difference and saying
they have written accounts proving otherwise proves nothing. (Right after
the first person invented writing someone else invented the written
lie-leading to all sorts of ugly things like propaganda, political campaigns
and advertising).

I quite like the net concept separating the world's because it makes the
separation real yet still permits things like divine intervention and magic,
trips to the Gods Plane where the old pre-Compromise rules still hold true
as well as trips to the Spirit Plane. But now it takes an effort and the
right knowledge (usually) to make the journey.

A good way to conceptualize the difference between the two periods is to
view the beings who lived before the Compromise as living in a world of only
three dimensions (i.e. no time) and after as living in a world of four
dimensions. Try and imagine what it would be like living in a world of five
dimensions to see how difficult it would be to imagine what it would be like
before the Compromise. It's very hard to get a good grasp on the

As far as my "cry" for an objective history goes I'm well aware that there
is no such thing and that each culture/society is going to have their own
stories/myths to explain the same events. I'm not looking for answers to
the BIG questions (like who won Arkat or Gbaji-does it matter? The winner
said he was Arkat and founded the Dark Empire. Good enough). I would like
simple timelines and relatively objective historical sketches of regions so
I as a GM can know what was going on where/when. The boring facts make the
stories more interesting IMO. Having an idea what really happened in
Peloria would make the differences between the GRoY and the Fortunate
Succession more interesting (again IMO). If people feel that they're happy
with what they have that's great. If a pseudo-objective history of
Glorantha ever came out they wouldn't have to buy it. Gilgamesh is a great
story but you need a bit more to base a culture on.

Hope this wasn't too long and rambling.

Oliver D. Bernuetz


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:53:25 EEST